*************************** The day before ***************************
Vadim KAZAKOV
BALLAD OF A RUBBER BUS
...But it’s inconvenient to cut off your own head:
the swing is not the same.
M. Uspensky
There is no escape from explanatory notes. It's me calling
Andrey Nikolaev and report on the successful preparation of the next new
nominations of "Interpresscon" and "Bronze snail", and he, pre-
Come on, a surprise is ready for me. Once, he says, we have you now
Chairman of the nomination committee of these same awards, so be it
kindly correspond and present to us for the magazine "Two Hundred" not
only final lists, but also a report on the work done. For what? And so that the people know first-hand for certain what the commission
was engaged and why did the lists of applicants come out like this, and not like this?
mi. There must be complete transparency. Accounting and control. Comprene vu?
Why not comprene? I don’t pretend to Andrei Anatolyevich
nzii: he honestly handed over the reins of government to the commission to me in the fall.
redal (although, of course, he didn’t give up helping on a voluntary basis),
put the position of an independent fan journalist at the forefront and
I reasoned that without this my work (like many others)
good, but not mine anymore) don’t prepare for the new Interpresscon
next And quite inideally, this is to publish half-
nal register: who and for what omissions in work we do not nominate
missed. For the edification of good people.
And I realized that it was not fate to get out of this matter. Again
and there are some thoughts about it. So shout "Fuck you"
let's go!" I’ll abstain - maybe the public will be away from my
Notes are of no use or pleasure.
Well, shall we begin?
* * *
On May 6th last year at Interpresscon in Sasha’s room
Sidorovich, the entire then composition of the nomination commission gathered
plus a few sympathizers. I'll say a little about this action
in more detail than Nikolaev did in Oberham’s memoirs.
After a long swearing, when rhetorical questions and
extremist proposals, we have put some on paper
additions and clarifications to the previous one (adopted in March 1993)
regulations on the work of the commission.
We resolved a couple of so-called personnel issues by adding
commission by A. Kerzin (Moscow) and M. Yakubovsky (Rostov-on-Don), and
Nikolaev was awarded the title of chairman de jure (de facto he
was a long time ago).
Let me remind you how the composition has evolved in general
commissions. In 1990, during the preparation of Interpresscon-91,
dents for the B.N. Strugatsky Prize (for the best publication in fantasy
nakh) were selected by S. Loginov, A. Sidorovich, A. Chertkov, Yu. Fleishman andA. Nikolaev. In 1991, when lists of applicants were being prepared
"Bronze snail" 1992, your humble servant joined the commission,
and Loginov was replaced by B. Milovidov. A year later (preparing lists
according to "Bronze Snail-93" and "Interpresscon-93") instead of Yu. Fleish-
mana was invited by D. Baikalov (Moscow). Another year later (prizes
1994) Milovidov was replaced by V. Borisov (Abakan) and P. Polyakov
(Omsk): our team has become even less St. Petersburg. Then how
already mentioned, there were nine of us, and Nikolaev was officially named
whether the chairman. But that's not all. In the fall of '94 we again
seven remained: Chertkov and Nikolaev stopped the official
membership in the commission so as not to create ethical contradictions
between this work and the politics of independent fan press editors
sy. From the very first composition, only Sidorovich remained, and
They entrusted me with catching the commission.
But let's return to our amendments. Since the terms of "Sidorkonov"
moved closer to summer, we installed more convenient and reasonable
lists of final nominations: January 31, that is
three weeks later. The mailing dates have also been moved up to February 15
ready-made nominations for con participants.
(FOOTNOTE: According to the latest version of the Regulations, the distribution of approx.
the initial nomination list is the responsibility of the commission
these. After leaving the Nikolaev commission, this function should be transferred
apparently go to the organizers"Interpresscona". Anyway,
in real practice this is the case.)
It was decided not to consider future publications of fiction
works in newspapers. The volume of a particular artistic
text we agreed to calculate according to the published version
(due to the ambiguity of this moment there have already been all sorts of misunderstandings -
nia).
