(department of the Russian language and literature) in the city. Specialist in the history of Russian literature of the XX century (M. Kuzmin, Andrey Nikolev, Evgeny Kharitonov, etc.).

Proceedings

• Mikhail Kuzmin and Russian culture of the XX century: Abstracts and materials of the conference May 15-17, 1990 - L .: [Anna Akhmatova Museum in the Fountain House], 1990. / Compilation and edition.
• Andrey Nikolev (Andrey N. Egunov). Collection of works. - Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, SBd. 35, 1993. / Editorial [compilation, preparation of texts, afterword (together with V. I. Somsikov), comments].
• Jur. Yurkun. Bad company. - St. Petersburg: Terra-Azbuka, 1995. / Compilation, notes (together with P. V. Dmitriev).
• M. Kuzmin. Diary 1934. - St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbakh Publishing House, 1998. / Compilation, text preparation, introductory article, comments.
• Same. - [2nd edition, corrected and supplemented.] St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbakh Publishing House, 2007
• Same. - Edition 2, corrected and supplemented. St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbakh Publishing House, 2011
• Eduard Bagritsky. Poems and poems. - St. Petersburg: Academic project, 2000. (New Poet's Library. Small series) / Compilation.
• Andrey Nikolev. Elysian joys. - M.: OGI, 2001. / Compilation and preface.
• Evgeny Kharitonov. Under house arrest. Collection of works. - M.: Verb, 2005 / Compilation, text preparation, comments.
• Kirill Medvedev. Texts published without the knowledge of the author. - M.: New Literary Review, 2005 / Compilation.
• Olga Hildebrandt-Arbenina. A girl rolling a serso ... - M .: Young Guard, 2007 / Comments.
• [Poetry series] "Andrei Bely Prize". - M.: New Literary Review, 2000-2005 / Compilation, editing, idea and concept of the series.

Write a review on the article "Morev, Gleb Alekseevich"

Links

• on the website "New Literary Map of Russia"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing Morev, Gleb Alekseevich

The cries and fires in the enemy army came from the fact that while the order of Napoleon was being read to the troops, the emperor himself was riding around his bivouacs. The soldiers, seeing the emperor, lit bunches of straw and, shouting: vive l "empereur!, ran after him. Napoleon's order was as follows:
"Soldiers! The Russian army comes out against you to avenge the Austrian, Ulm army. These are the same battalions which you defeated at Gollabrunn and which you have been constantly pursuing to this place ever since. The positions we occupy are powerful, and as long as they go to get around me on the right, they will expose me to the flank! Soldiers! I myself will lead your battalions. I will keep far from the fire if you, with your usual courage, bring disorder and confusion into the ranks of the enemy; but if victory is even for a moment in doubt, you will see your emperor exposed to the first blows of the enemy, because there can be no hesitation in victory, especially on the day on which in question about the honor of the French infantry, which is so necessary for the honor of their nation.

Read more > > >

Gleb Morev: "Russia continues to compose a depressingly predictable historical narrative"

Gleb Morev - literary critic, editor, literary figure, journalist.Born in 1968 in Leningrad. Graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Tartu (Department of Russian Language and Literature) in 1992. Specialist in the history of Russian literature of the 20th century (M. Kuzmin, Andrey Nikolev, Evgeny Kharitonov, etc.).

Author of articles and publications on the history of Russian literature in the first half of the 20th century in "Faces", "Lotman's Collection", "Past", "New Literary Review", "Tynyanovsky Collection", "Europa Orientalis", "Russian Literature" and other publications. Compiler and editor of the poetic series "Andrey Bely Prize" in the publishing house "New Literary Review" (2000-2005).

In 1989-1992 - junior, and then senior researcher at the Anna Akhmatova Museum in the Fountain House. In 1993-1997 doctoral student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 1998 - editor of the magazine "Seance" (St. Petersburg). In 1999-2002 — Chief Editor magazine "New Russian Book" (St. Petersburg). Since 2002 - in Moscow, editor-in-chief of the Critical Mass magazine (2002-2007). In 2008 - 2012 - Chief Editor of the "Media" section of the site OpenSpace.ru. Since 2012, he has been the editor-in-chief of the Literature department of the Colta.ru website.

