his text there is a wonderful basic, for example, yes, a hagiographical scripture about early christianity, and i didn’t hesitate, i called may kucherskaya, she is a great expert in leskovye, and that means i say, may, tolstoy’s letters have been preserved, in which he praises leskov for this thing , because liskov says that tolstoy praised him in a letter to someone else, he says, i say, this letter has been preserved, maya says, no, there is no such letter, i say, but would he really not... have saved the letter tolstoy, in which the great genius, that is, me, praises him would have kept it, no, probably, such a letter simply did not exist, we don’t know, then i asked may, but he could have lied, she says, he had such a sin, okay, well , liskov is best known, probably, for the story lady magbitam tsensky district, this is an essay, that is, it is emphasized by the author that this novel has a documentary basis, that is, this is a case. which really

happened about a rich woman and a housewife who had an affair with her employee , together they killed the whole family and on the way to prison, to the camp this guy cheated on her the 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, with a cry , so don’t get to anyone, so don’t get to anyone, this cry is actually from lady. liskov is also famous for his story lefty, based on an anecdote that the british forged and steel a blade, our tula craftsmen forged this blade and sent it back to them, well, in general, liskov is rather known for its small form, legends, stories, some kind of documentary , what he had with genres in general, what kind of relationship he had with literary genres, everything is not so simple here, but i think he had serious problems with the large form, because ... he , well, even if we look at

his rather scandalous novel, nowhere or on knives, he can hardly keep the composition , by the way, his contemporaries told him about this, dostoevsky reproached the novel on knives precisely for its incomprehensibility, slurred design, and let’s say, about the enchanted wanderer, many critics said there was no center in it, meaning precisely errors in the composition, but liskov himself said that the rounded plot was funny to him and that’s the center...

to make a good composition, but here you are scolding liskov, well, let’s praise him, he and so little attention is paid to him, i’m now trying to analyze just the reasons why he didn’t write a big book, that is, say, czechs, who was very worried that he couldn’t do a big thing, he didn’t hide it, he said brevity sister of talent, what? yes, it doesn’t mean 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, he recognized chekhov because he was a truthful man, it seems to me that he didn’t know how to lie at all, well, he’s a doctor, a doctor should look at things straight, he tells his patients the truth, you’re dying, and he told himself the truth, you’re dying of itch, but liskov was not such a 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, moved from one to another, swore, 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, a very interesting letter from him, to the publishing house of some warsaw newspaper, where a critical article was published about him, well not camelfo, not camelfo, because he uses the people's language, that's right, it is because of the poverty of the family, although he was a nobleman by birth, but they lived very poor therefore, he lived among the people, that is

, he literally grew up in the same yard with peasant boys, so he knows very well the language of the people, their thinking, and these are actually his main tools for... these are funny things like expectation, expectation, yes , yes, yes, what is this, no, and the funny thing is, i even gave this to my students at the letin institute as an example of very funny word creation, he talks about waterproof raincoats for the british cavalry, well, these are rubberized mackintoshes,

not waterproof, he calls them, he he calls them resin impervious cables, very cool word, it’s very funny, i met it at limonov’s, but we can’t say that these are people.

doesn’t say in this preface, but he really did come up with a lot, but for this story, perhaps there was such a legend among gunsmiths that the russians outdid the british, they actually shoed a flea, yes, that is , they made a small flea, and russian gunsmiths even managed to shoe it, so their work was more jewelry, but he did not say one important thing in the preface, after all, he added one detail in the text that in principle, it changes the structure of the entire narrative, and speaks about its ideology, about ideologiskova. few people notice this, but this is a very important detail: when lefty in england shows a flea and the english say: “my god, how did you do it, yes, what small nails there must be,” okay, a small horseshoe, but the nails are even smaller , then one of the creators of this flea comes up to him and quietly says: this is of course all good,

dear russian master, but she danced with us, but she can’t dance with you, yes, because you upset the balance, yes, the balance strength, you didn’t calculate it, you calculated it incorrectly and engineeringly, and that is, he says: the whole idea was that the blah is dancing, doing different steps, but with you it just stands there, so liskov, taking this legend as a huge compliment to the russian people , he nevertheless adds in his craving for dualism, he does not add that it was necessary to do this, this dualism, this desire on the one hand to praise on the other hand to criticize, in general is his creative method and i am afraid of the methods of his life, and he always strived to express himself mutually...

