they don’t believe us that he is really a great poet, but he is not really perceived, i just taught in french for some time, at one of the french universities i tried something with students who did not speak russian, to watch pushkin, not it turns out, and i know that when grigorievich etkin was leaving, here is our famous literary writer, and they told him, at least you will teach the french to translate. he really created a team, they did everything, well, it’s still not perceived, but dostoevsky, yes, of course, i see, tell me, if you ask this question, but dostoevsky is the 20th century, yes, is it possible, can we say, or will it still be journalism and a journalistic statement that world culture, certainly world literature of the 20th century, is unimaginable without dostoevsky , the first part of the question, the second immediately, if i may, that dostoevsky, in general, belongs, as they often say. century

is much longer than the 19th century. i would say that the culture of the 20th century grows out of dostoevsky, it is simply the main root to a very large extent. dostoevsky is a unique figure, first of all, because it is a very unformatted, very irregular, and therefore amazingly effective classic, it is not, it is, it is not a classic classic, it is a modern classic, but a classic should not be modern. dostoevsky, who became part of the russian classical canon, the world classical canon, why he was so in demand, why he entered the canon, because he gave a model of a man in crisis , a man of the 20th century, a man from the era of catastrophes, the era of dislocated consciousness, the era of world wars, great cataclysms, greatest temptations.

what happens is that he really predicted a lot, a lot of what he predicted, and of course, many great, great writers of the 20th century are largely dependent on him, another thing is that if you look more specifically at, say, french literature, a new novel appears , which is about something completely different, where there are no heroes, no plots, in the sense of a plot, which is built on something completely different, based on writing, this is something that is alien to authenticity.

dostoevsky is prose, but in the case of dostoevsky, there were situations when there were simply well, is it difficult for translators? you know, i can say that, again, based on this experience of working with french students, we sorted out, in my opinion, the bottom of the insulted, in general, some of romanovsky, that everyone read me in french, not in english, no, no, they read, they were french, our classes are in french, i understood, but i mean they didn’t read in english, no, no, no, they read in french, although another thing, your question is absolutely fair, because ...

fall out, but nevertheless , well, this is how it is, actually, this is a big, big problem, very interesting, yeah, and by and large , dostoevsky enters western cultural consciousness with the publication of a book in 1886 called, the underground spirit, yes, yes, this book is a translation by galperin kaminsky, a translator of such a fairly famous emigrant from the russian empire, and charles maurice.

nietzsche read it a year after its publication in 1987, and this became one of the most powerful reading shocks of his life, he enters into a deep internal dialogue with dostoevsky, largely under the influence of this reading, he formulates for himself the basic concepts of ressentiment, uh, even the blond beast in part, the future superman, and so on, and what he will call the struggle of dionysus against the crucified begins, right? nice , this book, very strange, curious, mangled, and so on, sets the paradigm for the perception of dostoevsky, it determines his place in western culture, they begin to translate it into other languages, spanish, italian, and so on, it becomes

general ledger by intermediary. today we gathered our thoughts about the influence of dostoevsky’s work on the culture of the 20th century, ekaterina evgenevna. that's how far one can agree with this, i would say that without the underground complex and generally without the whole set of basic dostoevisms, american literature of the 20th century is in principle unrepresentable before belluu, up to i don’t know kirouac, selenger burgis,

volker, wallace and so on and so on, so on, the figure of a spirit-seeking marginal, complexly self-determining. one of my favorite novels, but it has just a rewritten idiot, yes, because the novel, which in russian translation is called dear mr. fool, sisa kendo himself said that i took this title from the actual, well, practically word for word, yes , what is dear mr. fool, well, he is an idiot, yes and the plot is all very similar, well

, it’s clear that syusa kuenda is a catholic, that is , he personally has common cultural foundations, although for dostoevsky there are two mortal sins, yes, one of them is catholicism, so to speak. what is this due to? here is kurasavalikom, mr. it wasn’t at all, this is for me the greatest, most successful interpretation. this is a film interpretation, at least it’s his film, yeah, and what seems significant to me is that this is a very japanese story, of course, he adapts it to japanese realities, and his myshkin returns from captivity after the second world war, we ’re talking about this now about the film kurasawa's idiot, about the film from 5 years ago, there is an important moment, myshkin's arrival at ragozhin's house, they have japanese names for the characters, and me.

and so on, and there are two sections, there is chinese and japanese, here’s to your question

, what’s curious is that for the chinese dostoevsky is alien, he doesn’t pass, but confucianism does not accept these fault lines of dostoevsky, on the contrary, and there are 16 translations of the crime of punishment into chinese , it’s a complex story, you know, well at least, here are the texts that i looked at, in general it is quite obvious that, well, well...

