this is understandable, because it adds up to smaller amounts, but according to the acting of the actors according to the plots. eh, we are already pulling out quite well and there are a number of projects. again, i will not name which people look with delight, and they are ahead of, uh, some western counterparts. but if we continue the topic, then go to foreign territories with our films and our meanings with our books. as far as this is also necessary and there is and with what, well, it seems to me that there is something i can say, let's say about myself. i don't know now i think less will be published in europe uh, but in fact they are publishing now and the offer is still there and everything is going east very actively. eh, china is there and there is a lot of interest. there is an interest in our culture. in general, it has traditionally been preserved, and you can go there, you have to go. i'm getting

book after book out there in china right now. yeah, but now we're doing box office. if we talk about our cinema, uh, very high, just literally these two months of releases, the collection. but we have good news. uh, the next new year, apparently, will still be, uh, accompanied by exit. uh, a lot of premier and lay down to cook. i think, i think, yes, i think, yes, i say again, i judge by myself by the number of projects in which i am directly or indirectly involved. uh, it was the project price, well, the film project in the television script selling the rights to the book. i see that we are very active here. now here is a spread on their authors and domestic production. and it seems to me that it goes even faster than many. it was thought a year ago

that it was going very fast. and he goes. that's what well, it goes without centralized instructions from above. as they say, we are all used to what it takes to be told from above to quickly develop your computer, there and so on. uh, it turned out that in the movie industry industry. in general, people themselves, without a team, begin to develop and launch projects on this positive note. it's time for us to wrap up the creative industry podcast. how would you like to talk more? yes, we were visiting. uh, science fiction writer sergei lukyanenko dear friends. see you again. today we are gathering our thoughts about

tolstoy and dostoevsky hello dear friends tatyana alexandrovna kasatkina philologist doctor of sciences ivan andreevich isaulov philologist doctor of sciences, i am vladimir legoyda , of course, i managed to talk with you with philologists about tolstoy and dostoevsky, but you know we have such a tradition here in our podcast. we are taking on the impossible, i will tell you that after dan you i am no longer afraid of anything, yes, dear friends. ah. here's what i want to start. there is such a joke, perhaps not very clever, that all people are divided into tolstoy's people and people dostoyevsky yes, you have to love someone alone, but it's like the people of florence venice yes, there is so i will conduct this in parallel here, but in general we have the right to exist. what do you think? well, i love the crown of florence and the coffee of tolstoy and dostoyevsky. yes, it’s clear that for me it’s not all the same, well, as it were in

different ones, but. well, they are generally different. therefore, these are absolutely not mutually exclusive figures, but you understand. this is what it could be, a playful division, that after all, people like to read or, uh, they stick to someone more and don’t not only readers, because writers also get attached. e, we remember the same bunin, who with all his heart is for tolstoy with the liberation of tolstoy and against dostoevsky , that is, there is something in this e. uh, something that can, yes, but uh, i'm rather closer here, of course, that's what tatyana said. i, too, e different strings of the soul, e resonate e on e, yet at different ages e on e, e, then e to tolstoy, then she is dostoevsky, so to speak e such motives and positions. yes ugh. well, you know, i'm here, uh, more

i thought that there is such a stereotype. so let's put it a little bit, let's stretch the first thing we say dostoevsky means orthodoxy. and what, in general? well, how do you automatically love orthodox dostoevsky and so on, yes, yes, that's a very big question. yes, in general, where is the dostoevsky church and so on, but we say tolstoy , meaning a nun, which, in general, is also a big question, because, as it has been said many times, the prices are there when the root of the mortal model forgives anna yes, this is generally one of the most christian scenes, perhaps in the world literature of ivan ilyich and the death of ivan ilyich about a, which we will definitely talk about today, i hope. here's what about these stereotypes, tatya. firstly. e, dostoevsky e does not write about the church, but because he writes about god inside a person. he writes, in fact, about the image of god yes, and uh, he does not divide the space of the world into the sacred profane, and it would be nice if we didn’t share