And finally, we clarified the title of the last section of the nomination -
tions: “Criticism, journalism and literary criticism.” This is more likely
but also creates fewer problems with the classification of “borderline” products
works like Dr. Katz's.
Some of our disputes are not yet over. Some thoughts
appeared after Sidorcon-94 - they still need to be agreed upon -
communicate with each other and with the organizers of the con. (About your proposals
I will say more about lists and voting later).
...And then we worked: we read the new products ourselves and reported on them
in other, inscrutable ways, they obtained publications, argued,
offered, accepted and rejected, called, corresponded. At the end
October we even managed to get together four of us in Moscow and discuss
preliminary developments. (The next Strugatsk
readings - they would have come together in larger numbers). They helped us all the time
editors of "Two Hundred", and Nikolaev did not forget to remind: his
The only thing now is to pay attention, advise, and decide
We will also have to be responsible for the decisions.
Either wayotherwise, but we prepared for the exact date
lists for all sections. Now you can take a little breath and
calmly look at what we have done.
* * *
There were 59 works on the lists. We hope that there is enough
definitely fully represented the most successful part of the current Russian-
loud fantasy. Some of the positions belong to the 93rd, and
not by 1994: either they didn’t reach the commission on time, or they actually
released in 1994. Much more than in previous years
appeared in the category of works of large form: this is not ours
arbitrariness, this is the real layout of what was read. But in the section
criticism of the works turned out to be not enough, and a whole third of them -
non-traditional in form, somewhere “borderline” with artistic
literature. Well, they write so much now...
As for the selection criteria, we are completely subjective.
We are not professional literary critics, but more or less qualified
trained readers with the same reading assessments and preferences.
Our general attitudes are probably very close, but in particular
very often the most ferocious disagreements are possible - but with full
no respect for other opinions. So the final list is, I hope, oh-
has a much wider range of preferences than each
us separately.
Other ideas on which our work is based are also
enoughelementary. Let me remind you that they are quite simple
things formulated three decades ago in an unpublished
bathroom article by the Strugatskys:
“Let us ask ourselves: why do we read fiction?
(Note: what they read for, not what they publish for).
1. To get aesthetic pleasure from artistic
perfection.
2. To give food to the “hunger of feelings”, so to speak, to empathize
vat.
3. To satisfy the interest in a bold and spicy plot.
4. To gain positive knowledge.
5. To give food to the imagination.
6. To “kill time”, take a break from everyday life.
To the maximum satisfaction of these six reader's "to"
and that is the task of fiction."
That's it. Well, we are no worse than others. On the one hand - simpler -
neck pleasure-displeasure from what you read (if necessary
these “likes and dislikes”, sometimes formulated purely
intuitively, it can be explained). On the other hand, we must take into account
literary worth of applicants, level of literary
mastery, below which, in theory, no text of the nomination is found.
shouldn't bother.
This is a theory, however. In practice, everything is more complicated. Let's say I'm determined
I really don’t like some part of the nomination (including between
among other things, novels by Lazarchuk and Stolyarov). I don’t like the subject matter, the lecture-
sical manner, method of plot formation, method of polemics with the opposition
nentami, advertisedthe idea, the psychology of the characters... you never know
what else? But at the same time, I have no right to forget that these texts,
albeit not entirely sympathetic to me, there is undeniable literature and
that my personal impressions are not the final verdict, except
giving completely different assessments.
The opposite is also possible: according to literary standards, the thing is not up to the mark.
lives up, but some part of these very readers’ “so that” is completely
successfully satisfies. Here's an interesting little thing, and here too... and
Overall, it's clearly not a masterpiece. But if the sum of all these little things is
makes it possible, at least for a while, to come to terms with artistic imperfection
nstvom - how then? We argue, we decide...
