Arkhiv: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


>From: pexarkho@site.gmu.edu (Pavel Exarkhopoulo (INFT))
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: O stihotvorenii A. Andreeva
Date: 3 Jun 1995 21:10:06 GMT


Mikhail Petrov (mike@niti.spb.su) wrote:
>} [...]
>} Esli kto-nibud' iz Vashih zhen, detej ili vnukov byvaet v Pitere,
>} pust' zajdet v Akademknigu na Litejnom i kupit novyj sbornik statej
>} M.L.Gasparova. Ne uveren, chto tam est' issledovanija
>} po aleksandrijskomy stihu, no uzh 4-stopnyj jamb navernjaka predstavlen.
>} Nasladites' ;-)
>} [...]


Batjushki! Na scs pojavilsja chelovek, sposobnyj otlichit' tsezuru ot
anakrusy! vedajuschij ob aleksandrijskom stihe! o Mihaile Levonoviche
Gasparove! Chto-to sluchilos' s rossijskimi matematikami... Ne inache
kak virus Kolmogorova...

Pis'mo Vashe, Mikhail, kovechno, zadornoe, iz Vas so vremenem mozhet
poluchitsa neplohoj scs-spetsialist po familijam i boleznjam zhivota,
no ja nadejus', chto etogo ne sluchitsa. Ja nadejus', chto nam
udastsja obsuzhdat' russkuju poeziju, ne perehodja na lichnosti. Tak
chto "kto-nibud' iz Vashih zhen" budem schitat' giperboloj.

Teper' po suschetstvu voprosa, t.e. ob A.Andreeve (na Vashe zamechanie
o Griboedove i Krylove ja smogu otvetit' cherez neskol'ko dnej
(posmotrju ih sborniki); kstati, snizojdite k moim vozmozhnostjam -
Litejnyj daleko, a ja tut uzhe tri nedeli dozhidajus' statji Gasparova
i Holshevnikova, zakazannye iz drugoj biblioteki (chto-to slomalos' v
zdeshnej otlazhennoj sisteme dostavki)).

Itak, klassikov otlozhim. 

Ja vtajne predpolagaju, chto Vy vse-taki ne schitaete, chto na
osnovanii kolichestv anakrus i tsezur mozhno vynesti suzhdenie Poet
ili ne Poet. Odnako, pojasnju svoju mysl' tochnee.

Analiz ljubogo stihotvorenija mozhno prevratit' v beskonechnoe
tjagomotstvo, obsasyvaja kazhduju strochku, kazhduju osobennost'
dannogo konkretnogo stiha, kazhdogo zvuka dazhe. Mnozhestvo formal'nyh
trebovanij nakopilos' za istoriju razvitija russkoj poezii. Ja zhe
ispol'zuju analiz tol'ko dlja togo, chtoby proilljustrirovat'
osnovnuju mysl', menja bespokojuschuju v otnoshenii dannogo poeta,
osnovnoe zveno, bez kotorogo net smysla analizirovat' dal'she. I ja
prosto pytajus' dat' maksimal'no tochnye harakteristiki v prinjatyh i
ustojavshihsja terminah, kak mozhno menee zatragivaja spornye i/ili
nerazrabotannye voprosy poetiki.

V otnoshenii razbiraemogo stihotvorenija Andreeva (i drugih ego
stihov) kak osnovnuju mysl' ja vydelil problemu ritmicheskih
defektov. O chem escho mozhno govorit', esli poet ne chuvstvuet
ritmicheskogo zakona, dostatochno otrabotannogo v russkoj poezii?
esli dlja poeta, chto dol'nik, chto anapest? esli on ne slyshit
raznitsy ritmicheskogo vesa znachimyh (a sledovatel'no, vsegda
udarnyh) i sluzhebnyh slov?

Ja polnostju otvergaju vozmozhnuju ssylku na to, chto scs-chitatelja
takie tonkosti ne volnujut, chto chem "stadionnee" poezija, tem bolee
ona po vkusu, tem bol'shie tolki vyzyvaet. Problema doobrazovanija
chitatelej menja ne interesuet.

Rassmotrite, chto delaet Andreev na scs. On ne pomeschaet solidnoj
podborki stihov. On brosaet udarnye stihi. On vtjagivaetsa v
obsuzhdenija, ssylajas' na anglijskuju poeziju, kotoraja, kak
sovershenno spravedlivo otmetil Dmitrij Manin zdes' pochti chto ni pri
chem. On pomeschaet japonskij (!) sonet, ne pomestiv ni italjanskogo,
ni anglijskogo (vozmozhno, ja propustil), na osnovanii kotoryh my
mogli by sudit' o ego tehnicheskih umenijah v sfere strogih
form. Poprostu govorja, on - reklamiruetsa. Vylezaet na stadion.

