The fight between Bykov and Prilepin is the unity and struggle of opposites. (The evolution of two of the brightest modern Russian writers).
Once upon a time, Bykov and Prilepin were friends and in solidarity with Navalny, the main ideologist of the march of millions in Moscow to overthrow the government and establish the Moscow Maidan. For this, both liberalism and leftist ideas were proposed. What the friends had in common was market success and a tendency to narcissism. Bykov proposed Navalny to the presidency - the lightness in Bykov's thoughts is extraordinary.
And suddenly they, especially after the Ukrainian Maidan, sharply dispersed.
Dmitry Bykov January 20, 2014: "Writer about the war, Ukraine and where Russia is going":: "Well, I recently returned from Crimea and, judging by my Kharkov friends, according to Crimean opinions, she, in any case, shares very sharply "But neither in Kharkiv nor in Crimea have I seen a single person who fervently dreamed of returning to Russia. Therefore, I cannot say that Ukraine is disintegrating. (However, with the current level of self-esteem of the Maidan, giving advice is a pointless exercise. For these people have every reason to be proud, excellent self-organization and promising leaders, but leaving the Maidan is sometimes more difficult than entering it. "Ukraine today understands itself not only as an opponent of Russia, but also in a sense other, fundamentally non-totalitarian values.
Bykov
“The hypnosis of the terrible word “motherland” should, it seems, be dispelled already. A person does not choose the place of birth and is not responsible for it in any way. Everyone knows the phrase that when the state needs to pull off the next dark deeds, it prefers to call itself the motherland. But the place of birth is nothing more than an area of touching memories. Motherland is not forever right. It's time to throw off the hypnosis of the motherland. A huge number of thinking, decent, honest and free people do not associate anything with this territory.
Bykov, is this what you wanted to tell all of us “from the brink of death”? Why did they run away from Charon? Is this exactly what constitutes the innermost essence of your worldview?
It turns out that way.
And here is the result of such a mutation by Maxim Kantor:
July 23, 2014:“ It seems to me that the only springboard for such an attack on the dragon is Ukraine. Of course, the first step would be to eliminate control over these territories in the Donbass, which are now captured by Motorola, and then Moscow. Will freedom come to Moscow from Kyiv?
Prilepin (Everything that must be resolved ... Chronicle of the ongoing war):
“These are dependent people who came to the Maidan with the idea that Europe would give them something,” Yatsenko repeats. “Many of them go to Poland and do not understand that Poland is a big deception ... This is just a long-term European policy - devouring. In addition to cheap labor and resources, they do not need anything else here.
Dzybovbrodsky "The last thoughts of Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Andriy Bulba":
"Pro-European" Ukrainians demand that NATO enter, the US give lethal weapons, establish control, restore factories, build new ones, give gas from Europe, work, food and future.
David Dubrovsky (Professor, specialist in the field of analytical philosophy of mind):
There is such an ultra-patriot Zakhar Prilepin, I like him. I do not agree with him in everything, but I like his transpersonal attitude that there is a Motherland, there is patriotism, there is a higher. Religion is also from this level, which supports a person, his dignity, humanity, his health, his social significance. Especially now, when there is complete unbridledness, when consumerism is all around. They say that the country, the motherland, everything is bad with us. But our homeland is our integrity, and we belong to it,
Prilepin:LJ
“And he (Bykov) has already come up with an answer for the most stupid: “Because patriotism and citizenship in the twentieth century are already incompatible ... Either you love your Motherland - or you understand everything about it; or you have a Motherland - or conscience ... ". ....." Dmitry Svet Lvovich Bykov developed his idea as follows: "Prilepin decided to convert his talent and his literary success into political influence, he made a false bet. Now this began to have a terrible effect on the style of his texts. Congratulations to the boss, Mr. Zakharchenko , causes simply horror, when I read up to the word "dad", everything became clear to me. How should I relate to this? Compassionately. "
A fierce struggle unfolded: which of the Russian writers can be considered the predecessors of the current great writers: Pasternak, Okudzhava Leonov, Kuprin (author Shargunov) and now Mayakovsky. The book about Mayakovsky is called "The 13th Apostle". Like Karl Cantor, only the opposite is true
Zakhar Prilepin about Bykov's autobiographical book:
“An extra apostle. Almost like an extra letter. For example, “yat.” About which Bykov once wrote the novel “Spelling”.