it in general, that is, for him what happens in the church actually happens in the world. and, as it were, well, this ecumenical liturgy that ends with taking karamazov. it’s as if it was written directly to them, because they didn’t understand for too long, and he decided to say as much as possible, as if in the forehead , that’s all, yes, but that’s all and uh, in any case, with crime and punishment, i’m starting to be very clear, it is always the deepest ecclesiastical scene in crime punishment takes place in a tavern. here are the marmalades, yes, but the future is about the future life, yes, and i’m the last court to speak there, yes, in fact, the situation is tavern. yes, here in the dwelling of e marmalade yes, and there also takes place both confession and communion and e transfiguration e. here is this um, denying and rebellious human mind. yes, in some higher form of forgiveness. that's it. eh, dostoevsky, he is all

built on the same paradoxes on which the gospels are built. so he doesn’t, as it were, he doesn’t provide us with such a flat and even and convenient platform. yes, like they came to the temple and stood there. well, as alyosha says, yes, if if the lord said, take up your cross. follow me, it's not enough for me to give 2 rubles. and walk kobe of the day. here, andrey wants to object or pick up this case. the fact is that for me, dostoevsky , of course, is easter. uh, such a writer's problem is that, for example, uh hmm uh in 1992 . for the first time, nikita posted the messengers of phd to the island, such a letter from archimandate kerrma. uh, ibunina. eh, and there. e. hmm, this is the eighty-second year. e, if i'm not mistaken,

then the third fourth issue and there is just e architect e, declares his love. to whom tolstoy means for what e for him he can be closer to god e, writes e, closer than dostoevsky than, dostoevsky despite excommunication. how does he explain it somehow? he explains it with his love for him. hmm , that's exactly the way to put it, and here is this deeply christian approach. in a sense, even here he, uh, even says that not only as an artist, but also in his such theological searches, tolstoy, uh, is, of course, hot. this is picked up by ivan bunin, of course. he's there, uh, impartially responds. e about dostoevsky, in short, uh, here, of course, there is a problem, but different sides of this

russian orthodox christianity is touched upon by tolstoy dostoevsky as you know, how much i love this comparison, how uh hmm heidegger once said that without the cologne cathedral hmm uh, stone, not uh, didn't quite become a stone in order for a stone to be stone should kenin cathedral, and thick. dostoevsky for our e russian. i would say even the russian orthodox culture after all. uh, at least you're artistically creations. no publicity. it's something, uh, i don't know, something like, maybe , uh. plato aristotle do you agree, yes, a very good comparison with plato and aristotle, because really, as it were. eh, dostoevsky is the whole product, and tolstoy is the whole product. that's it, after all, well, you can’t say that the spirit is there, but it’s high and beautiful, and the soul is not important until you master the soul and the space of the soul and master it. yes, it will not pass to the spirit, of

course, of course, and here tolstoy is talking about this very human coexistence, which they and at some points really lead to the very heights of the spirit. yes, this is the most dostoevsky scene. here is tolstoy root bath. here and this, that is, this is not uh , again, it does not exclude one another, but naturally, something is closer to someone, because someone uh say, that is already burning in spirit. yes , looking for suddenly discovers such thoughts. as dostaevsky follows him, they are ready. here, and someone lives and quite, as it were, uh, well. eh, he lives in this middle world. well, here's marov yes, here's the gospel, it's as if one cannot say that she is not needed. yes, it is very necessary. she and, as it were, without her, maria

cannot exist either. that's because the submarine was sitting among the new christs, someone should take care of life, i wonder, here, but still then. we are talking about their relationship to religion as well. yes, here i have a few questions . the first one is what we have already indirectly reached out to him through the death of ivan ilyich; the theme of death is central, the theme of any religious consciousness. what is death? how to overcome it? what to do with it and so on. here, as he allows, here is tolstoy and worthy. well, uh, as you know. uh, central point. on sunday, tolstoy did not receive. uh, and that was his main problem. we will remember there, let's say, the arzamas horrors, the famous and others, and so on to say this and uh, the same transfiguration uh, which is still connected on earth with the resurrection, was also a big problem from here the opposition, there uh the animal and the spiritual in the same in the same