it illustrates both liskov’s method and his outlook on life. the main character tells how he , um, curbed a wild stallion, which bit the riders’ knees and directly chewed their knees. chezhechki, he says: i jumped on him there , began to rub the dough into his eyes, which looks strange, and he has a pot of dough in his hand, he breaks it on the horse’s forehead, begins to rub the dough at this time the foot whips him in every possible way, yes, which, by the way, is a direct obvious metaphor, he was looking for quite a long time to clearly show the image of the interaction of power of the people, that is , they cover the eyes of the people with dough, at the same time they whip them, the people humble themselves.

of course, i would have sold it, but it wasn’t there, but the englishman, he says, thought that i had such a cunning russian cunning and said: let’s drink rum. they went with him to a tavern, got drunk on rum, when the englishman considered his interlocutor drunk enough, he began to ask him again, what is your secret? the hero, no longer able to speak, because they had drunk a lot, decided to show, he rolled his eyes at the englishman, creaked scary teeth, made an aggressive face. in the absence of a pot of dough, he grabbed this heavy glass of rum and swung

it, the englishman, thinking that his death had come, just ran away, yeah, here we are right here and we see that there are two sides, yes, there is a conflict of interests between them, as it were, but the englishman believes that there is a conflict of interest, and the russian says no, i really don’t know, this fight with a non-existent enemy is, it seems to me, a very accurate way of behavior. from monday on the first. civilizations premiere, film three, islamic world. on thursday, on the first. this is a podcast.

is not a writer of the first rank, since there were great contemporaries, he was lucky, like few authors, he created several household heroes who are cult and remain later, that is , tolstoy has a whole series of them, but there is anna karenina, i don’t know , natasha rostova, fyodor mikhailovich has such characters as radion romanovich raskolnikov, svetrigailov and so on, that is, despite his eccentric work with language, he managed.

just passion, yes such, well, this is good material for art, passion, of course, of course, and they also begin to kill there father-in-law, husband, nephew, in general, blood flowed like a river at the end she also jumped into the volga with her homewrecker, hugging her , everyone of course says, yes, we have the material, everything, but it almost never works out, at least in cinema it doesn’t work out due to incorrect calibration of the degree of convention, because it’s interesting. it is possible to realistically imagine such a story, but it is even impossible, cinema presupposes strictly psychological and

strictly, most often realistic, if this is not an arthouse hard, realistic depiction of a character’s behavior, in liskovoy’s characters do not behave like that at all, this is impossible, that is, in the sense of whether they behave unrealistically or not at all, he makes popular prints, then it turns out that he cannot be a master of psychological portraiture, what the director relies on, maybe he can make an ancient tragedy. and lady macbeth - this is, in principle, quite sophocola schelov repeats, whatever you want, shakespeare, in fact yes, since lady macbeth, although he did not come up with this name, it was an allusion to turgenev’s story. hamlet of the schigrovsky district , that is, here the story was written a little earlier and was famous, and here again he plays in reflected light, which was the nature of schigrov, but his story becomes more famous than of course, they have already forgotten here, they have forgotten here, no one remembers the hamlet of shchegrovsky district, and he just it was a literary game with a name, but for him it was more accurate, and so, if you go to some,

i don’t know, film adaptations or visual staging of his works, then this can only be with a high degree of convention, say, plasticine.

it’s not exactly a folk language, people don’t speak like that, but it was extremely important to him, in some essay from paris he very proudly wrote that i didn’t study the russian language from conversations with st. petersburg merchants. by the way, yes, i paid attention to this, because there is a whole genre of conversation with a taxi driver, yes, it still exists, and existed then, i know people from conversations with cab drivers, but he meant his own people.