Yes, of course, “the bus is not rubber.” Yes, of course, you can't
no way to turn the nomination into a register of almost the entire domestic
fiction of the last year. Even taking into account all sorts of selection
there are too many positions on our lists - and this is not at all
makes us delighted. But we must understand that for a number of years our lists
They also perform some additional task: they are reflected in names and names.
titles that part of Russian fiction that deserves not
laureate awards, and at least basic reading, at least
extracting from the rubble of imported fiction that has absorbed everything and everyone
or pseudo-imported. The simplest recommendation list - although
would be this way. After all, it’s just a pity - they don’t recognize, they don’t replace
Hey, they'll let you through...
And more about quality (the number of positionswill be discussed later). I
quite deliberately I will not explain here why something or
another specific work is included in the nomination. Once included
- it means that, for the above reasons, it is recognized as worthy. A
those interested in details can, say, read the reviews
Sergei Berezhny in “Two Hundred” - there are entirely people from our list.
It’s damn hard and not everyone can briefly explain why
the book is good. Chekhov also noted that the reverse procedure
simpler. If you find traces of obvious plagiarism in the text or
selection of wretched "neologisms", schoolboy inability to cope with
the printed word or a bad parody passed off as literary
experiment, cynical redneck or hysterical aggressiveness,
a smoldering lie or an outrage against psychology - it must be called
spade things by their own names and end the debate here.
I won’t talk about everything that came into our field of vision,
but outside the nomination. But some are quite famous
names and titles make sense to pronounce. At least in order to
no one else offered. Otherwise they will say they forgot.
Don't forget. We remember it very well.
* * *
Sergei Abramov, “A quiet angel flew by” (M.: Olimp, 1994; M.:
Terra, 1994). The alarmist Americans F. Dick and R. Harris somehow
very nervously described the results of a hypothetical German victory
in the Second World War. Nothing to them fromTheirs can't see America, ours
it’s much more convenient for a compatriot. The horrors of triumphant Nazism?
Stop intimidating guys, everything will be alright. Their Nazism is more likely
nko and inevitably transforms into a very respected by the author
Russian national idea, all communists - so that under their feet
The true masters of Russia are not confused - they will be kicked out to South Africa. A
in the liberated territory under the wise supervision of the GB,
a hundred flowers bloom, because sovereignty and conciliarity are themselves
Look, Hubert Alles... All this is instilled long and persistently - even in
the strained and cheerful adventures of a visiting "scoop" from our real-
flatness, even in long and inedible quasi-historical sentiments
tendencies interspersing the main plot. And about twenty years ago
S. Abramov in his writings did not consider it shameful to be with the fascists and
fight...
Yuri Kozlov, “Geopolitical Romance” (M.: Kovcheg, 1994). Two
the story (the title story and “The Loneliness of Things”) is, in fact, very
a detailed illustration of the cry of the soul: “It’s a shame for the state!”
It is explained simply, sincerely and without any omissions, who,
to whom and for how much did the Russian people sell it? Buyers gallery -
for every taste: from lustful Germans to sneaky persons of indeterminate
Lenno-Caucasian nationality. Who is the last hope? Well
of course: on the “latest”, glorified by publications of a certain persuasion
him as a soldier of the empire." Methods to save the state? As ifyou don't know.
Yes, at least give a heartfelt blow to the corrupt president and prime minister
- a rocket from a super-secret weapon accidentally lying around in the bushes -
helicopter, which they have not yet managed to sell to foreigners for next to nothing -
that's a blessing. In general, the newest version on the themes of Prokhanov and White
vym. On one of these works in some decent publishing house
imposed a resolution: “See off. Don’t hand over your coat!” Completely
Let's join.
The dimensionless epic of Yuri Niki-
tina about “three from the forest” (M.: Ravlik), which reached the beginning of 95
year of six volumes. Here resentment for the state is reflected in the form
heroic fantasy, which, as the author believes, is much cooler
foreign, and most importantly - without any of this rootless cosmopo-
litism. Those who read the "Young Guard" works in ancient times -
opinions of Yu. Nikitin, nothing fundamentally new in the author’s thinking
will not be discovered. All the same favorite variations on the theme “What is Russian-
if it’s great, then the German will die”, “We won’t allow the enemy’s snout to stick
to our Soviet garden" and "You will read a lot - you will not be an emperor
you will." Innovation is difficult. Well, maybe everyone knows Conan,
recognized by the author as a natural Slav and pronouncing sugu-
more patriotic tirades? No, the old joke from the Trojan War -
noah was somehow more impressive with the internal dismantling of the Russians.
