Self-sufficient American genius. Probably, for the first time in the history of this religious meeting, the President of the Russian Federation was present without fail, which in a sense explains the increased security measures during the church event.

Echo of Moscow 09.12.2011

For a year now, the play “The Killer” has been playing as a premiere on the stage of the Moscow Theater for Young Spectators, which has rightfully become an event of the last theatrical season, something that must be seen, because otherwise you will miss a breakthrough exercise on the youth theme.

The Murderer is the fourth performance shown at MTYUZ as part of an acquaintance with the work of young theater directors. In past years, every autumn a new performance appeared from a kind of cycle of directorial debuts. All of them turned out to be extremely successful. But the "Killer" at MTYUZ is an unusual and special phenomenon in this fairly representative series of successful premieres.

A play is played for four characters (five performers) in the "White Room", where from time to time there are performances that require special spectator concentration, experimental, staged by young directors.

At MTYuZ, the performances of young directors were not just shown several times, as in Sovremennik, but included in the repertoire, since they turned out to be an accomplished theatrical result.

But even at a fairly high level of work with a dramatic text, the performance staged by Dmitry Egorov based on the play by A. Molchanov is perfect in its simplicity and clarity.

It is natural that a few months after the premiere of "The Killer" at the end of last year, the performance was named the best according to the jury of the "Triumph" award in the youth nomination. First of all, because the performance's merits are obvious from the first phrases of the protagonist's monologue to the final monologues and dialogues.

Having lost a large sum to a local cheater, the young man is forced to go to another city in order to take money from another debtor of the same gambler and bring them as compensation for his debt. Or, in extreme cases, to kill the indebted provincial. To follow him, and for some other reason, a girl is sent with him, a local nymphet in the field of love. On the way, young people stop by the debtor's mother, meet with the one from whom he must take money or kill in their absence. That is, the plot, unfortunately, is ordinary and quite real.

Four characters alternately appear in a small room with white walls - separately or together: a gambler, his young debtor, a girl and the debtor's mother. Of the scenery, only the skeletons of metal beds (artist Themistocles Atmadzas). Banal metal structures in the course of action are either a modest interior of a dorm room, or an almost family bed in the house of the debtor's mother, or something else, up to a hint of a prison cell.

The young man is a student. He clearly does not want to go anywhere and kill anyone (a hint at the hero of Dostoevsky's famous novel). He is trying to find strength and salvation in faith (a reference to the search for God by Leo Tolstoy). But a sharpie, like fate in an ancient Greek tragedy, is cruel and inexorable.

And therefore the hero experiences almost Hamletian suffering - to be or not to be? At the same time, not in the philosophical, but in the most everyday, direct meaning of the word. Gradually, from high, his thoughts roll down to low - to be or not to be? - turn into - to kill or not to kill? The potential killer, in the course of the action, thinks about whether he could kill another, what it is to kill another, how to kill and how to live with it, and how much he will be given for the murder if he is caught. And that he will definitely be caught and convicted, he does not doubt at all.

Somewhere in the depths of his soul, his consciousness, there is growing resistance to the need to kill someone else, and because it is obvious that he himself in another city, among people he does not know, can easily be killed. What would have happened if it were not for an unexpected turn of events and a trick in behavior based on a small but tenacious worldly experience of a young man and the recklessness of a girl who was sent with him, as it turned out, to happiness and salvation.

It turns out that there is not only a story of travel - both real and mental. And also the story of the birth of love.

The girl who went with the student was nice to him, but obeyed the cheater, and here the circumstances were such that they had to impersonate the bride and groom (with the student’s mother) and become companions in misfortune, since the rapidly changing introductory forced them to act decisively and quickly.

In fact, in this play, each of her characters is a killer, so her name can be correlated not only with a student, but also with his mother, as well as a girl and a sharpie.

This is also a romantic gambler who constantly takes risks and turned himself into a hostage of the game. This is the student's mother, a shop assistant in their native village, who saves money and does not see any rest either in work or in life. This is also a girl who dreams of real feelings, but so far turns out to be public and therefore almost no longer a person, but something like a thing, furniture. And, of course, the killer is the student himself, who lost to the nines, although he understood who he was playing with. But like Hermann from Pushkin's The Queen of Spades (another allusion to the school curriculum in literature), he did not begin to figure out the secrets of the card game, but entered it as a beginner and stopped shocked when the amount of debt became critical for him, unbearably large (In fact, it is not so great by today's standards, but for a guy from the provinces who lives in a hostel and can only rely on himself, it turns out to be prohibitive).