as for cinematography, well , the director knows better, of course, but on the other hand, this is not the stupidest person, dmitry sergeevich merishkovsky, he wrote the bookish dostoevsky, which in many ways laid the foundation for such a deep reading of the work of these writers in the silver age, then in the 20th century, here he calls roman dostoevsky a series of

fifth acts of tragedy, and vyacheslav ivanov will write the work. a unique experimental thing, where dostoevsky connects with the gadar variety, yes, uh, gadar, he creates his own film from the year sixty-seven, based on demons, where he shows a group of young mavaists, sympathetically shows, yes, this is for them this new nechaevism is him, he

perceives them ironically, but for him it is a natural, generally expected challenge, which should lead to, to disruption. this terrible bourgeois society, yes, which has come to its self-denial, in the broad sense of the word , a bourgeois society of complete, understandable, intelligible values, including, say, soviet socialism, the specificity of dostoevsky, that he leads very different sides with his different texts, you know, and in general its perception in russia in the west is also different in what the texts become the most influential, i would say that in the west these are still notes from the underground, notes from the underground rather than his great novels. so i was already immediately digging in the bushes, i’ll show this, published by our employee elena goltsova, notes under the field of dostolevsky in the cultures of europe and america, a huge number of authors, but so that when lena talked about what she was creating, i thought that it would be like this it’s a thin book, look at some volume, and there’s really a huge amount

texts, it turns out that this is really an incredibly popular text, but an idiot too, so you talked about... the path to your calling is very detailed, what professions our guests mastered on the way to their dreams, i also worked as an instructor in the komsomol district committee, and since such there was no rate, my work book says i am a cleaning lady, yakubo. i had more time to do what i loved. they were selected taking into account that as much as possible i would work on central television as a senior accountant. seniors? you said there will be a hedgehog. and what's that? i have my first entry

was in the book, my favorite, the night receptionist. it wasn’t a shame that everyone was listening to you, but i was constantly giving away my voice, one day i was sitting at home having breakfast, there was a radio beacon hanging on my wall and a girl was singing, and i was sitting there appreciating how well the girl sang, such a voice. wonderful, and so then oh-my , so i’m singing, on saturday at the first, celine sergei andreevich, theater for young spectators, decorator, vladim vladimirovich polonsky, i’m vladimir ligoido, today we gathered our thoughts about fyodor mikhailovich dostoevsky's influence of his work on the culture of the 20th century. if you like to collect your thoughts with us, you can find all episodes of our podcast on the website of the first channel 1tv.ru, and you know, let’s return to the cinema for a second, if, of course

, there is a film adaptation, there are brilliant readings, like kurasawa’s, yes, but i suddenly discovered that there are traces of dostoevsky, but i do n’t know, there are cinematic children, yes, as they say about literary children, where this is not a film adaptation, i talked with john luenfeld, this is one of the translators of pushkin modern american, and... i don’t remember something, or he mentioned, in general, in short, lieutenant colombo, this series, and he said, well, this is porfiry petrovich, then i finally understood why i so adore the series about lieutenant columbus, because everything is according to the scheme, so you killed yourself, this, this, this is interesting, because there is probably a lot of this in cinema, and in literature, in culture in general, not indirectly , so to speak, yes, here...

she shows in him his underground, his irrational, his openness to the poles, his the mutual reversibility of the poles, that is, it is russianness that allows one to expand the horizon up and down, and opens up, this is such a sublimation , the side of mystery, so it provides it, the metaphysical man of the 20th century opens up in western man thanks to dostoevsky, but doesn’t it turn out... that in addition to this, what happens is the narrowing of even those heroes and characters who deserve to be said, well, in the same american literature, in some heroes, including those of the authors

whom you already named today, yes, to the point of well , they are very flattened, they are somehow compared to heroes of dostoevsky, well, in general, you can say so, as you think, well, we need to talk specifically about, well, let’s say, let’s say, the same sallenger, let’s say.

i forgot who, someone said, almost thomas mann, or someone said the other way around, that the compositional structure is wonderful, the main thing is that dostoevsky gives, he really changed, as it were, this reservoir of images of ideas, put there a lot of my own, without which world culture is already unthinkable, yeah, really, i still want to discuss one twist, i’m formulated, maybe you will not agree with me, as the pseudo-heirs of dostoevsky, and for me, if...