And the plot... Well, fantasy for the poor, but it doesn’t fit the fifth point -digging. Can I read? Well, yes, like in that joke about the sandpaper
paper instead of toilet paper: “Many people take it, and some even like it”
tsya". Without the "Golden Snakes" Yu. Nikitin will not leave himself - and us
excuse me.
Vasily Golovachev, “Shadow of Lucifer’s Wing” (N. Novgorod: Phlox,
1994), otherwise - “Messenger” (M.: Armada, 1994). Special surprises
is also not observed. About Golovachev’s stylistics and his psychology
heroes have been spoken about more than once, I will not repeat them. Per-
sons? A long-familiar model: “He used four of course-
sti, but did he use his head?" Plot? The next machinations of those
strong strength - and so that at the same time, your face hits the table more often. Innovations? Oh yeah
available. I’m not very fond of occult treatises, but to the “Rose of the World”
I treat Daniil Andreev well. And when I see how from deep
philosophical and ethical essay, written with impeccable morality
a powerful person in unimaginable conditions is by no means necessary
bored audience, trying to hastily build a backdrop for the wretched
splashing action - I really want to ask you to remove your hands. This is not
speaking of the fact that the very specific Andreev names and
neologisms are deliberately used inappropriately: proper names
become household names, light forces become dark... Not good
this. Ashamed. You must have a conscience.
Alexey Ivanov, "Ships and Galaxy" ("Ural Pathfinder",
1993: #10-12). About five years ago the story of the sameauthor of "Hunting for
"The Big Dipper" was received by the public, to put it mildly, not -
definitely. Some reviewers have come to terms with the objective reality
rest on the fact that the author has such a cunning literary device:
to transcribe full-fledged literature into crap with fatal passions,
indigestible psychology and the language of school essays. On that
and calmed down. But with a new novel, I think this number will not work.
If only because of the epic volume. And then - style, language, plot,
terminology (own and stolen... guilty, borrowed)! This can-
but quote in cheerful companies from anywhere. The effect is guaranteed
I say: it hits on the spot. True, residual phenomena cannot be ruled out: explosions
you are in your ears, stardust in your eyes and irresistible urges to
be clear with a bad hexameter. Maybe, at least now the reviewers
will have the courage to say the word “primitive” and close it
topic?
Next I’ll mention the first two volumes of the series “Asta’s World”: “Shocked-
Tel of the Firmament" by A. Mazin and "The Last Enemy" by D. Grigoriev (St. Petersburg:
North-West, 1994). This is, as the blurb says, “a grandiose
a project that has no analogues in world science fiction." Literary Group
Rators, linguists, historians developed, therefore, the concept
planet Asta. Well, kind of like Borgesian encyclopedists: remember
there, Tlen, Ukbar and all that stuff. In general, they are devotees. Heroes
- well done. You are starting to master the volumes of this ambitious publication...
Hmmm.No, brothers, this is far from Borges. And about the "best traditions"
heroic fantasy" are greatly exaggerated. It's boring, gentlemen!
Moreover, all the components of this boredom are evident. Boring, not at all
original in detail and excellently long in general "short story"
Asta's ria." Obsessive traces of incessant borrowing from many
qualities of the classics and predecessors. Abundant, but tortured neolo-
gisms. Trivial psychology. Medium lethargy intrigue. And how
the result is a voluminous set of commonplaces of this kind of fiction -
ki. But, for mercy's sake, it's much easier to turn to those who have gotten their hands on
foreign manufacturers of such a product, or even to well-known
to the leadership of A. Sviridov, where these same cliches are not set out in
The example is shorter and more fun. So not yet for the "grand project"
pulls. For a place in the nomination, sorry, too.