The actors in The Killer speak their lines like monologues, here internal monologues, not intended for others, become part of the dialogues. Everything rests on the exactly found word, on the incredible looseness of the acting and the jewelry in detail and the alignment of the whole directing.

Before us is not just a dramatic performance in the literal sense of the word, but also a kind of oratorio on modern topics with nervous, harsh rhythms, with a premonition of a terrible denouement and expectation of harmony, with horror and hope at the same time.

Tickets for performances in the White Room are sold for less than fifty seats, and there are two sound engineers in the last row next to me. Precisely due to the fact that this is a small room, a hall with two high windows overlooking a quiet Moscow lane, an amazing atmosphere of involvement in what is seen in front of the rows of spectators is created. She, this atmosphere, is so exciting that it is unthinkable to miss a word, no intonation, no gesture. It is necessary to follow the action as it is shown here and now - in a harmonious chorus of roles-parties, sounding in tragic unison. Which is especially important in this case, since the replica of each of the characters has not one and not only a direct meaning, but also a subtext, with nuances and overtones. Each remark is always with doubt, with a question, even if something is affirmed in a monologue or in a dialogue with another.

And the essence of what is shown is not only about money, as each of the characters in The Killer found out, which for each of the characters became a turning point in life in its own way. While optimistically resolved by chance and luck. But only for now. On the day when, by coincidence, I managed to watch The Killer (the performance is not so often, and the hall can completely buy a school class or organization), high school students with their teacher were sitting downstairs in front of me. There was only one young man among them, and next to him were six or eight girls.

The teacher sat through the whole performance with a straight back, looking tensely from her top row down to where a seemingly banal story unfolded - tragedy and mystery at the same time. Probably, looking at the artists, she was constantly thinking about what and how to say to her students after the end of the performance. And when the performance ended, she abruptly, as if on cue, got up from her seat and began to applaud too loudly. The whole audience supported her, and the well-deserved applause that day sounded in the “White Room” of the Moscow Youth Theater for a long time.

The high school students behaved inconspicuously and quite well-mannered. And only when, quite simply, without embellishment, but with tact, the student and the girl began to discuss how they should have sex, the girls on the bottom row somehow became quiet in a special way, squeezed into their seats and giggled a little, making it clear that they not scary, not new, everything shown in front of them, but just curious.

After the end of the performance, the teacher and the students discussed what they saw, so to speak, in hot pursuit. She mostly spoke, the girls politely agreed, and the young man, apparently from a different circle than the heroes of the play, was silent with a thoughtful expression on his face.

Be that as it may, the "Killer" at MTYuZ makes a strong and holistic impression. The fact that the performance is seen by a counted number of spectators every month is sincerely regrettable. Obviously, with a great psychological load, it is difficult and difficult to play such a text. Therefore, with a more frequent performance of The Killer, that ephemeral and organic can leave it, which makes it a phenomenon, a phenomenon of the capital's theatrical life.

Undoubtedly, it is vital for as many viewers as possible to watch this theatrical, tragic farcical story about life and death. With its authenticity and vitality, it will touch anyone to the quick. In its own way, of course, but it will definitely hook you, because here everything is like in life. But still - a little more optimistic.

It is impossible to play it on the main stage or carry it around the assembly halls of schools, since the very compactness of the White Hall is here not just a background or entourage, but a playing condition, the most acceptable and genuine scene of action. When passions and experiences unfold in the immediate vicinity of the viewer and the very effect of incredible complicity with what is being played is achieved. And this is priceless in terms of the strength of the impact on the viewer.

There is probably only one way out. To record the “Killer” on camera from the middle of the top row and show it not only on the Kultura TV channel, which in itself would be nice, but on large city screens, like the Country Duty program with the participation of Zhvanetsky and Maksimov on the TV channel “ Russia 1".

Or as an ordinary movie, which, probably, could have been a commercial success. Because everything here is the absolute truth. And because this story needs to be seen with their own eyes - almost everyone.

about the author | Abel Ilya Viktorovich - philologist, graduated from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, published in the journals "Literary Review", "Friendship of Peoples", "Theater", "Children's Literature", the newspaper "Culture", the almanac "Parallels", in "Academic Notebooks". Lives in Moscow.

It so happened that one of the last poems that Joseph Brodsky prepared for publication was this - “Clowns are destroying the circus. Elephants fled to India…”. It, as part of the collection “Screams of Dublin Seagulls! The End of Grammar”, was intended by the author for the “New World”, and transmitted, as follows from the editorial commentary, a few days before the death of the poet. And all this was published four months later, in the month of the poet's birth - as a verbal monument to his life and his work.