yes, he writes that freud’s work was recently published, and he is for me, i have this quote, but i won’t waste time on where he says : psychoanalysis is powerless against the karamazov brothers, well, because before this it is clear that the desire to kill the father, from whom the novel grows, according to wedley’s interpretation of freud, and he ends this emotional passage so anti-freudian or anti-freudian, probably more accurately in a phrase, psychoanalysis is powerless against the karamazov brothers dostoevsky, for me it’s somehow very, very... called, what do you think about this, well, fred himself said that no matter how highly he valued dostoevsky, he was worried not literary writing , but he is interested precisely in the fact that he can be subtracted , and even he said that he is losing all his ability to sympathize, wasting it on practical work with pathological consciousness, like a doctor, yes, he is not enough for that to appreciate it already in art, but at the same time he called the karamazov brothers

the greatest novel. century, and there is no freud without dostoevsky, by chance, say, döblin called dostoevsky the immediate father of freud, his most direct predecessor, thank god that there were

other children. so let’s say , so i’ll say, well, you know, i’m in conclusion, this is what i wanted to ask you about, since i proposed such a subjective approach, so if we talk about who in your opinion, yes partially, maybe the answer has already been heard , but still had the greatest impact on you personally or who perceived dostoevsky as much as possible in the 20th century , we will no longer limit ourselves to foreign literature, we can also recall russian literature here, and maybe even broader than literature, here’s your personal one, i don’t know...

about what the karamazov brothers are for him, what they are the book he is afraid of, he locks it in the closet, locks it with a key, because he understands that if he lets it out and opens it, he will not be able to survive for a minute, he will have to... close his eyes, ears, they will run out screaming, just to understand that you can still live, you can breathe, you can still enjoy the sun , dostoevsky doesn’t allow you to do this, you see, this is the starting point of dostoevsky’s thinking there in europe in the thirties, this rhymes well with what you started with, amazingly, it doesn’t resonate with me, because it seems to me , for me personally, my personal reading of fyodor mikhailovich , it just leads to the fact that you want, you want to live, and this is perfect and even...

he sees an analogy with buddhist enlightenment and so on, but we’ll probably leave it this is for next time, i'm with great once again, i want to thank you very much for this wonderful, unfinished, let’s consider it a conversation, ekaterina evgenievna dmitrieva,

corresponding member of the russian academy of sciences, vladimir vladimirovich polonsky, corresponding member of the russian academy of sciences, i’m vladimir ligoida, today we were gathering thoughts about the influence of dostoevsky’s creativity on the literature and culture of the 20th century. this podcast is a must read. i am the leader of the attackers, my guest is the writer andrei gelasimov, and we will discuss nikolai leskov, his stories and stories. andrey, liskov is such a controversial author, on the one hand he is a classic. on the other hand , he is a little lost against the background of his contemporaries , dostoevsky, we are talking about the 19th century, this is what determines his somewhat strange place, and he seems to be in parallel with the main classics, but at the same time

, he is underestimated by many, as explain this? well, this can be explained simply by the feast of literature of the 19th century, it so happened that this art turned out to be so socially in demand that very large...

maybe 100 copies, something like that, 300, i guessed, i was very surprised, that is, i thought, 300 copies, and the person becomes famous throughout st. petersburg society in general throughout russia. well, these were the most important people in st. petersburg society, probably, and they created this opinion. what kind of reputation did liskov have, what was the opinion of modern literary society about him? i know he survived bullying. you know, it’s worth talking about this bullying separately, because yes, from his from his own memories, from his letters to his publishers, we absolutely see that he was persecuted, in particular at the beginning of his career, because he spoke out against the nihilists, accusing them of some kind of fires there. too conservative, yes, he was too conservative for the liberal and radical public, and as he claims, he was subjected to serious attacks, because of which he could not even publish anywhere for two or 3 years, and so on and so forth, but in one of i was

surprised to read soltykov shchedrin’s essays that all the attacks were mr. stebnitsky, it was his pseudonym leskova, he was liskov stebnitsky, all the attacks were invented by mr. stebnitsky , because... who is not interested in him, no one attacked him, and he is the elusive joe, yes, who no one needs anyway, he caused this fire for himself, and after it he actively defended himself and responded positively to tolstoy. about liskov’s later works, they were friends with tolstoy liskov, they even met once in the eighty-seventh year, 8 years before leskov’s death, and liskov himself again according to his testimony, yes, because it is very interesting when you read the works of literary critics , they say, according to the testimony of leskov, tolstoy very much praised so-and-so his text, there is a wonderful basic text, for example, and a hagiographical scripture about early christianity, and i, without hesitation, called marik. she is a great expert in leskovye and so i say: may,

tolstoy’s letters have been preserved, in which he praises liskov for this thing, because liskov says that tolstoy praised him in a letter to someone else. he says, i say, this is a letter preserved. maya says: no, there is no such letter, i say, but wouldn’t he have kept tolstoy’s letter, in which the great genius praises him, that is, i would have kept it. no, probably such a letter simply did not exist. we don’t know, then i asked mayu, could he be lying? the camp cheats on her with this lover