The assortment also includes Richard Blades of domestic origin -
ki, released under pseudonyms and without them (SPb.: North-West,
1994; St. Petersburg: VIS, 1994). It turns out that there is an opinion that this is also
part of Russian science fiction. No, I don't shut myself off and I don't quit
shadow, but if there was a nomination “Russian counterfeits
there fantasy hack" - there would be all these peers of Aiden, pro-
those thinking at the Gates of Death were exactly in place. And we have tasks
not those. Why do we need to determine what other sturgeon is of second freshness?
Have you learned to imitate passably in your native lands? ANDthen - for
it is somehow more characteristic of a decent writer to create his own
worlds, and if you really can’t bear to complement someone, then at least
those authors whose literary worth clearly exceeds
the level of Jeffrey Lord and others like him.
Perhaps that's enough.
* * *
A slightly different situation is when, out of several works, one
We chose the most worthy author (with ours, of course,
point of view). Let's say, Vladislav Krapivin, from whom we read
last year five new stories and novels were presented
just two things from the series about Crystal. (Although the same "Serebris-
that tree with the singing cat" is a cute thing, but the bus, I dare say,
thread, not rubber.) Or, let’s say, we included a novel in the nomination
Kira Bulycheva “Reserve for Academicians” (M.: Text, 1994), from
cycle about the Chronos River, but they didn’t include “The Assassination of Theseus”
(M.: Armada, 1994) from the series about Cora Orvat. Here, by the way, we took into account
and the opinion of the author, published in October last year in Knizh-
Nom Review".
Some publications that well-wishers informed us about
Somehow I didn’t get to see it live. Accordingly, about what nomination
speech to the nation? I am ready, for example, to take my word for it that the book "From
cut to the elbow" - it’s cool, funny, deserved, and so on. But
where is the text? The advocates and guardians of this kind of publications - where is the copy
jars for the commission? Nominators"Wanderers" generally have the right
rip off from any applicant “at least ten” (ten!) copies of
ditch of the lobbying essay, otherwise it’s a turn from the gate. We are up to this
have not yet reached the level of medieval atrocities, but by one or two
Is the unfortunate copy entitled to commission or not? And if on
don’t give a damn about the interests of the commission, then why not give a damn at the same time?
for a place in the nomination? And if you still have some ambitions, then
Without publicity there is no promotion. Help: when preparing the current
nominations, I personally received texts from one author, and how
since I had his works. This is Alexander Gromov. More
there were no takers
By the way, my address is: 410026, Saratov-26, PO Box 1492, Kazakov V.Yu.
You can, however, send it to other members of the commission. Or if anyone
It’s easier that way, then Nikolaev - we’ll come to an agreement with him.
Of course, all these calls for legal deposit -
our already boring ritual exclamations. No use
almost certainly it won’t. But only if at one fine moment
someone will not find something in the nomination - solely because of this
reason! - please do not be offended, we gave fair warning.
One can only regret that several very worthy things
they just didn’t have time to get to us in time and, accordingly,
fall into the nomination (including my favorite novel by S. Loginov
"The Many-Armed God of Dalaina") We will try not to lose anything -
lo,was not forgotten, was not lost - and was certainly taken into account when working
working on next year's lists.
* * *
So, the lists are ready. Texts are already being collected and sent for
Boris Natanovich - he can read everything. And the guests of "Inter-
presscon" we have to somehow find and develop at least part of the volume
my nomination, decide and - when the time comes - vote -
vat.
And here, alas, everything is very difficult.
I spoke about the benefits of Interpresscon nominations as recommendations
body lists. That's how it is. But it must be admitted that for
The direct purpose of the lists is voting; their volume is clearly large.
The most interesting thing is that there are no written norms and rules for this
there is no counting. But there is a stable tradition - that’s what we are about -
we must carefully follow, despite the changed circumstances,
flattery.