Strictly speaking, the content of the named poem is indicated by its first line. Indeed, it describes quite concretely and outwardly artlessly how the building of the circus is being destroyed, and the circus, as a kind of entertainment reality, as a memory of childhood, about something touching and distant already, moreover, irretrievable both due to age and because of the severity of the human experience associated with the experience. But in poetry, the content, as a rule, is quite significant than what was said, especially if we mean a poet of such a scale as Brodsky was for the twentieth century.

We will return to the lines of Brodsky's last poem later, but for now we will say a few words about what preceded it, in other words, we will make a short digression into the “circus remarks” in the fate of Brodsky.

It is known that when he was convicted (and the trial of his guilt itself looked like a custom-made farce, like a circus performance with clearly defined roles and remarks rehearsed by someone), the brilliant Anna Akhmatova said something along the lines of an amazing fate, an extraordinary biography the authorities do to the young man. And she called him not by name, but by a characteristic sign - red. And here we can and should talk not only about a household sign - hair color (which can be learned from Brodsky's self-portrait), but about such a significant detail that only an attentive, sensitive person could notice. The question is not whether Anna Akhmatova loved or not, whether or not Anna Akhmatova knew the Russian circus, but it is quite obvious that she simply could not, living in Russia, not know about the masks of the White and Red clowns, which in this case she had in mind. In Z. Gurevich's book “On the genres of the Soviet circus” (M., Art, 1984) there are interesting reflections of the author on this subject in the chapter devoted to clownery. But even without suspecting the professional aspects of the above-named clown duet, it is not difficult to recall something from childhood impressions in order to understand that what happened to Brodsky - the condemnation of a talented poet for parasitism for five years - very much resembled a clown reprise, where he, in some sense (without belittling his courage and what he had done over three decades after that), acted in a mask, in the role of a circus Red, while the accusation was in the mask of the White Clown, however, with a reference to Soviet ideology and political overtones of the process. Joseph Brodsky was ironic when he sometimes spoke about his work. Undoubtedly, he had a sufficient reserve of optimism, having experienced so many all sorts of ordeals and betrayals during one life. Inevitably, he had a good sense of humor too, so that in that case his comparison with Ginger should not seem either forced or offensive. At the trial, he sincerely and honestly proved his case, but they did not listen to him, did not want to hear. To public opinion, he seemed to be a troublemaker, someone who does everything differently than is customary, as taught, as it should, so as not to seem ridiculous and alien. It is obvious that during the trial and after it, before his release, the poet was clearly not laughing, but recalling those events of his tragic and happy life, he spoke about them with a smile, as about something that could never happen again.

It cannot be said that Brodsky was a connoisseur and lover of the circus, although it is obvious that once he at least once had to be at the performance of the Leningrad circus, which had a legendary history from the beginning of the nineteenth century, which Brodsky could not help but know, being a Petersburger by birth and vocation. And in adulthood, living after being expelled from the USSR either in Europe or in America, he hardly ever visited a local circus performance. It is no coincidence that the circus theme entered the high note of his poetry so naturally and authentically.

On the day of his fortieth birthday, May 24, 1980, he writes one of his most famous poems, which is called “I entered the cage instead of a wild beast” by the first line. It contains a brief biography of a person who faced rather difficult trials. But then again - the cage, which is mentioned at the very beginning of the poem - is probably not only a hint of a fence in the courtroom, a psychiatric hospital and a prison, but also a memory of the film "Circus", which was released on the screen four years before the birth of Brodsky , but which, no doubt, he could see, look to understand what art is and what propaganda is. In that film there is a hilariously funny episode at first glance: an unlucky lover who came to the circus on a date finds himself in a cage when a tiger is about to enter the circus arena. And this man from the crowd fights off the tiger with a bunch of simple flowers, which is funny to tears - scary, because an idealist can oppose flowers to animal power, as in thirty years, in the sixties, hippies will do, protesting against war and all kinds of violence with flowers.

In some ways, the poet was similar to this unlucky hero of the musical comedy Grigory Alexandrov. And on Don Quixote, however, both the cage and the predators were not fictional, but natural. And it took enough courage not to succumb to their pressure, to remain a decent and unbroken person even in a cage.

At forty-seven years old, the poet won the Nobel Prize for achievements in literature. He went on stage to receive his award not to the Soviet anthem, which would be strange for him, not to the American anthem, although he was a US citizen, but to Haydn's favorite music, which in some way is similar to musical eccentricity, since, it seems, there was nothing like it before - usually national anthems are played on such occasions, not classical music.