What about the notorious bonmot Chekhov, then, firstly, his first publication in 1914 is precisely the result of the work of textual commentators, and, secondly, if we discard the polemical pressure that attracted Chekhov, comical in its pathos, then the professor, of course, is right: an adequate understanding of the texts of the past impossible outside of historical and cultural commentary.

Another thing is that such completeness of reading may seem (and turn out to be) redundant for the average reader. But this is a separate conversation, not related to actual literature.

Publishing houses, as an institution on which the author depends ... Several publishing houses created in the early 1990s, such as New Literary Review, Ad Marginem, Logos, O.G.I. in Moscow; "Academic Project", "INAPRESS", Ivan Limbakh's publishing houses in St. Petersburg partially ceased to exist, and the remaining ones are increasingly being crushed by commercial publishing houses. Among the latter, the trend towards centralization is increasingly visible. Under such conditions, one or two large publishing houses will remain, which, like Progress or Soviet Writer in the old days, will shape the literary flow according to their ideology - both opportunistic and politically biased. So, forward to the past?
Well, of the institutions you listed, as far as I know, only one has ceased to exist - the St. Petersburg "Academic Project". (On the other hand, with this name stolen from Petersburgers, a nice Moscow publishing house continues to exist.) So everything is not so catastrophic. Moreover, the “Hell Margin” we mentioned, having understood the futility of betting on the “national product” that so scandalized the intellectual community at the turn of the century, a couple of years ago, with the help of Abramovich’s money, returned from publishing domestic trash like Prokhanov and Elizarov to actually his educational program 1990s - Susan Sontag, Bart, Benjamin etc., etc. And thank God.

On the mass book market, the monopoly is EKSMO, which not so long ago swallowed up another monster - AST. However, within the framework new structure all the publishing divisions that had value have been preserved - both Varvara Gornostaeva’s wonderful memoir and historical line Corpus, and Elena Shubina’s editors’ intellectual fiction. So here I don’t see any tendency towards unification. "Dmitry Volchek, and ARGO-Risk by Dmitry Kuzmin, and "New Publishing House" by Andrey Kurilkin. An excellent publishing program of the Strelka Institute has opened.

From the point of view of the authorities, books have so far been considered such an insignificant subject in terms of political risks that any censorship activity - with the exception of idiotic legislative initiatives individual deputies - so far bypassed them. Of all the arts for the authorities, the most important is, as you know, cinema - we must, apparently, wait until they deal with it.

In the West, in particular in the USA, universities are the very institution that to a large extent shapes the literary process. Why is this type of codification practically absent in modern Russia?
I think that this is primarily due to the poverty of our educational institutions. They would feed their professors, where can I think about writers. This is if we mean programs like creative writing. There are none in Russia. However, in the Russian public field, unfortunately, the figure of a university professor, not directly related to the presence or absence of budgets, is not represented in any way, as a public intellectual who influences through the media on a variety of current cultural processes. We can say that this niche is lost before our eyes - after all, even in our memory it was adequately occupied by Likhachev, Lotman and Averintsev. If we have a rare university intellectual who speaks out on today's agenda, then it turns out to be an American professor - for example, Mikhail Yampolsky.

Do you see competition between online publications and existing literary magazines? To what extent do they complement each other?
There is no need to talk about any competition between online and paper for ten years already - before our eyes there was a complete and final victory of the Internet. Only publications that have an online version remain in the public field - it does not matter whether it is a representative office in the Journal Hall, or its own page. The most resourceful acquire both. At the same time, any attempts of what is called content monetization categorically do not work. Even Vedomosti, the newspaper of the bourgeoisie, hardly raises money for its articles; what can we say about the poor reference group of thick magazines? Those who persist, such as the journal Voprosy Literature, are overtaken by complete marginalization - there are no reasons to publish there, with the exception of bibliographic statistics for defending dissertations, there is no resonance field of such publications is equal to zero. In other words, no one reads them.

If we talk about the competition of formats - a thick magazine versus a site - then everything depends on the genre. Great prose is still firmly written in the journal department, but poems or articles have long been accustomed to literary sites and authors' blogs - LiveJournal and Facebook. Mine new novel Alexander Ilyanen generally posts on VKontakte - why does he need a literary magazine?