"Spelling" as the main character has a man very similar to Bykov. Infinitely tired of human and stupidity and vulgarity. Especially from Russian stupidity and vulgarity.
That is, the two of them are superfluous: Mayakovsky and Bykov. Almost like brothers. Bykov, perhaps more than Mayakovsky a snob (Mayakovsky is not a snob at all), does not play billiards ... but in general: they are confusingly similar.
No, Bykov's book, of course, is often good: the fact that the author perfectly described Mayakovsky as a poet and Mayakovsky in bed, Mayakovsky in a dispute and Mayakovsky in relations with colleagues in the craft. Unfortunately, there was almost no room left for Mayakovsky, who believed in communism. That is, he seems to believe, but in connection with what, why, where it came from, it is not clear. “The 13th Apostle,” writes Bykov about Mayakovsky (about himself), "doomed to always be against." Apparently, the point is not in communism, but in the fact that Mayakovsky had a quarrelsome, complex character.
In general, the huge novel "ZhD" is concentrated in one paragraph of Pelevin's novel "Chapaev and Emptiness". I quote:
“Tell me, Anna, what is the situation on the fronts now? I mean in general.
“Honestly, I don't know. As they say now, I don't know. There are no newspapers here, and the rumors are very different. And then, you know, tired of all this. They give and take some incomprehensible cities with wild names - Buguruslan, Bugulma and more ... like him ... Belebey. And where is it all, who takes, who gives - is not very clear and, most importantly, not particularly interesting. There is a war going on, of course, but talking about it has become a kind of mauvai genre.”
Bykov's is about the same thing, it's just that Pelevin's melody is based on Bykov's concept.
Dearly beloved by me, Dmitry Lvovich has been rushing about with the idea that formed the basis of this six hundred-page volume for so long that I imagined the plot of the book in advance, and even parodied Bykov's creation in my novel even before the release of ZhD.
The idea of the book, in general, is this: in Russia, two forces have long been fighting for power: the Varangians (read - Russians) and the Khazars (read - Jews). Both forces are disgusting, but honestly, I will say that the Vikings in the book look much more disgusting than the Khazars. The Khazars are still people, but with a huge number of glaring shortcomings. And the Vikings are just a vile beast. With rare exceptions.
The indigenous population suffers from the struggle of these two forces, which has its own language (Khlebnikov spoke it, Platonov knew about it), its own quiet, sweet, non-initiative soul.
Russia is spinning in one given circle: from dictatorship to thaw, from thaw to stagnation, from stagnation to revolution - and again in a circle. Our country has no history at all - unlike all other countries - but it has a closed cycle. I repeat, the Varangians and Khazars are to blame for this, and the quiet laziness of the indigenous population, which tolerates the first and second.
At the end of the novel, three Varangians meet with three Khazar women and there is hope for a way out of the circle, which, in fact, is a dead end.
The novel is written sloppily, and it seems to me that it’s deliberately sloppy, it contains several funny jokes (sometimes on the verge of a foul: “Heller was resting, Hasek sucked, and I also feel bad about something” - such is our story in Russia) , some truly inspirational passages and a couple of great poems; I have no doubt that Bykov is a poet of genius.
All in all, this is a significant, useful and important book. Although, of course, as an inveterate Varangian, I am disgusted by the very idea, at least in literature, of equalizing the rights of the Khazars and, to put it mildly, the titular nation. We still have a hundred nationals living in Russia, no worse than the descendants of the kaganate gifted in all areas. Moreover, Bykov clearly takes his idea extremely seriously. And I'm not serious. We have a story, it is inspired and beautiful, Bykov found a circle in it, but if you look at it for a long time, you can find a triangle, a parallelepiped and even something like a zigzag sometimes.