And now let's return to the poem, which has become in every sense the final in the work of Joseph Brodsky. Most likely, its action takes place in a big top circus, since it is difficult to destroy a stationary circus even with sledgehammers. And here it is precisely that they break to the ground, which in some way is a paraphrase of the “Internationale”, the party anthem of the country that drove him out of its borders. But here we are talking about the fact that the circus is only destroyed, and nothing appears in its place, since this is precisely the end of the comedy. And here again there is a cinematic coincidence. This refers to "Orchestra Rehearsal" - a brilliant film by Fellini, which tells how the building is being destroyed from the inside - in the relationship of musicians among themselves and the orchestra with the conductor. True, there are no longer sledgehammers, but a huge ball attached to a crane boom. His monotonous blows to the wall eventually break it, which leads to tragedy, to a violation of harmony. Brodsky's work is still more harsh, although outwardly it is almost reportage-like. Clowns, those who are the soul of the circus, those without whom the traditional circus performance is indispensable, break what is their destiny, their life, prosaically speaking, the place of work, that which gave time and effort, for which there were sacrifices and disorder . This means that something system-forming has been violated, something has been erased from memory, remaining expensive and necessary. The purposeful efforts of the clowns are an unplanned, somewhat logical finale of the performance, what imitates the parade alley, and what has become a funeral.

Fourteen lines of this masterpiece show that Brodsky had an idea of what a circus is and what are its main genres. It talks about clowning, training - tigers, elephants, horses, a dog, an illusion number. All this just disappears into oblivion, like the circus building itself. What is the italicized phrase about the disappointed illusionist, from whom the tailcoat dangling on the trapezoid under the dome, a metaphor, a part instead of a whole, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat in the adventures of the girl Alice, is left. But who is the poet referring to? Perhaps Igor Keogh or David Copperfield, whom he could see at different times, and perhaps himself, since it happens that poetry, as a form of creativity and a way of understanding life, is disappointing. After all, the title poem of the collection (Novy Mir, No. 5, 1996) says that at some point you need to “start your monologue anew - from a pure inhuman note.” And this is not about a crisis of creativity, but about a premonition of the outcome, that the prophecy should come true, because the poet wrote that a century would end later than he passed away. And, like other prophecies, this one was destined to come true so sadly.

A few words should be said about the last lines of this sad and at the same time optimistic poem, since it is not only about death, but about the fact that something still remains, even if it is the ruins of a circus, in this case an analogue of an empire, Rome or something something like that, which the poet was not indifferent to, since he lived in Russia, but felt like a citizen of the Roman Empire with its passions and the triumph of strength and classics. This is how this amazing and instructive story ends:

Only well-trained lapdog

yapping continuously, feeling that it is approaching

to sugar: what's about to happen

one thousand nine hundred ninety-five.

Considering that this poem is dated the same year and it was the last full year in the life of Joseph Brodsky, then we can sadly say that the circus dog was not mistaken. It is clear that although she does not understand anything in the chronology and she was simply taught to open and show exactly these numbers, we have before us not just a coincidence, but a farewell gesture. (By the way, the very image of a circus dog is also interesting: in different years, Brodsky, as a sign, introduces dogs and dogs into his poems, which, by their presence in the events he describes, give his poetry a certain authenticity and concreteness. However, to himself, jokingly, the poet sometimes he spoke like a dog that remembers some tricks, and even, confirming his own hilarious comparison, he once took a picture with his hands outstretched, like a dog's paws, when it turns up in a stance.) Of course, this is not a literal reading either, and in showing a sad situation is not as tragic as it could be. For example, in a poem dedicated to his daughter, the poet compares himself with a closet in her room, which is both a reference to Chekhov with his "Cherry Orchard" and talk about the closet, and an attempt to talk about his absence - later - in the life of a dear and desired person with courage and therefore - with a smile. Leonid Yengibarov, who would have turned seventy last year, also left the arena into the void, is also a contemporary of Brodsky, a unique clown, a poet by vocation and skill to be himself. So Brodsky arranged farewell in this poem in a circus way: everyday, simply, without unnecessary emotions and tears, because the circus is not a melodrama, but hard, wear and tear work, where experience does not matter, but only the ability to be in demand or need to retire. And such a real artist, a real poet can hardly survive. About this and Brodsky's poem “Clowns destroy the circus. Elephants fled to India…”, because in the event itself, with all its drama, there is something truly circus, the opportunity to play even in a sad situation, the opportunity to leave beautifully and spectacularly, without blaming anyone and not considering others obliged to do something for you himself. Brodsky once wrote that a truly strong person sees only his own miscalculations in his failures and he himself is looking for a way out of the impasse. Joseph Brodsky was a strong man both in his poetry and in life. And he said goodbye beautifully, delicately and touchingly, because he achieved a lot in his skill and realized that he would soon have to completely leave - from creativity and from life. So, most likely, this amazing poem about the circus, about parting with everything that is expensive, about what never ends, arose.