And in the virtual world, well-known, branded publications, like your Colta.ru, have appeared, and in the real world, a considerable part of well-known magazines manage to keep their brand. Has the notion of a “prestigious publication” survived today? "Prestigious Russian publications" - what are they, to your taste?
In the Internet, as well as on paper, prestige is determined by the difficulty of getting to certain pages. It is one thing when you yourself are free to publish your texts, another thing is when you need to go through a traditional editorial filter for publication. The smaller this filter, the more difficult it is to pass, the more prestigious the publication is - this has happened at all times, and the transition of most of the publishing process - with the exception of the book process - to the virtual world has not changed anything here. For my taste more interesting games with formats. Publishing poetry or prose in a thick magazine is a small trick, but placing them in the glossy or political context of big media is really interesting. Or vice versa - to use a figure from the pop world in the format of an intellectual publication - there is always some kind of scrapping of the usual perception, such things are remembered as media successes. And the places marked with such successes are as prestigious.

How would you label the concept of "poet"? Is this the “poet (writer, pattern maker) ... who completed his pattern ...”, as Yevgeny Kharitonov said? I will continue the quote you cut off, every word is important in it: “... there is no market for it or there will be, now it doesn’t matter to him, he can only weave it as usual. That's it, you can't pull him out of this life of his. So he will live and die there.” Yes, this is him - the definition of a poet belonging to Kharitonov, one of the most capacious in our literature, as one of the most consistent and complete incarnations of the poet in it was Kharitonov himself. The dominant feature of poetic creativity - it is clear that we are talking about prose here, as well as poetry, because since the time of Andrei Bely, the border between innovative Russian prose and poetry is very arbitrary - there will always be an orientation towards the “plane of expression”, as semiotics say. And the attitude is uncompromising - the poet remembers Pushkin's later words "poetry is not always the pleasure of a small number of the elect." Artistic truth, as he sees it, is always more important than social conjuncture. This does not mean that at some point the truth of the poet and the demands of the public cannot coincide - they can, of course, as they did with the young Pushkin or the mature Blok. Not to mention the later - posthumous (like Khlebnikov or Venedikt Erofeev) or lifetime (like, say, Brodsky or Sasha Sokolov) canonization. But these moments are optional for the internal development of their language - and they do not determine its cruel logic. It is no coincidence that when talking about a poet, we traditionally operate with words of high register - the path, death. Here they often acquire a non-metaphorical meaning, forever separating the poet's texts from prosperous fiction and banalizing rhyming.

How high is the interest in culture today, when the interest in politics, in real events in the news field, where actionism and happenings develop according to the most fascinating and cool scenarios, go off scale?
It seems to me that culture does not compete with politics and the news agenda. In general, it exists regardless of how wide the interest that it causes. There is interest - and thank God, no - it's not scary either. Time will pass and will be. All these are questions not of the essence of culture, but rather of cultural policy and economics. To answer them, we must define in detail the very concept of culture, classify it, and so on. Because there are areas of mass media culture that are entirely dependent on the interest of the public, and there are areas that are autonomous from it. Of course, I am more curious about the latter, although there is some attraction in the outstanding phenomena of mass culture. The same Kharitonov remarkably expressed his fascination with this authoritativeness: “Entering pop culture. How many times have I dreamed of going there. - If you stop loving, then now - so! now! “No subtlety can compare with this rudeness. Only Pugacheva sang with me, and she sang for 10 windows. No fluctuations in public sentiment should provoke alarmism and prophecies about the end of the world, the end of Russian literature and the new decline of Europe - behind all such statements is, first of all, the deeply personal frustration and narrow-mindedness of their authors. In the end, the number of seats in the Bolshoi Theater has not changed for a century and a half - this did not affect the fate of Russian ballet in any way.