Prilepin always has some kind of wormhole. A kind of inner spiritual rot that gnaws at him. Only a very naive person can be deceived by the mask of a “simple Russian guy” that Prilepin clings to himself. In fact, he is the same "simple Russian guy" as Alexei Navalny. Ethnically they - both Prilepin and Navalny - are Russians. But there is almost nothing Russian in them. These are some kind of homunculi, constructs for the audience, molded according to the formula. About how Michael Jackson was sculpted in response to an audience request.
Actually, Prilepin is anti-Navalny. But not in the sense that Navalny is "for the Americans" and Pilepin is "for the Russians." Nothing happened. Prilepin's role is to be Navalny's monkey. If Navalny says: “we need to live like in the USA,” Prilepin is obliged to say, “We don’t need to live like in the USA in any case.” And with this, in general, it is silly to argue. We don't need to live like in the USA - the mentality is different. But we must understand that this idea for Prilepin is not coming from the heart, but received by a simple inversion of Navalny's statement. The formula is simple:
if(Navalny said A) then Prilepin must say NOT A;
As they say, nothing personal.
If Navalny wants to go to Europe or the USA (although of course it is difficult for him now), then Prilepin simply has to go, say, to Luhansk. Well, etc.
But inner passions still break through. In the top photo, Zakhar Prilepin non-verbally reports that he is very pleased to rest his soul in the company of the poet Dmitry Bykov. Writers, cho. Why not? But here's the question:
Is it possible to imagine that a “simple Russian guy” would dance with a character like Dmitry Bykov? And it’s not even that the “Russian writer” (as reported on Wiki) Dmitry Bykov has Lev Iosifovich Zilbertrud as his father and Natalia Iosifovna Bykova as his mother, i.e. He is "Russian" only by the language in which he writes his creations. And it's not even that Dmitry Bykov did not take his father's surname, which for his taste was very Jewish. To give up the father's surname is actually zapadno, as they say in the circles to which Zakhar Prilepin considers himself. However, after all, Yevgeny Prilepin also refused the name given to him by his parents, changing it to a more a la russe name Zakhar. That is, both decided to somewhat Russify their names. Why did it happen? In order to seem more at home in the Russian audience? Strange mimicry. However, okay.
The general journalistic rage of Dmitry Bykov is well known. And of course he has the right to his position. But just what is there in this Bykovo civic position that Prilepin can be attractive to the “patriot and simple Russian guy”? The son of the actor Efremov, in company with Bykov, looks organic. This is, yes - two pair of boots. But Prilepin?
And nothing strange. The inside breaks through. For the TV audience and the audience of his books, Prilepin is of course a 100% patriot and "a simple Russian guy." But in his free time, he - well, you can see who he really is. And, according to the Hamburg account, he could also have acted quite nicely in the company with Alexei Navalny - it would be, as they say, “in suit”.
Actually, the good old saying “tell me who your friend is” here works one hundred percent. A person is often characterized not by words - we know very well that anything can be said - but by who this person prefers to spend time with outside of work. Work is understandable. If you like "being Russian", if you don't like it - you have to earn money. But outside of work, on vacation, you can hang out with your brothers in spirit. And here Prilepin is all at a glance. The only difference is that people like Bykov are sincere in their statements both at work and in their free time. But Zakhar Prilepin at work has to carry the heavy burden of a “simple Russian guy” and only on vacation can he relax and merge in ecstasy with his brothers in mind.
So who are you, masters of culture? Yes, we know with whom. The roles have long been defined.