The book by Kenneth Slavenski (J.D. SALINGER: A LIFE RAISED HICH), a conscientious researcher of the work of Jerome David Salinger in the original version was published in 2010. In Russian, in an excellent translation, its text was published several years later by Kenneth Slavensky. J. D. Salinger. Man walking through rye. Transl. from English. A. Doroshevich, D. Karelsky. - St. Petersburg: Azbuka, Azbuka-Atticus, 2014. (ABC-classic, Non-fiction).

Five hundred pages of impossibly small font are read with constant interest, because the book is informative, fascinating and reliable.

Obviously, this is not the first, and probably not the last, biography of the classic of American, world literature.

However, she has, as can be seen already from the author's introduction to it, that the approach of Kenneth Slavensky is obviously different from what biographers, interviewers and reporters of newspapers and magazines in the New World, as well as in the Old World, most often wrote about Salinger. .

Secondly, the book is a set of verified, documented (by Salinger, editors, lawyers who collaborated with him for decades - correspondence with the writer, testimonies about him without scandal and cheap sensationalism.)

Thirdly, Slavensky wrote not just a biography, but a literary biography, showing how the real circumstances of the life of a writer named Salinger continued, developed, manifested themselves in his stories, novellas and novel The Catcher in the Rye.

That is, before us is an honestly and carefully executed work about Jerome Salinger, written with reverence, responsibly and kindly. It should be noted that in the book there is no idealization of the writer's personality, no uncritical, purely admiring perception of his works.

This is an honest and smart book, in its essence - a purely American, where the main thing is outwardly given only to facts and facts, but in the subtext, respect for the personality and books of Salinger is obvious.

Kenneth Slavensky calmly, almost epic, to the extent of the volume of his biography, describes the author of books that influenced the fate of different people, describes the vicissitudes of his not too happy life, except for literary pursuits. In the whole description there is so, measure, there are no extremes in the story of some eccentricity when viewed from the side in the behavior of the legendary author.

The book is a wonderful, worthy story about how he was from birth to death - a genius who merged with the word before dissolving in it and subordinating himself to the word without a trace.

When information about Salinger's death in 1991 came out in early 2010, it surprised me how he was still with us all this time. It seemed that the writer had not been among the living for a long time, which was also due to his conscious seclusion, the fact that for decades he did not release new works, practically closing his communication with the world, finding joy alone in his own house in the Cornish, in the American outback .

His father, a native of the Russian Empire, made a financially brilliant career in America selling non-kosher products - ham. He tried to get away from the faith and traditions of his parents, so it is quite difficult to talk about the religion of Salinger the son in the first decades of his life. Unlike the second half of his earthly existence, when he became a zealous neophyte of Zen Buddhism, which irrevocably influenced his everyday life, his work.

Author Ilya Abel

Slavensky describes the not-too-remarkable years of the writer’s studies at a military school, a business trip to Europe to slaughterhouses, a meeting with a Jewish family in which he then lodged (after the end of the war, Salinger specially went to Vienna to find that family, but could not do it - all its members, like other Jews in the city, in the country, in Europe, died in a concentration camp.) The Jewish theme, one way or another, at an early stage of his literary career, was reflected in the stories of Salinger, who during the years of his studies experienced some discomfort due to an impartial attitude others to his origin, which for him, a sensitive, reserved and somewhat autistic person, was an additional and obviously unpleasant test.

It's also about how he started writing for the magazine during his university years at the acting and writing workshop. The relationship with Professor Burnett continued in one form or another over the years, going through periods of acceptance and dislike. Be that as it may, it was Burnett who truly discovered Salinger's talent and published his first works. From which it does not follow that he printed everything that a young and arrogant writer by nature sent him. Often the stories came back or were simply not printed at all. But even then, when Salinger became world famous, Burnett more than once suggested that he send something for publication. But the further, the more clearly the writer answered such appeals with a refusal.