When preparing the very first lists for B.N. was in 90
in agreement with Strugatsky, a ceiling was adopted - 20 positions per di-
case. Therefore, B.N. chose in 1991 in exactly two sections
from 40 publications. Another year later ("Bronze Snail" 1992)
There are now three sections in the nomination, the upper limit has not changed, but
and not all sections were filled out completely. Then 50 were included in the lists
texts out of 60 possible. Ultimately, it all depended on
on the one hand from B.N.’s long-suffering and benevolence, and on the other hand
another from the efforts of Nikolaev and his mining comradestexts. All
everything was done carefully, everyone was happy with each other.
Starting from 1993, according to the same lists as those of the Bronze Snail,
ki", began to be awarded exactly the same in appearance, but completely
otherwise defined by the rules, the Interpresscon Prize. At the same time
the rules of the game became more complicated again: there were four sections, and the number
number of acceptable positions (not recorded anywhere in print)
- still 20 in the section. B.N. still getting acquainted with everything
Among the candidates on the list, the total number in ’93 was even slightly less
higher than in 92 - 48 out of 80 possible (if by sections, then accordingly)
8-16-15-9), everything remained in order. But the guests of Inter
presscon" a very decent share of the nomination simply could not and did not
had time to read: knowing 50% of the list would already be an excellent result
ltatom. The list positions were in unequal conditions not only
in quality, but also in terms of accessibility - and this greatly influenced
on the results. You can say anything about the disadvantages or advantages
wow of the famous novel by V. Zvyagintsev, but for voting for sure
the most significant circumstance was that the enormous
Most of those gathered read the Odyssey.
"Interpresscon-94". The situation in the book and magazine world is getting worse
It seems that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find anything decent from the hotel on book trays.
honest fiction. Meanwhile, the number of positions reaches 55 of
all the same 80 possible (by sections: 9-18-17-11). Is it true,by-
the number of works of large form is still small,
About a dozen positions are occupied by journalism. And yet...All the words-
It’s more important to get texts even from the obvious favorites of voters. (It boggles my mind)
It is understandable that as many as 36 people read “Neva” with “Gravilet” Tse-
Sarevich", if outside of St. Petersburg the magazine is not full of fire during the day -
you are looking. However... Did you read it?)
New nomination. Three sections - almost unchanged, but increased
number of major works - novels. Total 59 out of 80 (15-18-17-9).
It hasn’t gotten any better with the acquisition of domestic science fiction, those in the know
people associated with the book trade unanimously testify to the opposite
nom. You can make a long list: where, with whom and what in the past
it didn't work out for a year. And the large volume of our nomination is in no small part
an attempt to prove that something is still being printed somewhere,
that at least something can be found and read...Something, of course, will be found.
But we can say with confidence that at the next Interpressco-
not", for the umpteenth time, more than half of the list will be read, in addition to
B.N., only members of the nomination committee, editors of "Two Hundred" and
perhaps five more of the most avid people. Voting passed
dit - the farther, the more noticeable - for most positions blindly:
they vote (or don’t vote) not for the text, but for the author (just a person)
good century, and I’ve read from him before...), for the publisher (again
he’s a good man, and he’s the one who published this before), for his opinionacquaintances
or in general as God puts it on your soul. What should I do? Each one
you can’t present a set of fifty publications, and they’re also about
must read...
The organizers of the con understand all this perfectly and in some ways
They are swarmingly trying to improve things a little. As much as possible
early distribution of the list to guests. The election campaign is actually
"Sidorkone". Publication in "Two Hundred" of some inaccessible pro-
small buildings. Reviews of current fiction - there.
There will be election battles in the magazine - great,
right. It’s only sad to realize that all this is a palliative.
It's sad to think that the current list contains at least
one and a half dozen names - good names, mind you! - which
under normal conditions, 80% of participants simply will not be able to read.
Regardless of the quality. And the main choice will again be made only
from part of each section.
Statistics of the results of the last two "Sidorkonov" (partially
it was analyzed in Oberham by A. Privalov) makes it possible to clearly
Where is the line between outsiders and favorites? If
adopt a softer formulation of outsider than that of A. Privalov
dera - less than three votes in favor, then the number of favorites will be greater
a fairly stable guise (note that in
initial lists in the first section have half as many positions as in
the second and third, and in the fourth - the same amount ora little more than
in the first):
"Interpresscon-93": 6 - 9 - 9 - 7;
"Interpresscon-94": 7 - 9 - 9 - 9.