Dmitry Bykov about Solovki and Zakhar Prilepin's book
Zakhar Prilepin's novel "The Abode" (AST, edited by Elena Shubina) is good not only because it is well written - there are just too many stylists now, and emptiness is most often masked by grace - but because it is well thought out: it has a second bottom . Figl-Migl (what is the name of the author, I don’t know, I have to use a pseudonym) noted in one of his stories that modern literature is not tempting to re-read, and this also applies to Figl-Migl himself, but Prilepin must be re-read at least twice - just to understand the author’s construction . In general, most often it is worth re-reading what the author enjoyed, what he was pleased to write himself.
Not to say that "The Abode" - tragic, cruel in material - was clearly pleasant to write, but the writing process itself clearly brought joy to the author, since Prilepin is dealing here with material that is vitally close, most interesting to him, namely, with a Soviet person ( or, if you like, the Soviet superman).
Zakhar Prilepin coped with the task of exceptional difficulty
Artem Goryainov, the protagonist who ended up in Solovki for parricide, is, of course, by no means the hero of this novel. An affair with a "negative" protagonist, to put it in a schoolboy way, or at least with an unpleasant protagonist, is a task of exceptional difficulty; Goryainov most of all wants to live, he is an intuitive genius of adaptability, and Prilepin seems to endow him with many of his traits, but mainly those that he does not like. In fact, in the world of Solovki - in the monastery, as it is given by Prilepin - either monks, that is, without five minutes saints, or complete scum should live. “Just a man” does not survive here, because it is lowered, and Goryainov ends up with just such a dehumanization, a complete loss of personality. He is not one of those who can withstand total pressure. Long before his semi-accidental, briefly mentioned, mysterious death, he perishes, because he ceases to be different from the rest; dies because the author is no longer interested in it. Goryainov, with his unmistakable instinct for survival - this instinct changes him only once, when during the staged execution of every tenth Artem suddenly changes places with this tenth - it seems that nothing turns the reader away: he is young, healthy, friendly, but the author's and readers' dislike for it grows inexorably. He is by nature a conformist, and this is by no means Prilepin's hero; an opportunist, a genius of social mimicry, in addition to an innate ability to please the authorities, with an impeccable sense of danger and risk - this is why he is described so precisely that Prilepin looks at him with hatred, and there is nothing sharper than hatred. Everything works out for Goryainov, every time he miraculously escapes (which makes the author sometimes call The Abode a picaresque novel in an interview), but even this is not virtue in the eyes of Prilepin. A dozen fellow, as if not without a conscience and not even without taste - he is ready to betray, and substitute, and retreat; and Prilepin treats him the same way Solzhenitsyn treats Ivan Denisovich. Ivan Denisovich is the main, but not a favorite character: we look at the world through his eyes, but we understand that he is infinitely far from the author's ideal. The author's ideal is the katorang or Alyoshka, people with convictions and rules.
And Ivan Denisovich was chosen as a hero because he represents the majority: such people were "tolerated" at large - every second, if not more often. And there are many like Goryainov.
From the Editor
1. Eichmans was not the first head of the SLON. He was appointed instead.
2. Fedor (Theodors) Ivanovich Eihmans (Teodors Eihmans), born in 1897 Eichmann AND catfish was not named. The surname with the letter "I" was used by Zakhar Prilepin.
3. F. Eichmans was not the creator of the Solovetsky camp. The camp was created by: Deputy. prev. Alexei Rykov of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, Nikolai Gorbunov, manager of the Council of People's Commissars, Lenin's personal secretary Lidia Fotieva, secretary of the special department at the OGPU I. Filippov, appointed secretary of the management of Sollagers ON OGPU Vaskov and head of the SLON Department of the OGPU A. Nogtev. Of course, Vladimir Lenin was also aware of the top secret resolution of the Council of People's Commissars "On the Creation of the Solovetsky Forced Labor Camp" adopted in November 1923. Later, a prominent figure in the Cheka-OGPU, a criminal recidivist with pre-revolutionary experience Gleb Bokiy, joined the "works". Eichmans at that time was a small fry in Central Asia.