The leitmotif throughout the biography, written by a true connoisseur and connoisseur of his work as a writer, is the theme of Salinger's amazing relationship with his mother. She unconditionally loved her son, the second child in the family after her daughter Doris, believed in his success, in his talent, always supported her pet in his search for himself, defended her son's position in front of her husband, who did not accept her son's classes, did not understand them for various reasons.

The writer's personal life did not develop either. The further, the more.

Following Una O'Neill, the daughter of a famous playwright, he went to Hollywood, dreaming of improving his financial situation in order to meet the needs of a girl accustomed to a different standard of living than Salinger was familiar with. Despite the fact that his father’s business was getting better and better, the family lived in an expensive apartment in an elite quarter of New York, which still did not give the writer a complete sense of freedom, since it was more important for him to rely on himself, proving to his relatives and himself that his literary pursuits are not a whim, but a confession. (Then he began to perceive them already as a service to the Almighty, as a merger with the highest to the point of prophecy and self-denial.)

In two ways, his collaboration with Hollywood was a devastating failure. According to one of his stories, supplementing it with sugary dialogues and simplifying the intrigue, they made a film that caused Salinger heartache. After his novel "The Catcher in the Rye" received full and widespread recognition both in the USA and in Europe, the producers offered to make a film based on the book, receiving another refusal. The writer did not accept the proposal of the great Laurence Olivier to make a radio play based on his prose, because he no longer wanted any fame, that is, what was around books. He was only interested in the texts themselves. And he literally harassed editors and publishing houses, forbidding his photograph to be printed on book covers, strictly, until the break in relations and litigation, he made sure that the editions of his works in composition, in presentation - right down to the color and font on the cover - corresponded to what he seems right. But that was later, while visiting Hollywood, Salinger also experienced a personal drama that left a mark on his soul for a long time, perhaps forever.

The one he loved sincerely and strongly, Una O'Neill, unexpectedly for him, like for many, was carried away by Charlie Chaplin, married him, gave birth to children in marriage with him, having lived for decades in love and harmony.

After breaking up with Una, Salinger had casual meetings with girls, three post-war marriages - a short first, a long second with the birth of a son and daughter, and the final third, unexpected for outsiders, but so understandable to those who accepted the writer as he was - an introvert, a recluse, in some ways an eccentric and out of this world, a classic, vulnerable, somewhat naive and straightforward person.

He was destined to survive after months of fierce fighting in France and Germany at the opening of the Second Front at the end of World War II. Participation in hostilities, of course, also left an imprint in his mind, which was expressed not only in the fact that later his stories about the everyday life of the war appeared, unpatriotic, devoid of propaganda agitation, tough and truthful, like the memory of those with whom he served and who died before his eyes, who fought with the Nazis in incredible conditions, both weather and purely tactical.

After the war, he did not return to literary work, because even in a tent between hostilities, he typed stories on his favorite typewriter, in order to send them to America later. Salinger continued what he had done before the war. But it was no longer a boy who dreamed of fame and fortune for their own sake. He increasingly visibly treated writing as a service, as evidenced by the novel The Catcher in the Rye.

Kenneth Slavensky describes how, after the writer's death, videos from readers of the novel began to appear on the Internet, whose characters spoke about how much Holden Caulfield meant to them. And this revealed the pure truth of the interaction of literature on readers, their response to what they read.

Then Salinger conceived a saga about the Glass family. And in his own way he ended it with "Hapworth's Sixteenth Day 1924", after which he fell silent until the last days of his earthly existence.

He cared about everything connected with his works. Then, when books and articles began to appear in which his letters were quoted, the writer asked the confidants to destroy them, which was done. He carefully guarded the private life of the family, shunned any publicity, considering it an unnecessary waste of time and effort. He was getting closer to loneliness, independent removal from everything except the bunker, an extension in the house, where he was engaged exclusively in literary affairs.

The more noticeably Salinger eschewed communication with the outside world, the more persistently, defiantly, cynically and cheekily journalists tried to find out at least something about him for the sake of publications in newspapers and magazines, which caused irreparable psychological damage to the writer.

There was even a book that continued, as it were, his great novel. He had to prove in court that the image of the protagonist of "The Catcher in the Rye" is an object of copyright, and therefore cannot be used by someone else without the permission of the writer. It is clear that no one received such permission, except for the New Yorker magazine, with which Salinger had an agreement for the first presentation of his writings, and several publishers in the USA and Great Britain. And for all that, with the magazine and publishing houses, he often came to a conflict if it seemed to him that his prose was not being published in the way that seemed to him the most acceptable way (it must be said that with the growth of Salinger's popularity, publications of his stories and novels often appeared, as well as the novel, not in the form he wanted.Behind such a pedantic attitude towards the way the writer’s texts came to the reader lies not the mannerisms of the famous author, but precisely the reverence for the written word, the way it should be reproduced in books and in magazines publications).