This year, I believe, in the first section there will be 8-9 positions, in
journalism 6-7, and the rest will remain approximately at the same level
no.
It follows from this: everything that, at least theoretically, can claim
to win the award, gets into the top ten. Therefore the limitation
total number of positions up to 10-12 (or up to 10, but with the possibility
include by decision of the commission and/or B.N. a couple extra) -
This, in my opinion, is the right step.
Again, what can the experience of other nominators teach us? In "The Wanderer"
There are generally 7 positions per section. "Interpresscon" is most likely to
The Great Ring Prize is close, although there is a formation of volumes
nominations - the process is spontaneous and depends on the processing of expert
lists. Nevertheless, the result turned out to be characteristic. (B
By way of explanation: there is no journalism in VK, there are no domestic sections
not three, but two, the middle form was introduced only in 1990, then
the nomination of domestic authors was divided into three sections, like
us.)
1989: 18 - 14; 1990: 10 - 10; 1991: 12 - 14; 1992: 14 - 10;
1993: 14 - 10 (nomination extended in 1994).
In terms of three sections, we get an average of 8-10 positions.
Maybe, after all, ten positions are enough for us, if we
we want to make searching for works easier, voting -
more meaningful, and the results- more reliable?
Yes, but what about the recommendation function of lists? And it’s very simple
then. Lists by lists, and additionally in “Two Hundred” (or somewhere else)
print a list of works that did not make it into the top ten, but to be pro-
recommended reading.
Of course, this will add some trouble to our commission, because
the formula about the rubber bus will have to be remembered more often, in
we must be stricter with our own people, but with our own lawful “But I don’t love him,
son of a bitch!" defend more convincingly.
Of course, we will have to think about how to link all this with the Bronze
Snail" - or limit the list sizes equally on both pre-
mission, either make the lists asymmetrical, or give B.N. possible
the ability to unlimitedly supplement your version of the list from our re-
reserve or at your own discretion.
In general, we need to somehow discuss all this and decide something. Or
nothing to decide if it suddenly turns out that the existing situation
ation suits almost everyone.
* * *
And about one more subject of our concern. First question
the view is very simple: what to do if, according to the voting results, the maximum
How many votes will several people get in one section? To whom from-
give a bonus?
In 1993 there was no particular reason for concern: the separation of the laureate
atov from the closest rivals was significant (13,14,16 and 13th
los, respectively). But already in 1994 the situation changed. On one hand
sides - significantexcerpt from the works of S. Yaroslavtsev and Dr.
Katz (by 43 votes and 30 votes, respectively). On the other hand
- significantly smoother finish in the other two sections (3 head-
Rybakov has the lead, Lazarchuk has 4). There is every reason to believe
It means that in 1995 it will be even more difficult with individual leaders and that
the probability of getting two or three candidates for the position after voting
first place is very serious.
There are several approaches to this problem:
1. Do nothing. Maybe it will pass. But I wouldn't really want to
experience firsthand the moment when, a couple of hours before the delivery of the counting bill
the commission will notify the organizers of Interpresscon that they have some
In other way...uh...twins. Or triplets. Followed by a dumb
stage, circus and fireworks.
2. Radically change the voting procedure.
In the same “Great Ring” or “Start” voting method
or the account is such that it is almost inevitable at least in some sign after
comma someone will get an advantage. But for our circumstances
all this also contains unpleasant moments: the need to specifically
determine all sorts of points for a significant part of the list,
difficulty in summing up results (the counting commission strictly limits
limited in time by the Sidorcon regulations - for complex calculations
50-60 positions require time for each of the hundreds of voters
wow), the results are not expressed in absolute numbers, understandable
to everyone, but in relative terms,confusing the picture of this particular
voting, leveling the number of voters for different products
conduct and - worst of all - creating an ideal opportunity for
unfair voting organized "for" or "against"
someone (specific methods for this, for obvious reasons, are not disclosed)
I'm looking).
