The irreducibility of the “will” to “freedom” and even the hidden antagonism of these close notions are obvious to everyone feeling the language.
So what is so dissatisfied with our Western-oriented public in the Russian structure of life? After all, the fact that it does not suit. And something very deep, radical does not suit. What lime would like, but ... does not go and does not go! What, ask? Yes, that does not fit this Russian device in the Western standard. Here though you burst, does not fit! And this is insulting for the orthodox carriers of Western values, and it is dangerous in part. That is, it is believed that it is not only inconvenient for them to live here and in something dangerous, but also dangerous on a global, so to speak, scale. And this question, about the difference between "devices", which for a long time was seemingly cultural, now goes into the category of the military. To understand how much, it is enough to look, in what expressions the sect of pro-Western orthodox, they are the same “Minority with a capital letter”, in their statements about the “contemptible majority” goes beyond the limit of permissible. Valid in any society!
But this - about statements - is a separate topic. And we will now return to the merits of the question.
Which of our writers most admired and admired the whole world? By the way, I do not think that this world assessment should be crucial for us. But still. Let's answer this question before moving on. Especially since this answer is absolutely obvious to everyone. Much more than the rest of our great writers, the world in general and the Western world in particular admired and admired Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. It was Dostoevsky who had the greatest influence on Western literature of the twentieth century. And not only on the literature. On philosophy, on culture and even on science - psychology, for example. Having established this undoubted fact, we go further. Which of our great writers described the conflict between our fanatically westernized “Minority with a capital letter” and Russia as such with the greatest clarity, depth, clarity and depth? Dostoevsky.
And finally, who has cursed the then West most toughly, reasonably? I stress the then classic bourgeois West. Which was devoid of the current postmodern disgusting traits. Dostoevsky. It was he who foresaw the inevitability of the appearance of perverted features. And he cursed the West like no other.
All this was perfectly understood by both the pre-Soviet liberals and the Soviet authorities. Which for this reason belonged to the author with enthusiastic wariness. Especially since the author, not once, by the way, cursed the sacrificial revolutionaries of our revolutionaries, he took a distinctly imperial position, was friends with inveterate "guardians", and called the Soviet authorities their reactionaries.
To interpret Dostoevsky's work in a Westernist-liberal way, to create an image of Dostoevsky that is in tune with the heart of our modern fanatical Westerner - you can only by isolating yourself to the limit, spitting with all sorts of literary, cultural, and ideological conscientiousness. By the way, the word “conscientiousness” in Russian, a language dangerous for our Westerners, is not at all the meaning that similar words have in foreign languages. That is the direct meaning is the same. According to this sense, good faith is professional integrity. But the curse of the Russian language is that it complements this (and so hated by our Westerners) sense - a sense of other, already completely “outrageous”. And then the "good" and "conscience"? Why in a purely professional, you know, games to drag in these extraneous matter?
Karl Popper condemned Marx - for what? For what he has drawn into the value of science. What in Marx so fascinated the Russians? That is what delighted! Because Russians are so arranged. And it is impossible to alter them. More precisely, the alteration must begin with the language. What, by the way, and do. The main thing in this Russian device is the rejection of certain fundamental differentiations. There is no “truth” for Russians, in which there is no goodness and beauty. And there is no beauty for Russians in which there is no truth and good. In order to say that “beauty will save the world”, one must be a Russian writer. Goncurs cannot say so. Because beauty in principle has no right to save. It must satisfy the aesthetic sense, that's all.
However, the detailed development of this important topic will lead us too far. We just need to establish that Russian writers in general and Dostoevsky in particular are not writers, but teachers of life. They were perceived as the prophets of their time. Yes, and they themselves perceived. By the way, this concerns not only writers, but also cultural workers in general. Anyone in the West could say that “theater is a chair”? And then the department? I remind the reader of these things that have been repeatedly spoken only in order to formulate a thesis that is of fundamental importance: the fanatical Western liberal of the spill that we are considering, CAN NOT NOT AIM TO DESTROY RUSSIAN LITERATURE. Or its enslavement, which is the same. He may be a teacher of literature or even a literary critic, but he treats Russian literature like an SS soldier with prisoners of Auschwitz. He can even “sink into” a separate prisoner in a concentration camp robe and start romance with her. But he is an SS man, and this is important. The destruction and enslavement of Russian literature is part of the operation to destroy and enslave Russia as such. Destruction is the termination, reproach, and reprisal. Enslavement is a reinterpretation, arbitrary interpretation, guidance of monstrous laudatory accusations.
The true masters of destruction and enslavement are postmodernists. Therefore, the destroyer and enslaver of Russian literature cannot but be a postmodernist. And since Russophobia can also be Russian - and this is very important to understand - Russian Russophobia is a special category. After all, Bykov Russophobia in Russian and, destroying the Russian cultural matrix, he destroys his cultural matrix. The result is an incredibly poisonous mixture that turns the Russian Russophobia literary critic into a special virus. Possibly having a worldwidehistorical - or rather, antihistorical - meaning. Whether this virus is being removed for some ominous world-historical use, or is it formed here by chance and for local purposes - in any case, this phenomenon is very large-scale. And this virus, of course, is ideological. That is, we are talking about a war of ideas in the full sense of the word.
Consider how exactly this is done. For without specifics, our model does not have the necessary qualities. That is, it does not allow to identify specific "leprosy" of the virus and provide them with proper resistance. Resistance is not about stifling Bykov or the whole community of which he is a part. And in order to more accurately understand themselves, the “device” that they are trying to get rid of. Having understood, strengthen this device. Make it the basis of resistance, meaningful both for us and for the world.
