- Sergey Rosedkin -
		n about n - f and to sh n
	Main | News | Cut-away | fotobio | Prose | About Dostoevsky | J. Roberts | Humour | Non-fikshn | Criticism | Naked Teens
	Literary question Me have got. It, of course, modern youth sleng. Me have got not so, let us assume, as a suitcase from mezzanines or a tchervonets from a purse. Me have got — in sense all nerves on a fist have reeled up, plesh have eaten away, an attic have littered, a roof from a place have shifted... However, similar tone — this prilipchivyj infectious tone of present reorganisation scandalous time — should be left nevertheless. Business serious. We will begin at first. So, I the baby. No, in a life to me natikalo it is already solid — thirty eight. At my age there was no already on this perfect light Venevitinova, Lermontov, Pushkin, Yesenin, Majakovsky (I rummage, I rummage in memory granaries: prose writers in this honourable martirologe are?. Well unless in it accent!)... In the Literature I am valid while the baby — only just the first serious publications. Typical destiny on today's times. So I take a detached view of the literature as though still, at many writers I look as though still from below upwards and more to much in literary-ordinary if it is possible so to be expressed, lives I am fondly surprised and am amazed. ... I go not so long ago in bottom — "sober" — buffet of the Central House of writers from a rack to a little table, I bear a cup of coffee and a sandwich (by the way, write sometimes in newspapers, as if writers in the buffets overeat sandwiches with caviar and a boiled pork. Do not believe. In buffets TSDL there are sandwiches only with vile fibrous fat and strange by sight sausage. However, is, speak, a currency bar in bowels of this literary kloba in the street Herzen, I do not know; nishch, it is small — it is not competent). And so, I bear coffee and a sandwich with strange sausage, I hear: — Kohl! Known enough critic at whom I studied once in a seminar calls to me. Did not see for a long time. I was delighted, has rushed to it, coffee has spilt: — Hello! Hello! But it suddenly has coldly stopped me hand movement, has asked strictly-puzzly: — Kohl, you in «Literary Russia» are published? (At me there there has just passed voluminous article.) — Yes, I in it am printed ten years. You there have resulted me, as they say, for a hand. — But, Kohl, — in a voice genuine horror, — after all «Literary Russia» has changed since then! — Yes? — I have uttered indistinctly. — and I have not noticed it. — Well, Kohl, — my former instructor has significantly blinked the eyes. — look... I, puzzly clapping eyelashes, have departed. What more all has amazed me? The first: the teacher instead of congratulating the pupil on the solid publication in the central edition (alas, a thing rare!), to it utters. The second: in my article the half-word was not about the literary struggle, any polemic — simply review of the first books of young prose writers of Russia. And here when the venerable critic, learning is no time to write me objectively, fairly and with all the heart, told off me for literary-political ignorance and childishness, I have definitively understood, that in the literature I still the baby and nichegoshenki do not understand. Especially do not understand, probably, and those thousand, millions people which do not look at all for side scenes of a literary life, being only the readers, got used in books to see «a source of knowledge», and in writers — teachers and oracles. Other case. I listen somehow to lecture about the Soviet literature. The lady, doktorsha filnauk reads. Continually it as though apologises: «you do not think, so to say … that I to you from the left positions, so to say, to you it I speak, so to say …». It parazitskoe "so to say" at the philologist with superhigher education — liked prislove. But business not in it. Surprise constant digressions lektorshi from the literature of 20-30th years to would-be-literary struggle of today. With left she of positions speaks or not with left, not an essence important, but here when it makes strange statements on sense, it is necessary to open only a mouth from amazement. For example, here its such statement: say, today we have forgot freely and to discuss openly the Jewish question as it were able to do fine in due time Rose trees, Dostoevsky... Here to you of time! Yes just here so it is free and openly to discuss the Jewish question as it was done by time by the same Dostoevsky, during our explosive time it is simply inadmissible. Same to any sane person it is clear. Here that Feodor Mihajlovich in the private letter to teacher absolutely unfamiliar to him from the Chernigov province N wrote, for example. E.Grishchenko on February, 28th, 1878: «... Here you complain of Jews in the Chernigov province, and at us here in the literature already set of editions, newspapers and magazines is published on zhidovskie money by Jews (which arrives to the literature more and more), and only the editors employed by Jews, sign the newspaper or magazine Russian names — that's all in them Russian. I think, what is it only the beginning still, but that Jews will grasp much still bolshy a circle of actions in the literature; and already till a life, to the phenomena of the current validity I do not concern: the Jew extends with uzhasajushcheju bystrotoju. And after all the Jew and it kagal is all the same that plot against Russian!.» (F. M.Dostoevsky. poln. sobr. soch., t. 30, kn. 1, p. 8). And it only a fragment — all letter to quote there is no desire. I, it is possible to tell, I idolise F.  