studied because the family was quite successful, he could leave the gymnasium because he understood that he would not be lost, he did not have to make his way on his own, his father was a fairly large official, and therefore, in general, he could settle down in life and did so, then yes, he went to kiev as a young man, lived with his uncle, his uncle is a professor at the kiev medical institute, these are generally serious people, very significant in society, and he becomes the head of the office there , that is, it is clear that not without his uncle’s patronage, yeah, then he has no education, but he... it means the chief of staff, as i understand it, it’s like the passport office now, from where, by the way, he flies out with a bang because, uh, he wrote some essay that his colleagues didn’t like, they, well, as they write, kind of set him up to initiate the case about the bribe , i don’t know whether it was a bribe or not, but he lost his place, went to his other relatives, began to live with his aunt’s husband, an englishman, shcott by name, began to work

in his trading house, he was engaged in business, and liskov, about 30 years old at this moment, begins travel all over the country as... obviously a sales agent and here he also collects a lot of material, including a criminal nature, that is, the family played a very big role and i think not always positive, because if he, like maxim gorky, made his way himself, he was among people and came out of people and would have achieved his own success, then this success would have been more justified and would have given him more reasons, reasons to believe in himself, not to be nervous and to do everything normally, but he was very hardworking, he very... yes, glory god, the legacy is very large, he really worked hard, although somewhere i read from him about... when he

wrote it, they bought it from him for 500 rubles. sounds like a lot of money, but he writes: i grinded this out for six months, and 500 rubles for six months is not very much, you get tired of grinding, this word grind also tells us how long, attention, he bothered with all these things of his. so the fact of the matter is that dostoevsky, he made his living from this literature, and maybe that’s why he actually has such voluminous texts, yes, that they paid for the number of words, and liskov has another source of income, he is an official, and accordingly, he treats literature as art, sits, grinds out words, yes, this is just another life situation, well, there were small ones. money, when, in my opinion, he got a job at the ministry of education at the end of his life, and there he determined what books could be printed for public libraries, he had a salary, he

was given 1.00 rubles a year, well, just do the math, he earned 500 rubles in six months for an angel, but here 1.0 rubles is this, this is not much there really was money, and why can we say that liskov gorky gave a second life, that is, liskov could have gotten lost and become some kind of intermediate literature, yes, but he pulled him out...

did not become attached to a specific historical and , moreover, political event that played in in the end, on his posthumous success, he simply described these people, well, you see , it turns out that at the moment, well, when he lived and worked, it turns out that this was his minus, he was not recognized anywhere, because he did not stick to anyone one political camp it was impossible to format it, yes, in the end, after a century it turned out that this was precisely its advantage, i’ll explain now, it... it was impossible not only not even to format it, but, most importantly, it was impossible to use it for specific political purposes, well, yes, and this often raises writers

to the top, then it raised it now, it was the same with gorky, with other writers and so on, so he in no way suited any political party to raise him to the shield to say, lenin said, literature should be party, or party or none, then is it supposed to express the interests of some political group, but liskov... it turns out not, but if we are talking about playing the long game, then he won, because no one remembers what political battles were like at the end of the 19th century, no one remembers even the beginning of the 20th century, and soon everyone will forget the battles of the beginning of the 20th, leskov will remain, leskov will remain, in the long run he won, he tried to make political statements, apparently realizing that he could not keep up with the passage of modernity, yes. the passage floats away somewhere, which means i’m here, and it means that he sometimes spoke out before his death; there he is literally releasing a collection of very critical texts.

in relation to russian reality , that is, he has a story there, “the corral,” where he laughs at those people who propose to isolate themselves from russia, because it has its own special path, ours, here we are on our own, we don’t need no western european states, we are all ourselves, and he ridicules this and gives the example of just this husband, his aunt schcott, for whom he worked as a sales agent, he the story tells about him that either in the sixties or in the seventies shkott, this same one... tried to introduce efficient land use for his peasants, they plowed wooden sugar, and he brought them british plows, what happened next, shkott went to count perovsky, he was lev perovsky, and he was the minister of appanages, as far as i remember, and the minister of internal affairs, he knew him, came to him and said: here is mr. count, we came up with such a thing there, he went to look and says, wonderful, really, everything, i