Summing up, we can unequivocally say that in literary terms Salinger turned out to be, without a doubt, a happy person, since he was destined to experience well-deserved fame, to see his texts printed and in demand by readers.

While it cannot be said, on the other hand, that Salinger was lucky outside of his literary pursuits and writings.

In the end, the loneliness to which he doomed himself of his own free will was perceived both as a strangeness and as an anomaly of behavior, which it probably was in reality.

But following the intonation of Kenneth Slavinski's biographical narrative, one should not judge the other according to the laws of the majority. Salinger lived for almost a century, almost the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, in accordance with the internal setting, with devotion to his vocation, with a sense of the mission entrusted to him from above, which requires renunciation of the vain and external, whether it be well-being and financial viability. He became more and more confident in the correctness of his chosen attitude to literature in its personal embodiment, consistently developing the position of the non-commercial existence of books in society (although he did not refuse to republish the works he wrote, but absolutely in order to have the opportunity to devote himself only to writing and support family, to create decent living conditions for its members.)

It is clear that contact with the biography of a person of such a warehouse as Jerome David Salinger may seem exceptional due to the dissimilarity of his fate to what we know about American writers of at least the last century (at the same time, some points of contact with the lives of other writers in there are biography of Salinger, which, for example, are worth his ambiguous friendly attachment to Hemingway). However, in all circumstances, everywhere and always, Salinger remained only himself, a lonely and self-sufficient person by vocation, who wrote as he saw fit and nothing else, made compromises difficultly, if at all, for the sake of publishing his works, lived in in the context of what he established for himself, to which he subordinated time, strength, will, to which he devoted decades of a worthy literary presence in the culture of the USA and Europe, at least what was his joy, cross, test, faith and merit.

It was about all this remarkably, without embellishment and exaggeration, that the American researcher of his work, Kenneth Slavinsky, spoke in an absolutely magnificent book in all respects, “J. D. Salinger. A man walking through the rye." Undoubtedly, by its merits, it can be considered as an example of a literary biography of Salinger specifically, as well as works of such a genre that has always been in demand now, now, already in other historical realities, the possibilities of obtaining material and working with it.

The first channel, Rossiya, NTV, observing certain limits of what is acceptable, most often declared by the presenters, work on the verge of the norm or already beyond.

This is not a rhetorical question, and not a slogan, but a program of our television, if we talk about prime-time programs, so to speak, in the talk show genre, as they understand it. No political correctness, no correctness at all - they turn dirty underwear almost literally and rinse it in front of tens of millions of viewers.

Dmitry Bykov, a great lover of red words, who loves himself immensely and feels like a kind of guru from literature and life, spoke a few months ago about lies on Russian television. In order not to be prosecuted for insulting a reputational family, he did not name the TV channel he had in mind and which he quite transparently hinted at, saying that its employees should wear brown suits. Well, in the sense that what they broadcast is complemented by their dress code.

However, with the beginning of the new television season of domestic television, it is no longer so obvious that such a characteristic belongs to one of the federal television channels, which, most likely, the poet and publicist had in mind. Since only TVC is kept within the bounds of decency so far, and Channel One, Rossiya, NTV, observing certain limits of what is permissible, most often declared by the hosts, work on the verge of the norm or already beyond.

A little background. In the original version, the program that made Andrey Malakhov popular was called "The Big Wash". And her visual business card was a video with a washing machine. Then, claiming some respectability, it was called "Five Evenings", well, and after that - "Let them talk." But even in the final chosen format, until recently, the program retained an idea of some kind of ethical norms. The breakthrough was first the talk about the betrayal of husbands, famous and ordinary, and then the constant, almost on stream, DNA tests. They were accepted as the ultimate truth, although they can only be so by a court decision. And not otherwise. (Note that the programs of the “Paternity Test” cycle were added to the “Let's get divorced” programs on the “Domashny” channel, where at least in the television format the idea of \u200b\u200bthe legitimacy of recognizing paternity only by court decision was added.)

The innovation came to the TV people to the yard. And DNA tests became arguments in the same place on Channel One in separate programs of the Male / Female line.

However, the tests soon turned out to be not enough. As in Vysotsky's song about citizen Paramonova: "and everyone is shouting from the audience - give me the details!"

And then, in a dirty wave, a powerful stream, these details went from the screen.

