Argue with Arbitman
Vasily ZVYAGINTSEV
OPEN LETTER TO ROMAN ARBITMAN
Dear Sir Roman Emilievich!
Since childhood, I have had respect for literary critics as
people who, firstly, know how to present the contents in an accessible language
knowledge of other people's works, and secondly, they have the gift of explaining
to the reader, and at the same time to the author, what exactly he, the author, wanted to say.
And I know you, although in absentia, as an authoritative specialist,
crowned with many prizes and awards.
It was all the more surprising for me to read your articles on
to my humble work, first in "Fantacrim-Mega" #6 for 1993,
and now in “Neva” #9 for 1994.
I always treat criticism addressed to me favorably,
because it is always useful and interesting, especially for those deprived of a full
intellectual communication for a provincial, to find out qualified
opinion about one’s shortcomings, as well as advantages, if any
will be revealed. And I would be happy to hear comments from you on
about the ideological concept, plot, plot, style, factography
seter, and maybe I would finally understand why I was so excited
St. Petersburg school of fiction about the awards received by the novel.
However, instead I was forced to experience a feeling of deep
bewilderment. Since I did not expect to find a recognized car
ritesuch blatant unprofessionalism. For even though we are
triple obviously negative, the critic should have reviewed the work
read more or less carefully. If you do, this is an indispensable
have completed the task, then we can only assume that both of your articles
written from some special, not related to pure literature
relationship goal. And this is already... inelegant.
Let me explain. All your criticism is based on the premise that “V. Zvyagin-
Tsev wrote his novel under new conditions and was obliged to
according to the times." It is also emphasized that the
Thor meant to produce a work of mass culture, but this
he didn't succeed very well.
I would not dispute this opinion if both had access to
publications (Stavropol, 1992; St. Petersburg, 1993) was not indicated to the reader
the date of its writing began: 1978-1983. And when he, the novel,
came out - this is the second question.
If you still remember those times and the situation with SF in particular, and
correlate the content of the text with them, then, while remaining at least internally
To be honest, you are unlikely to be able to repeat what the author had in mind
to create “something entertaining”. Firstly, because
I couldn’t hope to publish such a work at that time
would be the most naive of writers. Written for myself and the narrow
circle of friends, which, by the way, was understood quite well by not the last
tick A. Balabukh, who was, together with Britikov, a reviewer of the
manaback in 1987. And secondly, no journalistic
works that covered the issues I raised in an open manner
There was no chat at that time either. And for those that could be found in
himself-and there-published, two articles were published at once, if you heard - seven-
tenth and one hundred and ninetieth. Which is what my loved ones hinted to me at the time
well-wishers to competent circles. So I'm ready to admit
its unoriginality and primitiveness, but only in relation to...
Well, decide for yourself who then within this country raised such
topics, and at the same time neither sat down nor left. If we remember even the masters,
then in “The Doomed City” they limited themselves to Stalinism
only an allegory. And about the terror against the Cossacks, I’m probably
no, I was the first to remember, about five years before Ogonyok, based on
my family's personal experience.
This is what touched me in your articles - an attempt to imagine
me as a person who, at the allowed time, hastily blinded me with “entertainment”
trick" from other people's stamps. In “Mega” you portrayed me like that. You know-
those in Odessa it is customary to say: “It’s good to be smart earlier, like mine
wife later"... It would be interesting to read that you are seventy
eight years old they wrote...
And secondly, also regarding your literary qualifications.
cation. It seems to me that it is said in plain text, without hints or anything else...
illusions that it was not written for the purpose of explaining how to win a war
on the part of the novel that you didn’t like (it’s boringor not -
It’s not for me to judge, but there are different opinions), but in order to show
that de-Stalinization is going badly in our country, even if it takes-
Xia to carry out comrade himself. Stalin. This was written, let me remind you, when Brezh-
Nev, Chakovsky, Stadnyuk and others like them did everything to ensure that Stalinism
rehabilitate and resuscitate. Centenary anniversary of I.V. approaching
l...
There, long before Gorbachev, it was concluded that the revolution
from above in this country there is almost no chance for the desired result-
et. And Novikov is not winning the war for me, if you remember,
the Germans nevertheless break through the front and by October they come to the same place as
in our version of the story they came.
And finally, a little chronology. This novel was completely
completed at the beginning of 1983 (which is why its action is attributed to
future, in 1984). The first attempt was made in 1985
his publications (Stavropol, collection "Landing from the Past") what
the collection was categorically prohibited by Goskomizdat. A.N.Strugatsky
tried to intervene in the fate of the collection, made a demarche to the Central Committee
The CPSU, which is also well known, had a queue from that letter -
new troubles. The collection was published only in 1988, what are you talking about?
should also be aware.
That's basically all I wanted to tell you. About other non-
I will keep silent about the reasons in your “meg” article. They are only
derivative of your main position.
Regarding literary shortcomingsI'll listen to yours
opinion with pleasure and gratitude.
Please accept the assurances of our highest regards
Vasily Zvyagintsev
12/26/94
Share your thoughts about the article