i forbid sakha, and he... how to say, did not own, but administered all the appanage peasants of russia. the ministry of appanages is the ministry that dealt with the affairs of the romanov family. all the peasants who belonged to the romanovs were called appanage peasants. and perovsky said: “i think, he says, i’ll transfer all the appanage peasants to these british plows.” that is, imagine what kind of budget such a government procurement would have allocated for this thing. yes. perovsky thought it was a good idea. but at this moment, when all this is happening, a certain peasant comes out, as liskov writes, and says:

so, that is, they cannot make so much grain on their plows, but they buy from us, and we make it on plows, so it’s interesting, how do you like the logic, so if he says, we “we’ll sit down with them,” this old man says, where will we buy bread then, pay attention, the corral writes further in his story, pirovsky didn’t find a witty answer, because well, this is brilliant, his zanial and pirovsky when he arrived, and his officials are standing next to him his. yeah, they're listening, they're watching, they're listening to it, look, they brought this joke to st. petersburg, and it spread, everyone began to laugh at count perovsky and then he, realizing that he had become a laughing stock, forbade shcott to introduce british plows. and liskov - telling this story, then gives an even more terrible one, he says: shkot built stone houses for these peasants, they lived in huts where there was no chimney, they walked, walked, they say, our grandfathers did not live in stone, and we won't,

the stone doesn't breathe. yeah, only the tree breathes, of course, yes, they stayed in their tree, and as he writes liskov writes very rudely, harshly, that they used the stone houses to go there before the wind, as outhouses, he says, the village smelled terrible, he is always looking for an object for a critical attack in all the camps, he says: these are your directions, yes, this is wrong with you, this is wrong with you, here they are, the main thing for him is that there is an angle of attack, that’s what the fox needs, that you don’t need to clean your gun with a brick. yes, he’s in lefty, yes, at the end he inserts, yes, that lefty says the british don’t have a gun with a brick clean, he thus accuses the russian ministry, then called the war ministry, the ministry of defense, that they were not prepared for the crimean company, and in 1854, that everything happened like this because of you, and there is count chernyshov, a military the minister is introduced to very negative characters in this sense, who says to remain silent about this, not to tell anyone, but i don’t

know, by the way. to what extent he was technically savvy in engineering or military affairs and knew why we really had a problem with guns, but i, because he also worked for cinema, he himself wrote something about the defense of sevastopol, i know for sure, he either guessed right, or i don’t know, someone told him, the point is not that you can’t clean with bricks, the point is that the british arrived to the crimean peninsula, literally everything, with rifled weapons, they had fittings in which there were rifled weapons, which made it possible to shoot three or four times. further than we shot from a non-rifled gun, we had a smoothbore gun, the bullet flew much closer, because of this, the rifle teams were selected to a distance, uh, that was not russian guns hit, they hit from this distance , they killed the servants of our artillery batteries, that is, the artillerymen could not even respond with shell fire, because they fired much further, in the memoirs of, say, one participant in the sevastopol

defense... i read that one day some midshipman, crying from powerlessness that they were being shot, said, in the stone, guys, they grabbed cobblestones and ran towards the riflemen, the problem with the riflemen was that they had to... reload it from the barrel, the weapon was transmitted back, they were loading it from behind, from there the charged one was transmitted, and that means they were in it, while it was being transmitted, the russian sailors managed to run with stones, with cobblestones to the fittings and killed them with these stones, i read this in the memoirs of a veteran, so he took her away in the mythological and plane, saying that weapons cannot be cleaned with bricks, but in fact the problem was technical, engineering, we did not have rifled weapons, and after the defeat in the sevastopol company. reform began in the army and quite quickly we had modern rifles, but liskov turns out to be strong in legends and tales, well, yes, you can call it that way, he at least always strives for a myth, for some kind of parable, of course he

always enters the parable space, here and there he is the king, absolute, that is, if among our viewers there are people who like unrealistic space, symbolic, full of parables. cool, thank you very much for the conversation, andrey, it was very interesting, it seems to me that we looked a little differently at the classic leskov and his symbolic space, this was a must-read podcast, i’m glaina nabatnikova, my guest was andrei gelasimov, a writer, we talked about nikolai liskov, an underrated classic of russian literature. this is a podcast of mount with fire and i, its host denis gorelov, with a story about the most relevant