Don't you think that tightening the screws in modern Russia, both in the socio-political sphere and in the cultural one, can lead to the situation that you comment on in the wonderful book of 1998 edited by you - M. Kuzmin's 1934 Diary. As Kuzmin writes, defining the situation of the 1920s and 1930s: “The present is death. In a metaphysical sense, of course.
Of course, like any tightening of the screws, that is, any obstruction of the organic flow of the cultural, as well as political processes, the current will not lead to anything good. Not in the sense of the decline of culture - culture, as we know, is a rather vandal-resistant thing, and, accepting the entire qualification of the era given by Kuzmin, we remember that if it was not printed at the same time, then it was written at the turn of the 20-30s in Russia. Yes, even printed: "Trout", "Rebirth", "Goat Song", "Journey to Armenia", "Envy", "Death of Vazir-Mukhtar", "City of En". So there is no need to worry about culture. But for its doers - yes. Psychological discomfort is growing. But if in the thirties metaphysical death turned into a literal death for many, many, then the current frosts in the sphere of culture (but not in the political sphere) look more like a parody. Here, unlike Ukraine, instead of blood, cranberry juice is poured, as in "Balaganchik". Eikhenbaum, at about the same time as Kuzmin, said: "I do not take offense at modern times - this luxury is not available to me, because I did a lot of literary history." And indeed, today not only a humanities scholar easily catches banal, like “blood-love” or “rose-frost”, historical rhymes: Russia with its eternally hypertrophied state, the eternal inseparability of power and private property, the weakness of civil institutions and deep inadequacy phantom empire continues to craft a depressingly predictable historical narrative. Almost two hundred years ago, Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich believed that in order to prevent a revolution, Russia should be opposed to Europe, now Vladimir Putin thinks so - little news, by God. To be honest, in 1998, when I published Kuzmin's Diary, I did not expect that we would have to find ourselves in this narrative again - it seemed that the bad infinity was violated by the 1991 revolution or, as it is now rightly called, "Gaidar's revolution". Today, one has to spend emotions on the monkey of Nikolaev Russia and the USSR grown by Putin at the same time, and Chaadaev again rises to the ranks of topical political scientists: “Here everyone is alive and well; the people are doing well; ... the bast-bast element is in full development; daily we make new discoveries, we discover Slavs everywhere; one of these days we will push everything that is not of the same blood out of the world.”

All this is very, very boring and annoying. But! Remember the same Kuzmin - “you, reader, are not a scribe of your life, it is unknown to you to lead the end.” If you like, call it, so as not to go far from the thirties, “search for optimism”, but this unpredictability is at least invigorating.

Embed in blog

Embed in blog

Copy the embed code to your blog:

Gleb Morev: "Russia continues to compose a depressingly predictable historical narrative"

“By overturning the value grid or terminological dictionary of a different socio-cultural reality onto literature, we, on the one hand, have a good example of how the mechanism of estrangement works...”
Read more > > >

A well-known literary critic, editor-in-chief of the “Literature” department of the Colta.ru website, Gleb Morev, refused the 2017 award he was awarded in the “For Services to Russian Literature” nomination. He wrote about this on his Facebook page: “Colleagues, I learned about the award of the Andrey Bely Prize to me in the nomination “For Merit to Russian Literature.” I thank everyone who congratulated me. However, in this regard, I must repeat that together with the late Boris Vladimirovich Dubin, Alexander Skidan and Alexander Ulanov formulated four years ago: The Andrei Bely Prize in the form in which the literary community knew this institution ended its existence in 2013. The prize (in fact) of the Andrei Bely Center, awarded last years I, unfortunately, cannot accept: this, in my opinion, would be an encouragement of raider methods in the cultural field.

On June 19, 2014, a letter from members of the Prize Committee was published on the Colts website, which Morev recalled. The text of the statement is reproduced below in full:

Statement by members of the Andrei Bely Prize Committee

We would like to explain the situation around the award, as we see it. A statement by B.I. Ivanov and B. Ostanin contradicts the spirit and letter of the Prize in the form in which it began to take shape in the late 1990s, having been revived after a significant break on new, open and collegial principles. In contrast to the "secret", "anonymous" jury of the Leningrad underground era, since 1999, a certain public institution has been behind the Andrei Bely Prize - the Prize Committee. This is in full accordance with the status of the Andrei Bely Prize as “corporate” and “public” (we quote the words of B.I. Ivanov from his article preceding the anthology of works by the prize winners of 1978-2004: M .: NLO, 2005, p. 10 , 13), a voluntary and independent community of equal people united by common interests and values, which, of course, in no way means singing with one voice. Therefore, any decision that is significant for the members of the Committee can only be a solidarity - a product of the collective will of its members, and this is achieved in the course of discussion, as a result of persuasion, on the basis of mutual concessions and reasonable compromise, and, ultimately, through voting, as always. happened with permission conflict situations in the Committee. Once again: independence, public character, competitive procedure, open voting, solidarity will, collective decisions. All this is clearly spelled out in the Regulations on the award, approved by all members of the Committee back in 2001 and confirmed in the 2009 Communiqué. References to federal laws and documents of state registration, which B.I. Ivanov and B. Ostanin, cross out all the principles outlined above and violate the mechanisms that have developed over the past 15 years for the award.

