true, i worked a little for newspapers in ordinary districts - a newspaper, then a literary-based newspaper, and then i was already from graduate school already passed a literary newspaper, and there for 13 years. this is a whole whole epoch, a whole epoch or the same, too, on the newspaper was a completely wonderful publication and influential and debatable in the relations of other soviet ones, if i were the director or the minister, how was the rubric of this, if the minister were the director was the director, this there were disputes about life, and i worked. in the first notebook or the literary newspaper consisted of two notebooks, 16 pages, the last page was humorous, the first eight pages or pages, and literature, and the second about social problems, i remind you that it was printed to you dear ones. well, you are nice. that's what vzglyad, you may not

agree, you always left some traces that you patented. i don’t know, you revive one word, what is worth , uh, there is no such person in the literary workshop who does not know what, but there is a word you revive and sergeevich came up with it. a probably it's really so yeah e don't claim. yes , i hope. tell me please, but what is at that moment, well, in that era. i mean, already the seventieth, of course, the years to a greater extent, which i also partially caught, what was the book of criticism. it came out in 10 or even 20,000 copies. it is beyond the present moment. yes and here is a book and right away they went differently, who wrote a monographic work about some class or a classic of the 19th century or a classic of the soviet era, i don’t have a person. works about no one

, even both rybkin, although i prepared several of the distant babarykin and other writers of the early 20th century, who, nevertheless, in those years, at first, at first , most of all poetry, i came out with a close-up book. these were portraits of the most interesting poets of the tour, far from all of them. of course, he couldn’t be there, for example, his brodsky naturally was there or could n’t be, heinrich the subwoofer or i don’t know sergei gandley there, that is, authors who found either in exile or in the underground, but were not recognized by the soviet power, but the rest i had there were martynov boris slutskoy yevgeny vinokurov yes , you never know remarkable. by the way, i have a book on and opened very elders, that is, all martynov and orc. and you are the author of the preface. to the legendary book of the eighty-

second year, arseniy of tarkovsky plump gray. well, in general, it must be said that literary criticism, of course, it seems to me from uh, 2020 at that time uh, was very important. that is, they listened to her. she somehow built a literary space. for example writes alamartink in barcelona of tarkovsky that he is in tune with his contemporary and all this is taken for granted. although tarkovsky made his debut in the sixty-second year. first book. he has a not quite debut new book. and at this time he is 55 years old, making his debut together. e with voznesensky yevtushenka and company, so the comparison is later. mm. even later, of course, at the end of the fifties, it began to be published and vtushenko was read, as well. by the way, i left a successful article events. they told me they corresponded about this and listened. well, in general, it is, yes it is yes indeed it was so much more appreciated.

as a matter of fact, three things, firstly, the so-called courage, that is, to say that the other still, for censorship for other editorial reasons, did not dare to say, for example, for the first time i forgave gumilyov , who then loved me very much, naming . he said the same as one old poet said and then it was so fashionable. i remember the collection of the institute of slavic studies of protein studies, where in the note two remarkable authors, vyacheslavovich ivanovna nikolaevich toporov, are both deceased now, uh, gave a new window and another footnote. and there it was. as you say, and as said for nonsense for failures for loss. his dear and for the fact that it could be otherwise for the fact that there is no need for another georgy ivanov mr. in ivanov , you remember the rules by virtue of time.

true, i remember exactly this quatrain, because i saw it then, by the way, and there is one of the main, well, such theses of our mine, but today you know our podcast together, if i just wanted to even at the very beginning say. here you are encouraged to read. but i appeared to the white light. well, somehow he became timid, while still being mastered in literature, when literature was one of the most important things in the country, and this call in this call of yours today would sound strange. yes, it was not necessary to call if you don’t like to go to the stadium to listen to culture, there was literature and football. look, in society there was literature built around this. i even wrote in the preface in one of my books, literature was one of the most important things in the country, and how annoyed i am now, how upset i am with the fact that this is the former, this is it