For those who try to defend the “scientific” position of Prilepin-Bykov, a quote: “It is absolutely impossible to count on scientific work here, not only on serious, but even on some.” This is written to his wife by a filthy prisoner from Solovkov, Professor Pavel Florensky. Shot in 1937, buried by the Eichmanis in an unknown pit.
For those who try to defend the “cultural” position of the Prilebykovs, a little tale: director Les Kurbas, who staged several performances for the authorities in the camp theater, was taken to Sandormokh and shot. But this is not important for the storyline of the novel. It is important that there was culture in the concentration camp - a museum and a theater. Well, yes, they were..."
What Dmitry Bykov is certainly right about is that Eichmans, the head of the SLON, is dear to Prilepin. He loves commandants and Chekists. Absolutely accurate conclusion. 100 %. ( Yuri Serov. A very angry remark and a photo so that they don’t lose their scent ...
No need to think that everything has always been the way it is today. Nothing.
I knew Dmitry Bykov, in those years he was not yet so similar to Balzac and did not smugly rant.
In those years, he asked more and more questions, asked questions, and did not lecture everyone, as he does now. Bykov was then rather a sincere young man, it was evident from him that he had many doubts and some confusion in his views went to him.
When Bykov, with one goon (according to the meme, Nikonov is his last name, he now always sits on Norkin’s show, and deliberately says outrageous nonsense, portraying an extremist liberal) published a hooligan newspaper “Mother” (everything was in obscene language), Bykov had to to serve one, in my opinion, night in the police department. He got scared then.
I came to his court, met his mother (a bright woman).
Bykov then repaid me with mirror goodness.
He came to see me in the colony when I was freed near the city of Engels, and went to Moscow by train with me in a reserved seat.
He is such an arrogant teacher and a liberal now, which is disgusting. I don’t want to say that all white swans-boys, growing up, turn into fetid and self-confident, but Bykov definitely turned the wrong way in the opposite direction.
To arouse hatred in me, you need to try very hard, but he deserved my disrespect in recent years. However, I feel sorry for him. He was capable of more.
In general, teachers are prone to teaching, Venediktov is a vivid example. They should be wary of merging with their profession.
Or in February, in my opinion, in 1997, I was introduced in Nizhny Novgorod to a man who later became Prilepin. I don’t remember how he introduced himself then, Lavlinsky seems to be, and Zhenya seems to be not Zakhar yet, maybe he already introduced himself as Prilepin. I don’t presume to say ...
Armored modern in the style of Gosha Kutsenko, he did not yet have a large head, he had a balding, small skull (really small), he sat in a low chair, he did not mention any party, he said that he works as a journalist and writes little by little.
What can I say, everyone was once unknown at first, and everyone had small skulls.
Join the party in 1996, Z.P. could not, the Nizhny Novgorod branch of the now banned party is known to have entered its first public action on May 1, 1998, there are photographs, the branch was then headed by a philologist of about fifty years old, eccentric, but all the first National Bolsheviks were eccentric, Vsevolod Aksyonov.
Prilepin most likely brought his application to the party premises (bunker) in Moscow in 2000. I actually spent that year already in Altai, so I didn’t see Prilepin and didn’t issue him a ticket, maybe Tolya Tishin did.
Prilepin never participated in loud and even quiet actions of the party, never, contrary to rumors, was never the head of the Nizhny Novgorod organization of the National Bolsheviks.
He correctly somewhere said that we met with him four times. So it was, everything is so ... Prilepin is such a glamorous patriot, glamor also seduced me, but I quickly recovered.
It is interesting that Prilepin and Bykov were somehow friends and discussed a lot. Bykov was even brought out in Prilepin's novel "Sankya", however, I got there, under the name of the former military Kostenko.
I don’t want to say anything about anyone except what I started with: you don’t need to think that everything has always been like it is now.
As you can see, the two current Savanarolas, one of liberalism, the other of patriotism, were at one time extremely close.
I? I'm not their teacher, God forbid...
They have developed themselves.