, with whom so many crimes were committed, she throws herself into the water and drowns her rival , that is , such a cool russian female character is described, and , well, don’t get you from anyone, so don’t get you from anyone, this cry is actually from the lady of makbesa district, leskov is also famous for his story lefty, based on the anecdote that the british forged and steel the blade, our tula craftsmen forged it. what did he have with genres in general, what kind of relationship did he have with literary genres? it ’s not that simple, right? i think he had serious problems with the large form , because, well, even if we look at his rather scandalous novel, there is nowhere or on knives, he has difficulty maintaining the composition, by the way, they told him about this from time to time.

by the way, the writer lacks the breath of a novel, well, that is, the breath of a novel is when you run a very long distance, like a stayer, a stayer, yes, you run 10-20 thousand meters, this is not the case of leskov, because he could quite to create a multi -page voluminous work, but it seems to me that he still did not have the ability to build a story so that it would hold the reader’s interest all the time, let’s say, just a composition, yes, this is the beginning, middle and end, yes, the beginning, middle and end , but the point is that they must be...

yes, on which he did not write a big book , that is, say, the czechs, who was very worried

that he could not do a big thing, and he did not hide it, he said, brevity is the sister of talent, which does not mean at all, yes, that he praised himself, he was a very modest person, no, he said, brevity is just the sister of talent, that’s what he meant, not talent itself, yeah, but he recognized the czechs, because he was a truthful man, it seems to me that he i didn’t know how to lie at all, well, he’s a doctor, a doctor should look at things straight, he we need to tell patients the truth, are you dying? and he told himself the truth, you are dying of itch, but liskov was not that kind of person, he was more complex, yes, more conflicted, he was always looking for conflict, in society he was looking for conflict, in behavior. with criticism , with publishers, went from one to another , swore, and i even recognized him as a stranger everywhere, they said this is not our man, yes, as kotkov said the editor of the russian bulletin, this is not our man, i even found, you know, his very interesting letter to the publisher some warsaw newspaper, where a critical article with critical

statements was published about him, so he wrote to the newspaper, saying how wrong you are, i thought it’s only in our time that there are such writers, criticism upon criticism. an official , which is surprising, and at the same time he was seriously involved in literature, and why is he not accepted in the camp of people who are fans of naboky, zealots of the russian language, high style, for some reason liskov is considered, well, not a camelfo, not a camelfo, because he uses... the vernacular, that’s right, because of the poverty of the family, although he was a nobleman by birth, they lived very poor and therefore he lived among the people, that is, he literally grew up in the same yard with boys, peasants, so he knows the language of the people very well, his thinking, and this is actually his main tool and technique in his literature, but this is not recognized

by adherents of the high russian style, and of course he relies very heavily on nationality in the lexical sense, but you know, he invents a lot, which also irritated people , that he has more non-alogisms, probably than all the writers combined, you open the book on the second or third page, you immediately encounter a whole series of strange words, solid earth sea, two-seater carriage, two-seater carriage, nymphusoria, they call him like a glakha nymphusoria, these are funny things like yes, anticipation, anticipation, yes, yes, yes, what is this , no, and the funny thing is, i ’m a student at the institute, even this... as an example of very funny word creation, he talks about waterproof raincoats for the british cavalry, well, macs rubberized he calls them nepromakables, he calls them resin nepromakables, there’s a very cool word here, it’s very funny, i’ve met him, but we can’t say that this is the people’s language, people don’t speak like that, maybe

he’s imitating the way people make mistakes when when a folk storyteller tries to... his story is not a story, in fact, that’s what the critics decided, because in the preface to the first edition he himself wrote that he once heard such a legend about a left-handed man who shod blakha, so everyone became this talk, then he removed this preface , after all, it was as if the author’s vanity, pride told him that yes, what was necessary, the only thing he did not say in this

preface, but he really still came up with a lot for this story, perhaps there was such a legend among gunsmiths that the russians outdid the british and outdid them. a flea, yes, that is, they made a small flea, and the russian gunsmiths even managed to shoe it, their work was so more jewelry, but he did not say one important thing in the preface, he added in the text one detail that, in principle, changes the structure of the entire narrative, and speaks about his ideology, about leskov’s ideology, few people notice, but this is a very important detail, when lefty in england shows a blah, and the british say: “my god, how did you manage to , but what small nails should be, okay.”