the device of our culture is gone. well you know were almost gone. we are trying to prevent this, as if culturally speaking. by the way, i am the author of the aphorism. eh, or even proverbs are not for everyone. yes, but e compose a proverb. i composed yevgeny yevtushenko said that a poet in russia is more than a poet and i thought that a poet in russia is no more than a poet. and this describes, unfortunately, the end of an era, er, of the literature of centrism, with which nothing can be done. so, i continue my criticism. here's what else i wanted to say. so i'm bold. well, taste. if of course. this is understandable. and the third very valuable quality of writing is quality. wolf go matter. why, how he himself wrote, how he builds a phrase as a paragraph tool, how he criticizes, this is science or literature. as a matter of fact, yes, that's when this dispute

flared up from the very beginning, took aside those who think that the nickname is literature, of course, i am also for this that physics is literature. the same root as a friend, others, of course, er, pos lyrica and criticism is the same. this is such a statement on the material, uh, read books, and not on the material of the reality of some literature. no, science works absolutely in solidarity in categories. true false. right wrong true or false, but there is no right criticism, no right opinions. yes , it's just that some become well-known, some leave the shchenko editor of the one we have already mentioned. uh, magazine reading library. he wrote about the first volume of dead souls, it's a dirty imperfect terrible work. uh, birdie a hotel arrives, two russian men stand there, and he laughs. what kind of french women or what, but this opinion is difficult to argue, but it has lost reality, so criticism is not science,

of course, it's scary. i worked for a corrupt organization. i did not follow the rules of the road, despised people, i cheated on my husband, including with his friend. almost a year. i've been drinking alcohol since. once i ran over a dog, by accident. okay, not by accident. it was a hard day something else. well , now let's go back to our conversation with the editor-in-chief of the znamya magazine, literary critic sergei ivanovich chuprinin, here i am i will always remember your book. if i'm not mistaken, the eighty-sixth year, i didn't find

it on my shelf quickly before leaving here . criticism is criticism. a or eighty- eight, maybe 88, probably, right? this is your book, she, for the first time, turned her gaze to explore already now. yes, not about a bunny for criticism. what heroes were there, how they fought and competed with each other then it was, and they wrote well , very different. for writers, it is very important to write well. well, yes, there are few writers interesting to me to write delta in such a way that it would still be read interesting steel. yes, indeed , i am firmly convinced that the criticism of this criticism and that's just about it was really. i just know, the first is the only very first then , not so long ago, about five years ago , i moved her with the addition of essays.

it does not even consist of an article, it consists of essays about figures, but figures, yes, but key figures from mark sedlov, whom you already mentioned, to completely new people who appeared. at least, a reprint in the nineties at the beginning of the 2000s. more that i discovered. eh, the book, well, chestnut, it's not the earliest, it's wonderful. this is the library of aganiokaevism. true, the ninetieth year, the thirty-seventh number , here, i read one paragraph of a book called the situation. this is a book, despite its modest size. here is a paragraph of theirs in quotation marks conservatives are. for example, the burial of our open information society seems to upset us. even the current glasnost, which is a sin to hide, is far from freedom of speech in one single country, and so more up to the free exchange of information on an international scale. well, you know your style is recognized, well, as if it was written not even yesterday, but just today, that is, nothing

has changed. take a look at the output at the output. what circulation, yes, say, yes, i predict that you are before 50 thousand, my god, 150.000 150.000. it diverged. here in this booklet, the situation was interesting, not always the case. so now it’s not sergei ivanovich’s speech. in general , we will return to criticism of this. and now the same thing that u me prepared for you today. and this poem by boris pasternak is a thunderstorm, instant for a century, pretending to be a simple analysis, i will say two things, but firstly, i will still read this poem from a book close to your heart, because this is a respectable poet's library. uh series second edition of her blue color, this book came out in 65 check myself. yes, it was in the sixty-fifth year, and most importantly, that its

compilers and the author of the article e hmm and andrey of austria's accrual data is an absolutely classic such publication. why close? to your heart, you, our dear interlocutors , you know from the second part of our program. although they accepted it, he said that he was a child. thaw yes, this says a lot. well , the second thing i pretend. ah, my simple analysis. uh, that's what uh, here hmm everything is complicated and this poem can be said. so it will be a prosy mercury - this is lilac at this time, he, having picked up an armful of fields with traffic for these idly thinking, as if simply, that is, the sentence flows from one line to another, they can