novel fortunately, dostoevsky did not have this resurrection about tolstoy. e here and e, in this case e, of course they e, well, they diverged at the central point. e. well, uh, uh, i think the most important thing. now i think so, it's still, uh, to distinguish between the ideas of ideology, uh, and uh, heroes and uh the world itself, and here we see, uh, if we are so serious about this in tolstoy and dostoevsky, something close, because in literature, in literature, in literature , russian culture is close to the great time, that close the idea of ​​ideology e does not explain a person, as such? there is a stable expression tolstoy's favorite heroes here he is evgen shkolzova about this in particular natasha rostova why are we for an ideology for an idea? no, we love her, as such, we pity ivan ilyich as

such, and the same of his dostoevsky, even fyodor pavlovich karamasov. he is still a man who understands him the abyss of her we do not like the korsavin word, idiolog. uh, here, uh, he was leaning on ideology. he, too, needs to be loved and pitied, like a marmalade. and this is a deeply christian approach to man. that's what a man is. they are for ideology. still, this is not posture. there is indeed a difference. it seems to me that in the works of death in the works of one and the other. like, well, again, after all, death. eh, well, dostoevsky's death is simply not there. here, despite the fact that he has a lot of deaths. here, and tolstoy, after all, if we we are not talking about the fact that he draws because , yes, here you are, pierre who laughs at all, yes, they wanted to lock me up in me my immortal soul in general suddenly

understands that there are no boundaries. and if you are free, yes, and if you are, uh, you really are this spirit, yes, and who, who can even catch and lock you up, who can restrict you and so on, the same thing again and yes, bathroom death or whose when , well, it seems to everyone that it’s generally already so to speak, meaningless, but a corpse, and he just goes. here's to the greatest ever passing the greatest events of my main life, after all, are that it seems to me that after all, perhaps you will not agree with me that death is necessary already in order for there to be no death. e in the sense that dostoevsky does not depict, say, a dying person from within his dying consciousness, but always a reaction. some others, but not well from the inside. uh, tolstoy dares to portray and show, it's pretty creepy. uh, somehow try to shake it, of course, very strongly,

because a very important thing, that is, other reactions are different or the way you monologue from within the mind of the hero himself. this is not the case, it seems. eh, that's why it also seems to me that udostoevsky never exists. e, there is no hard border between life and death, as there is no between the sacred, yes, that is, it is interesting that yes , because if a person lives this life in the spiritual dimension, then death itself, in fact, does not change anything . here, and all the heroes are pulling him there, but then again, yes, all this has fallen. now let's remember. this is the same person who, uh, says, uh, the most stumbling, at least, if not the deepest words about love. yes , because dostoevsky is always through the lowest. he goes to the highest through the funniest to the great himself. that's when fyodor pavlovich explains that there were no babies for him. and in general, as it were, well, the mere fact that she is a woman. this is already half of everything, and so

on, because he, in fact, speaks of god's infinite love for anyone who wears human experiences. yes, he thought so, he not only thinks, he also feels like that, which is much more serious. that is, he is experiencing this love, which is simple, because here it is, well, yes, a woman, yes, then his love is already directed at her, but the problem was still death. otherwise, how is masha lying on the meeting table, so to speak, masha is lying on the table and immediately begins without transition without without but reflection on how she died. yes , when we meet, why can't we meet here, how will you meet? there , that is, but yes, of course i will see if with masha but this is the starting point here for reflection yes, and for reflection on what he starts again earthly life. yes, that is, it is impossible to love a person on earth as oneself according to the commandment of christ. the law of personality on earth

is the law of personality on earth. i would say link like this. i interfere, yes, and then this argument begins again, which is actually about what needs to be done here in order to be alive there again there are no borders on victory day on the first, so maps documents of officers of the units promoted and sevastopol it is strange that the memory of the bombings was not affected , you know why even nothing is impossible. quiet, quiet, if there is a code, we can start with russian radio play. you know this man, captain of the first rank alexandrov, he is the owner of secret information, who should not get to the germans. clearly the main task of his elimination the saboteur crimea said that this was the last