M.Dostoevsky, I put it above all in the world literature, but the given letter if it is frank, me not to liking. In vain Feodor Mihajlovich has written it, in vain. As well as in vain has, of course, written the notorious letter already today  V.P.Astafev, answering  N.J.Eidelman. Well after all adult all people, talented, clever — and suddenly give in on provocative appeals freely and openly to discuss a notorious Jewish question. And edition of "Daugava" has absolutely disgustingly arrived, having promulgated correspondence Astafeva and Eidelman. And the absolute foulness — printing in this magazine an epilogue to ugly correspondence of two writers also Victor Petrovicha's radio performances, sticking out mockingly roughnesses of oral speech. Meanly it is other word you will not pick up. I long fluctuated and reflected, whether to quote Dostoevsky's "Antijewish" letter though the classic has died for a long time also the letter is published from blessing of an editorial board of meeting of his compositions (by the way, as a part of an editorial board there are Jews) by many thousands circulation. Cunning children from "Daugava", apparently, did not fluctuate also a remorse now do not feel. And then will shout most loudly (and already shout); sentry, the Jewish question inflate! To me to liking when in one number «Book review» suddenly unexpectedly appear both N.Eidelman, and V.Astafev, and the author of the biassed comment to the malicious correspondence published in "Daugava", — J.Karabchievsky generally is more   . I mean number "TO" from November, 30th, 1990 in which the review of its just left book is placed by an anniversary from the date of N.Eidelman's death, it is literally on other page — V.Astafeva's monologue , and in same number J.Karabchievskogo's big article is published . Here such, speaking clumsy parliamentary language, the consensus is more clear to readers, is more comprehensible and is productive. As the example shows «the Book review» — the edition which is extremely easy for reproaching with tendentiousness, odnostoronnosti and bias. Give the God to this weekly journal and further more pluralism and objectivity. «Children, let's live amicably!» This perfect appeal from the children's mult-best seller in literary circles is for some reason extremely unpopular. Quarrels, drachki, fights, fights and quarrels — an everyday occurrence at many literary meetings. And all these quarrels-quarrels refer to the Literature rather and rather kept away. Disgustingly known incident Ostashvili — "April", shamefully scandalous plenum of the joint venture of the USSR on which V.Karpov nearly has not earned a heart attack and has slapped a door, supernoisy report-back election meetings of the Moscow poets and prose writers... As writers do not understand, that with stupid passion of masochists they cut a bough on which sit! After all to the simple reader (and for it, as a matter of fact, also there is a Literature!) are absolutely not clear and alien national-ideologo-political igrishcha present pupils of Parnassus. Here dear V.Belov creates the weak novel «All ahead». But instead of disassembling weaknesses of product, to sympathise with failure of the master — have attacked on V.Belova that in villains at it the Jew. Here V.Grossman's friable, boring essay «All is published flows …». And again instead of the objective analysis of a thing from «other coast» are strewed filippiki apropos "rusofobstva" the author... Yes what there to speak! On the fresh person like me only glanced for Literature side scenes, and it is even better to tell — in its rather dirty kitchen zakutki, impression of all it oppressing. I already acquire the first lessons, I study to look back around, before to express the opinion. And that has somehow blurted out in one litkompanii, that I.Brodsky's verses have admired me with skill so, My God you mine, what contempt over me have poured, what beating verbal to me have arranged! Brodsky, appears, not the poet, and «Russian-speaking rifmoplyot». Another time in one edition I have invited the interlocutor to be glad together with me V.Rasputina's to surprising talent . «That?!-vzjarilsja on me the owner of an office. — if you consider this anti-semite for the writer — we have nothing to talk!» Well, tell, all is normal it? Yes, literary struggle flared and in the past — gold — a century, but such ugly and frequently it never before did not accept pharisaic forms. It seems to me, Pharisees — both right, and left — for the sake of accumulation moral, political, monetary, administrative and different other capitals meaningly throw densely tarred by rage poleshki in a fire of so-called literary struggle. For all of them methods are good. It they took on arms the Jesuit law — the end justifies the means. To me it is surprising; why they are suffered in the numbers by the present writers? After all provokers — on a kind, almost do not mask at all. After all clear-is clear: if the person is proud of a broad beard, carries a dagger over a shirt, in a state of intoxication for show gnusavit «My God, the tsar store!» Also beats itself in a breast: «We, Russian writers!», — it is thus tasty matjugajas,-any not the writer, even the most right, he/she is the Pharisee. The rhymer who betrayed the primordial Jewish surname and has hidden for slavic, is in the same way unpleasant to me it is unpleasant, when this mimikrist throws mud at the same Slavs, including them for people of the second grade. Both that, and this Pharisees dishonour everyone the nation, and together they largely dishonour all Literature... Here such sad reflexions are cast to me by atmosphere of the Literary house (not to confuse with TSDL!) on which threshold I now stand. And me, the baby from the Literature, not clearly why in this house passionately and not the Jewish question, a political question, economic always is intelligent discussed, ideological when there should be at the head of a corner only one — the LITERARY QUESTION. Who would answer me … "Day", 1991, №.19.
çç ● èè
© Rosedkin Sergey Nikolaevich, 2001
E-mail: emp-reports@fustercluck.com