So, literally, only a few days ago in "Let them talk" the expert opinions confirmed that the artist of the Theater of Satire had an illegitimate son, also now an artist. Of course, Karina Mishulina did not have to sue a man claiming the fatherhood of a famous artist, sue and release all this to the general public. And because the interview to which she referred was not a document of a legal nature, but a report by a journalist of an interview with a young man, so there is still a deliberate difference between what was actually said and what was published on the pages of the magazine. It would be better to sort it out without making claims among themselves. And here, fighting for the honor of her father, his legitimate daughter learned so much unpleasant about him that she even felt sorry for her, like her mother, the wife of Spartak Mishulin. But viewers also learned the same thing, for whom the family drama became something of a stale delicacy, an expected event that was stretched out as far as possible and turned into a detective story. Also - with the history of divorce and will of Armen Dzhigarkhanyan and his last wife so far. They squeezed everything they could out of this private plot, like a lemon, but they continue to squeeze it out more and more.

Even their own clackers and newsmakers appeared here, who tell the public that they are waiting for news. For example, this is Mark Rudinshtein, now a producer of the Kinotavr film festival, and at one time a businessman with an unpleasant experience of meeting with a Soviet court and a prison term. Another colorful figure here - according to the reference - is the art critic-academician and artist Sergei Zagraevsky (he was Volfovich, like Zhirinovsky, and, probably, therefore changed his patronymic to Wolfgangovich.) They go from transfer to transfer, from one studio to another, having time to participate in the current -show on Channel One, and, at times, on Rossiya. (In any case, this can be said with confidence about Rudinshtein, and Zagraevsky is faithful to Channel One, it seems.)

They always have something to say, and the fact that a scientist and a producer look unpresentable on the screen, discuss obscene things of the same kind - who slept with whom and gave birth to whom - is of little concern to them. The main thing is drive, participation, not victory, to be heard all the time. Etc.

Now, in talk shows, we are not shy about anything. Unless, until they swear. And if this happens, then, according to the law adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation, obscene language is beeped, although in such a way that the audience hears something and understands perfectly well what is being said.

Dmitry Borisov, who back in the spring hosted the responsible program “Vremya” on Channel One, now, retaining the appearance of a metrosexual, an intelligent young man, without passion, but without Malakhov’s pathos of reproof, discusses everything related to a given topic in such detail that it is obvious that much is sucked out of the finger so that there is then a new and new continuation of the same theme.

And no one is shy anymore. As the musician and producer Stas Namin once said when, after the premiere of the rock opera Hair, he was asked about the naked artists on stage in its finale - Why be ashamed? Meaning, who has not seen naked women and what is something shameful about, if it was so in the original when this work was performed in the West.

And, indeed, why be ashamed when everything is in sight and no one is afraid to call a spade a spade, as in life. Rather, to characterize people, especially women.

Here, for example, a program with the name “Baby Rebellion” could find a place on some American television channel, and Channel One launched issues with that name. And no one cares about harassment or anything like that. Another thing is that another attempt to present a female view of the current moments of Russian life turned out to be boring and is unlikely to remain in the television broadcasting network for a long time. But the precedent is important. Here - as a definition - a woman - he appeared. And there will no doubt be a sequel.

So, not that there is nothing to be ashamed of, but no one seems to be embarrassed anymore, because you need to be closer to life, closer to the viewer, who seems to be interested in such exposure and evokes a response.

Let's do without rhetoric - the viewer is to blame. I am for the viewer - what they give on the air, then he watches. So, brown suits are symbolic - a challenge prize or an acceptable dress code. Not yet fully, not yet fully. Who then, almost in Soviet times, could have imagined that the “Big Laundry” would turn into “Dirty Laundry” (sorry, in “Let them talk” and other hits in the same spirit, quite specific and far from culture and self-respect .). But here is the metamorphosis. And it became a given, no matter what channel you watch. So there is only the Internet, until the innovation of Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg was turned off in the mirror answer. At worst, there will be books, paper or audio. And theaters, where nude is still strictly and classically puritanical. Again, everything changes quickly in terms of fashion, but the theater is still holding on. But what do hundreds of spectators mean if the TV people have a bill in the millions? A drop in the ocean, a statistical error, which, in principle, should not be paid attention to. It seems that this is the choice of Russian television people - sharper, hotter, more scandalous. Well, and further in the same aspect, as long as possible, and for this they are not punished according to the law and conscience.

Only well-trained lapdog

yapping continuously, feeling that it is approaching

to sugar: what's about to happen

one thousand nine hundred ninety-five.

Portal for the student. Self-training

RELATED ARTICLES