task. after that, we all want berlin, berlin only inevitably interferes with it, if the russians cannot take the fortress from the outside, then they will try to take it from the inside. i know where the drawings of a virgin man who can help you. dostoevsky today philologists tatyana kosakina dostoevsky who pronounces super known that if someone proved to me that the truth is in them of the sheet, then i

would agree or prefer to remain with the sheet and not with the truth, that is, theological, probably not quite correct, but here is the full force of the statement. it’s impossible to object to this, yes, and tolstoy, who, in my opinion, according to one of the letters they write that christ is who he calls himself, he is god, he is the son of man. well, then here is the translation of the gospel or the so-called? yes where in general sunday? no, where are the miracles? no well, here are miracles, even here we would forgive him miracles. yes, but on sunday there is no and there is such a mahatmaganda, yes, there is konstantin leontiev, who exclaims that the tolstoy organ does not have, which they believe. here was tolstoy's organ, which, of course, he had an organ that believes. this, i think, like the same rso on which everything has tolstoy somehow, yes, he was worn. i think this forging in the image, but from the age of 15. anyway,

and uh, he also believed. eh, finally russian. uh, but there was a problem and a problem lies in the fact that it seems to me that both tolstoy and dostoevsky quite clearly, as it were , polymerized in their time with the ideas of the enlightenment but in different ways. it's polymerized differently in essence, because after all it's a part of the enlightenment . not so to say. eh, so to speak, a piece that contradicts him, so here's the problem. eh, that dostoevsky's polemics - that's what they mentioned. ah, christ is true. eh, there can be no impersonal truth. that's why if because if uh, it's true without uh, uh, they said personally she is a lie, yes she is in fact, which they give out and therefore, oh christ, the real truth, that is, that's the point, but tolstoy

still seems to me, uh, tolstoy still has this moral, just ethical, to say uh hmm aspect in uh gospel. yes, so to speak, he is, in many respects, self-sufficient. well, this is the problem, because religion is not reduced to morality, it is not reduced to morality, but how would lev nikolayevich try to explain through this morality, you need to go to god through, well, yes. well, here, i even tell students all the time, that this here is famous i want to be quite good. here it is not about religion, because religion is not about the fact that i want to be a potato. i want to be immortal. so, i would generally say that this is the statement of dostoevsky. in what sense is it much closer to tolstoy's reasoning than it might seem to us? but in what sense, in what aspect? i think that when dostoevsky speaks, he is not disingenuous in the sense that

, in fact, the true christ is here, and this is some kind of flawed and abstract truth there. he's quite serious he's considering. that's what the apostle paul is talking about. yes, if hmm , if christ has not risen, he will have it several times, yes, and in demons. yes, let's go. yes, he said you will be with me in paradise, but they went and did not find them. yes, they are not god's paradise. that is, if christ has not risen, then we are more unfortunate than all men, and says the apostle paul a. dostoevsky speaks in this situation. even if christ is not resurrected, he is so beautiful. i love him so much that i'd rather stay with him than any truth which is, well, that's the truth, yes , then the truth is that christ and you do not make assumptions, that if he is not resurrected, that's what. it follows that he is this admission- well, because this is about the truth. yes, either or here is the truth that

is proclaimed. yes, what christianity proclaims, or the laws of nature are true, which are not. yes, i think that this is such a reduction that allows us to show this one's infinite love for christ. that is , even if yes, the apostle says, if we are the most unfortunate of all, and he says, even. if not, then i'm with him anyway and i 'm happy to think about it, or it seems to me that this is your interpretation of such a completely obvious uh time. it could be made out, but uh, i 'm sure that here it's this very act of love, that is, he says, i stay with you in any situation. so to say, whether the truth was right or not, here, but tolstoy he does not love christ, because tolstoy draws closer to him. well, i mean, so to speak, the plane that dostoevsky