series premieres of the season. first of all, we will talk about the series from the guy, because what else, in the year eighty-eight, to which the events of the series are dated, the screenwriter. andrey zlotarev was 6 years old, and director rory kryzhovnikov was nine. and this, perhaps the most important thing you need to know about the series. it was the eighty-eighth year that became the first year of the so-called kazan phenomenon. all the tough events, one might say, fierce events in the style of chicago or brazilian generals, sand quarries, in the capital of the tatars had been taking place by that time for 10 years in a row, but it was in the eighty- eighth year that the first publications in the central press attracted the attention of everyone to them countries, besides, it was precisely in these years that the trips of all kinds of sweatshirts became most relevant to the central cities to exchange old clothes for new and fashionable ones, in fact, kazan became

an all-union phenomenon, in the film, which reached the milestone age of 14 years, the pioneer andryusha, played by leon kemstach, gets into a pumpkin for the first time. thinks about life and decides to take the crooked path of crime and join the nearest supermarket group, his guarantor is his friend morat, played by ruzili minikaev, who was the first to sell andrei, then sold him a second time during his registration, and then became the best a friend and guide to the warm hell of the factions, and along the way both fall in love, one with the violinist aigul. anna peresilt, another in the juvenile affairs inspector ira, performed by anastasia krosovskaya. both girls melt beyond belief. meanwhile , the brother of marat and that same guarantor,

middleweight boxing champion vova adidas, ivan yankovsky, returns from afghanistan from military service and carries out his own coup in the group, crushing it under himself and taking away the supremacy from the former, clearly soiled by agreements... koshcheya, nikitay. the group goes on the warpath, it loses one of its fighters, yarolash, in some street beating, it organizes powerful battles, fights and the like, first dispersing the uninvolved group by patrol, and then reaching out to the real culprits, the haditakt group. the names of the groups are taken from the documentary novel by robert gorayev. the film begins from the moment when the pianist

andryusha is forced, in the absence of an instrument , to play on a piece of cardboard with marked keys; in the end, he finally gets his coveted piano in a prison colony... noletnik, where he accompanies a choir of bunny boys singing the song “hello, gray night, gentle may cereals.” everything has come true for the man. the main character of the picture, without a doubt, is.

this is exactly how such girlish mass interests made the box office of the film bastards, and 30 years before that, the films of the seventy-sixth year are minor, now hardly anyone will remember what it was about, but in the seventy-sixth year they collected 44 million and a half million viewers in the first year of distribution , also , in general, such street gangs, groups tense relationships, albeit adjusted for the seventy-sixth year, not the relationships themselves on the street. to the extent that this could be shown on the screen, very

adequate and bright productions, bang-bang way-khryaz, impeccable work of the performers, very well-chosen uniforms of the blablatnyatsk districts, yurodskaya intends, in particular the most famous for the kazan groups, a fernandelka cap with a visor pompom, it all slightly obscures. the fact that screenwriter zolotarev in general, frankly, is not in the material, to me even in this the column had a chance to praise him for the script for bondarchuk’s films about aliens, the script for the thirteenth clinical series about demons and evil spirits, but then it turns out that, apart from aliens and evil spirits, screenwriter zolotarev knows nothing about anything else, a joint fits on a joint in each episode , especially for people who...

the series, the boy is invited to the cinema by the inspector, the series does not give answers, in addition, in the second that in juvenile affairs, he does not have money in his pocket for the cinema, screenwriters who grew up in the nineties years, it is impossible to get into a stupid head that the most expensive movie ticket in soviet times cost 50 kopecks, and even then in moscow, most likely in kazan, for two tickets he would need 80 kopecks and not find in his pocket... rubles for that, to take a young lady to the cinema,

only a disabled person with loss of orientation could do it, and at the same time, a boy who does not have 80 kopecks. for a movie ticket, but there is a mother who immediately lays out 100 rubles for a finger on a wooden box. 100 rubles in the eighty- eighth year was the usual monthly salary in the city of kazan, in that poor family in which in fact, the boy andrei grew up, most likely a hundred rubles.