At one time, it was already discussed among the organizers of Sidorcon
and B.N.’s idea did not find support. introduce a voting system, like
passing the one that was used in the MSU KLF questionnaire in 1967.
(Many people remember this questionnaire and the summary of its results in the collection
"Fantastic, 1967". ) Let me remind you how it was done then. In some
the list of read works were marked with a cross, and from them
the ones I liked the most were highlighted, and the ones I didn’t like the most were highlighted.
xia - crossed out. The result was the so-called KCHV
(Reader Perception Quotient):
(a+b-c)
CFC = 100 ─────────,
2a
where a is the number of those who read the book, b and c are the number of those who
most liked or most disliked. The result of the
was considered a regressive list. If, say, the CFC was more than 50 -
This means that the readers generally liked the work.
All this, as they say, is very nice, but such a system is not
sees point-blank the difference between a thousand people who read (or co-
those who said that they read)one book and a dozen people who made
same with the other book. According to the final results in the
In principle, it is impossible to understand how many people have read the book. This method
applicable, it seems to me, only if the chances of books are equal
be read (which reflects the situation of the 60s, but not
current), a sufficiently large sample of voters (in the given
example - 1400 questionnaires) and a certain quantitative minimum assessed
our book, which should generally be taken into account. So what?
concerns the integrity of voters and the reliability of the results
tov, then it was in this questionnaire that the non-existent book of non-existent
present author, which in the final table took quite a place -
personal place...
In general, no matter how regrettable it may be, we do such things
it is impossible. I'm not even talking about how the public feels about
all sorts of experiments with calculations: how old is a foreign word?
"skating" began to be used along with Russian swear words?
However, there is another option.
3. Leave the basic technique almost unchanged, adding only
"emergency" amendments in case of several first places.
Options with the production of a certain number of additional statues
current, with the resolution of a conflict situation by drawing lots, etc. I'm serious-
I won’t discuss it - the organizers of the con are definitely against it and so am I
I completely agree with them.
Therefore, a very simple option is proposedtechnically, completely
accessible to control and, it seems to me, quite acceptable these
chesically The point is this. The ballots are ordinary. But during the voting
It is necessary to note in each section not one, but three favorites, simply
giving them first, second and third places respectively. Next
The counting commission works as usual, that is, it only counts the first
high places. If, in this case, all sections define the sole
new leaders - that's it, the work is finished. The results are announced as everyone -
where, and second and third places are not even counted. If somewhere
then there is more than one candidate for first place, then only
in this list and only these candidates are considered second
places. If this does not help to identify one laureate (very small),
unlikely, but what if?), then the same candidates also count
these places. The probability that even then everything will coincide is already negligible
small and may not be taken into account. Of course, if you deviate -
different from the usual counting procedure, all this is then reported in detail -
is given to the public when the results are announced. Of course, for
the work of the counting commission requires the control of a representative of the participant
Nikolay Kona, but this is already being done.
Here are my suggestions on the problem, which, I repeat, may cause...
we are in a lot of trouble. Now all this is being discussed in the commission
this and with the organizers of Interpresscon. I hope that by May we will
Let's agree on something practical.* * *
And one last thing. Andrei Nikolaev not so long ago reasonably noted that
the nomination commission was created as if by itself, and the composition
changed hers and supplemented it again with her own will, that this was not
quite democratic and that ideally we should be elected (asserted
give?) the participants of "Sidorkon" by a common decision. It's quite possible
why not? If necessary, let's discuss us personally.
If you don’t like our work, re-elect completely or an hour-
tically. If there is an opinion that the chairman does not catch mice, replace
those him. If there is something else that someone doesn’t like, we are always ready to
listen This would be beneficial for our nominations, prize winners
miy, the venerable community of voters and Russian science fiction in
in general.
With that we remain. In the meantime, we are starting to prepare new lists.
To "Sidorkon-96". It's time to get started
Share your thoughts about the article