deliberately lowers, so to speak, cut off. exit yes, that's in the realm of the spirit. let's love christ, he he he he and rousseau also loves. here with the same love. this is what they love about, because he is christ, he competes with christ tolstoy, and he is all the time. well , that is, the higher, so to speak, the point in humanity, the more he competes with her. that's it in the end. i think that's the feeling, the gospel of miracles and things. it. actually, this is what it is. well, he came. i am a tolstoy teacher of life. why do you even need someone else amazing, amazing in this sense sunday, where where is the present uh, the liturgy is a real paska not real? the finale, when humanly reduced pieces of the gospel appear about them, and

now he really is on his way to sundays, otherwise it was not entirely satisfactory for tolstoy, although this is late, of course. tolstoy also needs this, but at the same time, tolstoy. after all, i even remember i have already spoken about this many times, but tolstoy raises such questions, and irresponsible ones, which, uh, our church and, as it were, we, as a community of christians, cannot exist. that is, you can brush it aside so to speak, but then we won't, uh, i mean, we'll stop being christians. that's about the questions of being a person on earth, polls of equality, and the question of their attitude to money, and and in general, the acquisition. yes, these are all questions that , well, they are quite easily solved at a different level, but for dostoevsky they were practically non-existent. but at the level at which tolstoy should put them, they

are necessary for resolving it, it would be too easy to resolve all these questions and get around them. so to speak, going immediately into the realm of the spirit, where it really is all equal and ignore then inequality. and then this is the feeling, yes, which a person creates when he thinks that due to the fact that the other will feel bad, he can be good. we won't decide anything here. yes, we won't go any further. unfortunately, it seems to me that these questions are correct so to say, uh, really. right. he constantly puts, e he not only puts questions, but unfortunately simple often and answers this and his answers, unfortunately, yes, because there are answers, because his answers. eh, they give a lot strongly to the spirits of his time and, for example, when i read, being sick, uh, war and peace. uh, i'm recovering somehow. but when i read his journalism and here is such a saw,

because when we get to the saw with this chip. here comes someone else. well, i wrote. well, everything, after all, well, when when you read, for example, uh, about art or hpiri, how? i say, it's no good or that we should of course learn from christian children to write, they are not with us, er, well, after all. it's uh, i still love leo nikolaevich, but the recommendations are very spirited. uh, jean-jacques rousseau and here, look at the competition. hey, that's also an interesting thing. uh, their relationship to each other. yes, an amazing uh thing, which in our time is badly behaving, probably, it seems to me that contemporaries of that level can imagine, so to speak , they have never met fame and knowledge about each other in their lives. and as far as i understand. once they were together in

a room where vladimir sergeevich solovyov was giving a lecture. and more than that, there was fear, yes , which ugly fear, well, ugly yes ugly fears, but who knew both, but it seems like tolstoy said i don’t want to get acquainted with anyone , i won’t, and fyodor mikhailovich means he didn’t recognize lev nikolaevich, which is also somehow now? yes, and then, uh, i tried, i say, as i was only if i knew that he was there, yes, and then, too, very much. that's how they treated each other, because dostoevsky's dying. tolstoy says. i now realized that closer to this person i was not. after all, they perceived each other's literature very critically of dostoevsky, which reads who how is it that alexandra andreevna and the fat countess gave him a letter to dostoevsky, and he reads it, and what? and the letter? yes, not that he reads and speaks, not that, not that. well, it's not actually literature. they are somehow literature, but she

herself was very, as it were, worried. they say that i was ashamed to give, and such children's here. from the point of view of christian children's writing, in a thinker like this, that is, uh, they were just completely always on different levels, really to them in fact. uh, i think it was very difficult for them to speak. i think soviet in general, it was not very easy to speak, but it remains, those who will get up right tomorrow. i don't know, i didn't say. there are, of course, even more. i would say existential is not a meeting of course. pushkin seraphim of sarov, uh, which is for another program, yes, but here, but here, after all. i would have thought that, uh, lev nikolaevich was quite self-sufficient. i don't know about dostoevsky, but lev nikolaevich uh, hmm, some kind of jealousy, after all. i think, in any case, it was two