Here D. Bykov speaks in a lecture about Dostoevsky - the one that was already mentioned in the previous article - about the "black earth" nature of the Karamazovs (read the Russian people), in which "infinity, immensity, uncultured wildness" ... Steppe beginning ... Will ... Not he alone says, of course. But he is just the last one to speak out - relish and with utmost inner slyness, also accompanied by cheating, on this topic. Well, consider in more detail. Because, I repeat, the topic is there, and it is downright military.
Yes, we have this special concept - “will”, which simultaneously conveys two meanings in the language, and is extremely important for the Russian mentality, since it is one of the components of the so-called cultural core. It is not equal to the European concept of "freedom." Like its Russian counterpart. The irreducibility of the “will” to “freedom” and even the hidden antagonism of these close concepts are obvious to everyone who feels the language. Moreover, this contradiction has its own history of understanding and discussion within the framework of our culture. It is most succinctly and clearly expressed in the play of L. Tolstoy's Living Corpse. There, in the famous scene of the gypsies, the hero Fedya Protasov, listening to “Non-Evening”, says in shock: “This is the steppe, this is the tenth century, this is not freedom, but will!”.
But the same sense of will as a special substance permeates all the great Russian literature. Pushkin, Gogol, Leskov, Chekhov, Blok, Gorky ... Dostoevsky, of course ... Well, how could it be otherwise? This is what is inherent in the Russian nature itself. The landscape after all is enchanted! He plunges into himself and plunges himself - internalized, as psychologists say, by man. Moreover, in the ancient and subsequent times, the specific nature and geography created completely objective prerequisites for the formation of a special behavioral code, of a special nature among the peoples inhabiting these expanses. As a result, it gave rise to the whole of Russian history, with its generally peaceful territorial expansion, its imperial pretense, and even with the special role of the “tsar-father”. Because it is not a matter of “slave nature”, but of collective intuition: you cannot keep such a country without a powerful central authority. In general, this is the most "cultural core" - a particularly important thing, hard-to-destruct, and in Russians (broadly understood) it is arranged differently than in Europeans. Accordingly, it is very possible to understand those who, like A. Rakitov, having set themselves the goal of undermining “this country” under the European standard, are raising up their entire royal army to fight against the Russian phenomenon.
The phenomenon, in particular, manifested itself in the fact that although capitalism came to Russia, it was belatedly repeating the path traversed by the West, but, for example, bourgeois literature as western tracing paper did not arise. The bourgeoisie has somehow emerged. But in the pure form of the novel, this “epos of the new time”, did not arise - that is, the novel appeared, but surprisingly peculiar. “Russia responded to the reforms of Peter with the appearance of Pushkin,” said Herzen. In fact, Russia has developed its “asymmetrical” response to the advent of Modernity. The Russian novel of the XIX century (like all literature, however) turned out to be so filled with the popular perception of the world that, despite the characteristic features of the genre: the appearance of a hero with his individuality, his private life, his relations with society — one can hardly say that he, as a European novel, reflected the "spirit of the new time." Namely, the collapse of the traditional society and the emergence of a positive active individual. This fundamental difference very precisely caught T. Mann, speaking of Tolstoy’s novels, that they “lead us into temptation to overturn the relationship between the novel and the epic, asserted by school aesthetics, and not to consider the novel as a product of the disintegration of the epic, but the epic as a prototype of the novel” .
Of course, not least this specificity of Russian literature is connected with the fact that Russia has not accepted capitalism. The completely “atomic” individual in the life itself was rather the exception, and the literature reflected, even concentrated, like a lens, this enduring Russian craving for integrity. Traditional society did not disintegrate, secular culture did not lose the Orthodox spirit, popular faith existed along with Orthodoxy, but ... capitalism was already there, and the Russian spirit was looking for a way out of an insoluble contradiction.
Searched and, by the way, found. That is what particularly infuriates our liberal. This is what gives rise to his - sometimes seemingly inexplicable - densely anti-Soviet nature. And even when such a liberal starts praising something in the USSR in the USSR, as Bykov does, do not flatter yourself - this is a way to kill the Soviet by means of a poisonous interpretation. Here I again return the reader to the metaphor about the SS man and the prisoners. And I cite just one quote from the same lecture on Dostoevsky. After talking about Leo Tolstoy at the same time and advising to follow the “bequeathed by two titans” “life-giving” (that is, to accept life as it is, with its incorrigible nasty - a sort of gnostic in passing!), And also, touching on, touching Gorky, “teacher” The writer states the following.
“Gorky in Luka meant Tolstoy. He felt in Tolstoy the main thing - his deepest disbelief in man. Tolstoy thinks that a person needs tradition, faith, upbringing, family, family - a mass of external circumstances in order to keep from the terrible. Tolstoy does not believe in the man himself. An individual is doomed. But Dostoevsky, if not strange, gloomy, bloody Dostoevsky believes in man. A person needs to fall ... - further on the greatness in the fall (here, however, it becomes completely incomprehensible how to oppose Dostoevsky to Tolstoy on this basis, after all that “without sinning, you will not repent”), but most importantly, ideological, in the end - Paradox ! The system, which believed in a man who rewarded him with all the virtues, ended in disaster, and the system, which did not believe in man, came to amazing comfort. ”
What is out of place and “ideological” to the obscene is understandable. A postmodern propagandist should act like that - interfering with quotations like a card sharper. The fact that again about “comfort” is ridiculous and once again shows that the minority from this very letter is seriously obsessed. The fact that it is said that in the USSR "they wanted the best, but ..." is exactly on the topic of praise through the lip. But what really strikes you is that as a result of all this balabolism, the precise and clear meaning of the ideas of Russian classics is completely turned on its head. Clear, clear, easily provable.
What is it you are for Russian writers, Mr. Good, so rude - the main thing is that it is GROSS - you slander?