At the same time, these references unequivocally testify that the situation has changed irreversibly - both externally and internally. A line has been drawn, a certain stage in the history of the award has been completed. At present, we are actually dealing with another institution - independently founded by B.I. Ivanov and B. Ostanin ANO St. Petersburg Cultural Center. Andrei Bely and the award of this center as one of the directions ("subdivision") of its diverse and in the highest degree noble activity. It is characteristic that the wording of the Prize Regulations adopted in 2001, repeated in the above-mentioned article by B.I. Ivanov - about corporatism, the public nature of the Andrey Bely Prize, certain agreed and collective intentions, decisions, actions of the Committee - in the new Regulations on the Prize as a division cultural center them. Andrei Bely are replaced by symptomatic words about "the leaders of the Andrei Bely Prize".

Under these conditions, we have no choice but to resign from the Committee members and note with regret the completion of the work of the Andrei Bely Prize in the format in which it existed in 1999-2013. The signatories of this statement are now considering the possibility of establishing another literary prize. We look forward to constructive cooperation in this matter with our colleagues, members of the Committee and laureates of the Andrei Bely Prize. different years. The sociocultural reality of the 2010s, in its already well-defined political, ideological, economic and mass media plans that change the position of the author, create new contexts and conflicts of his self-determination, creativity, recognition, requires new institutions for critical reflection and an adequate response.

Boris Dubin, Gleb Morev, Alexander Skidan, Alexander Ulanov

P.S. The Andrei Bely Prize, the oldest regular non-state cultural award in Russia, was established in 1978 by the Leningrad samizdat magazine Chasy, edited by Boris Ivanov and Boris Ostanin. The prize is awarded in the categories "Poetry", "Prose", "Humanitarian Studies", "For Services to Russian Literature", "Translation" and "Literary Projects and Criticism". The cash prize in each category is 1 ruble.

Let me remind you that this is not the first case of rejection of the Andrei Bely Prize. In 2009, the literary critic Anatoly Barzakh, who was in 2006-2009, did not accept the award. on the jury of this literary institution.

Gleb Alekseevich Morev (born July 3, 1968, Leningrad) literary critic, editor, literary figure. short biography He graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Tartu (Department of Russian Language and Literature) in 1992. Specialist in history ... ... Wikipedia

Gleb Alekseevich Morev- ... Wikipedia

Morev- Morev is a Russian surname. Amvrosy (Morev) Morev, Alexander Sergeevich (1934 1979) Soviet poet, prose writer, artist. Morev, Gleb Alekseevich More Lev Nikolaevich is a Taist philologist, compiler of the first Thai Russian and Lao Russian dictionaries. ... ... Wikipedia

Dorpat University

Imperial Yuriev University- University of Tartu. Main building (2004) University of Tartu (Dorpt, Yuryevsky (1893 1918); Estonian Tartu Ülikool (since 1918), German Universität Dorpat (1802 1893)) in Tartu (Estonia), founded by the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf in 1632 on… ... Wikipedia

Yuryev University- University of Tartu. Main building (2004) University of Tartu (Dorpt, Yuryevsky (1893 1918); Estonian Tartu Ülikool (since 1918), German Universität Dorpat (1802 1893)) in Tartu (Estonia), founded by the Swedish king Gustav II Adolf in 1632 on… ... Wikipedia

Laureates of the Stalin Prize for outstanding inventions and fundamental improvements in production methods- Stalin Prize for outstanding inventions and fundamental improvements in methods production work a form of encouragement for citizens of the USSR for significant merits in the technical development of Soviet industry, the development of new technologies, modernization ... ... Wikipedia

3 July- ← July → Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 1 2 3 4 ... Wikipedia

Stalin Prize for outstanding inventions and fundamental improvements in production methods (1951)- This page is an information list. Main articles: Stalin Prize, Stalin Prize for outstanding inventions and fundamental improvements in production methods ... Wikipedia

Hero of the Russian Federation- Hero Russian Federation... Wikipedia

Books

• Dissidents, Morev Gleb Alekseevich. Under this cover, a variety of voices are united, which at one time - from the late 1950s to the mid-1980s - belonged in the USSR to the social movement of dissidents, which received the name of dissidence. ...