teachers who taught different ones and they were already aware of themselves by the time they were in the same room. they were fully aware of themselves already in this capacity in this role, of course, it is very, very sorry that they did not meet. although god knows that it was good. yes? maybe, i think it's most likely, like this , the lord has arranged. that's because uh, well im really. as if there was nothing to talk about the meeting. and here is tolstoy's confession, ah, that there was no person closer than he does not see it here as something like that. well, since the competition is over. he he left and this is, well, generously noble beautiful. here he remembers correctly, he says, counting it. uh, almost a note from the house of the dead is called, so i found something to re-read after the release of the karamazov brothers, in general, after this grandiose one in general.

well, at some point he also read transfiguration, which he re-read. yes, he took the book. yes , he said that notes from the house of the dead. here. well, that is, it's still some. uh, something is not right at that moment, he either did or or did it intentionally i deliberately wrote that at least a visit to optin is a topic for other impressions, directly opposite to both. and this is still quite a central point. e for and yet fat somehow all the time to strive there, anyway , even after everything after the excommunication. yes, but he also strives, as it were, yes. so i wasn't invited. what is it, yes, uh, no matter how they rendered me? yes, i can’t, how to enter myself how to show, you understand, in order to meet, it was necessary to approach it from the point

of view of a student not a student. well, this one first step. yes, there, then it was already possible in the end to start and teach. yes? well, this is the first step to take. and this was a chance. maybe we don't have much time. i know what else i want. and what else i want to talk about, here , returning, uh, to your first potential test, well, at the beginning, which sounded that dostoevsky's spirit is tolstoy and the area, but the soul yes, well, that's it. it is clear in such a trichotomous, so to speak, the structure of the personality of the soul of the body, yes, christian, and i can’t forget how one respected very a and the subtle feeling art of a woman told me why she cannot reread dostoevsky she said he looks into me like that, what i am afraid to look into myself, and it is hard and unpleasant for me, and in general, therefore, i do without fyodor mikhailovich well

there, at best, the village of stepanchikov. here are its inhabitants. well, isn’t it the innocence of the spirit that you won’t go into the spirit, this is an illusion that you can evaporate it, so to speak, and not passing through the body to the soul sequentially. yes, that is, you will not rise. you will have too much. here the fact that you don’t want to look into something, what of you. that’s why it doesn’t go anywhere and doesn’t leave. yes? here is the same. yes, here is the confession, what is it really designed for? she is an informal thing, yes, that, like, she approached the priest there and called something and they let you in for communion. that is, such a, so to speak, formality on the way to communion, here. in principle, confession - this is work with what you want to change in yourself, but it hurts. it always hurts. and so introduce yourself as they say brutal talent. he hurts me. he makes me look into something in myself that

i don't want to look into. in the meantime, i have not illuminated everything at all for the columns of my soul. i do not go to the spirit. don't they look at tolstoy? these are exactly what i wanted to say about this, that both thick and any. i think a great writer is changing something in us, otherwise there is no great writer at all , maybe really about dostoevsky. to it or not, uh, that is problem. in this case, it's not so much in themselves. how much e is in me and e, here one should not only confuse, uh, again rationalistic uh, some such journalistic statements em and real

uh, well, works of art, after all, both tolstoy and dostoevsky, long before freud, substantiated and described the role of the unconscious that's exactly the unconscious specifically wrote about the ancient monks that long dostoevsky did for fifteen hundred years. yes, it's another matter. yes, after all, we are now talking about ready or not. we it the big question is that a person does not change, because through the consciousness of a and dostoevsky, again. yes, very often they say you can know a lot, without consciously, in fact, only when you know something, unconsciously here only then it really acts as a plaintiff, therefore, he has such a retreat strategy of dostaevsky, in contrast. from tolstoy, who will say everything many times and repeat just in case, if , after all, tolstoy writes after the word to chekhov and writes that for some reason the story is then darling, because it is so beautiful, that it was written unconsciously.