Moj vopros: obladaet li on pri etom masterstvom Voznesenskogo, chtoby
imet' hot' maloe pravo priljudno "stanovitsa rakom"?

Na moj vzgljad, ego samomnenie prevoshodit ego vozmozhnosti. 
Gde-to ego v zhizni perehvalili...

Sravnenie s privedennymi Vami vos'mju strochkami iz Voznesenskogo
pomozhet, kak mne kazhetsa, otvetit' na vopros: kto slyshit ritm iz
nih dvoih, a kto net?

Perechtem vnimatel'no:

   Ja ne znaju, kak ostal'nye,         --/----/-
   no ja chuvstvuju zhestochajshuju    --/----/--
   ne po proshlomu nostal'giju -       --/----/-
   nostal'giju po nastojaschemu.       --/----/--

   Budto poslushnik hochet k gospodu,  ~-/--/-/--
   nu a dostup lish' k nastojatelju -  --/----/--
   tak i ja umoljaju dostupa           --/--/-/--
   bez posrednikov k nastojaschemu.    --/----/--

Est' li zdes' hot' odna stroka s pravil'nym trehslozhnym razmerom?
Soglasites', net. Mozhno sporit' ob intellektual'nyh dostoinstvah
liriki Voznesenskogo, no ego ritmicheskoe chut'e vsegda
predstavljalos' mne zamechatel'nym. Chem sozdajutsa otjagchenija?
Sojuzom "budto", terjajuschim vo frazovoj gruppe svoe udarenie po
normal'nym pravilam russkogo proiznoshenija, a takzhe sojuzom "no",
tak kak glasnyj "o" v dannom sluchae ne redutsiruetsa.  Ritmicheskaja
zhe struktura dol'nika ne narushena. Imenno poetomu Voznesenskij
mozhet sebe pozvolit' ubirat' udarenija (stroki 1,2,3,4,6,8) v
sootvetstvii s normami russkoj sillabo-toniki. V etom smysle dannyj
dol'nik - analog privychnyh razmerov (jamba, horeja...), gde takzhe
mozhno propuskat' udarenija na metricheski udarnyh
mestah. Metricheskij zakon v dannom sluchae: --/--/-/-(-) (skobki
pokazyvajut svobodnoe cheredovanie okonchanij). No etot zakon
polnovesno realizuetsa tol'ko v strokah: 5 i 7, chto i sozdaet
potrjasajschee ritmicheskoe svoeobrazie nachala etogo stihotvorenija
(eto vse ravno kak pisat' jambom, no preimuschestvenno peonami). Ja ne
budu podrobno razbirat' dal'nejshie stofy, kotorye ves'ma i ves'ma
interesny, tak kak my sejchas sosredotocheny na Andreeve.

Mne kazhetsa, chto chelovek, nachitannyj v russkoj poezii, imeet
nekotoruju vyrabotannuju (vospitannuju) inertsiju sluha (a poet-taki
objazan ee imet'!) i uzhe pervyh strok (ili dazhe odnoj pervoj)
dostatochno, chtoby nastroitsa na opredelennyj ritmicheskij
zakon. Dol'nik zhe - chut' drugoj razmer nezheli strogie
trehslozhniki, perehodnyj k chisto aktsentnomu stihu. Andreev zhe, na
moj vzgljad, imenno etih perehodov i ne chuvstvuet. Ego ritmika prosto
vjalaja sravnitel'no s zhestkim, chetkim, udarnym, stadionnym ritmom
Voznesenskogo. Ego otjagchenija vydajut s golovoj userdnogo uchenika,
a ne mastera, i ja prodolzhaju utverzhdat', chto Andreev -
nevnimatelen k zvuku.

Rassmotrite otjagchenija v predposlednej strofe u Voznesenskogo:

      Hleschet chernaja voda iz krana,       /-/---/-/-
      hleschet rzhavaja, nastojavshajasja,   /-/----/---
      hleschet krasnaja voda iz krana,       /-/---/-/-
      ja dozhdus' - pojdet nastojaschaja.    --/-/--/--

Iskljuchitel'nost' ritmicheskogo risunka etoj strofy
ochevidna. Gorazdo bolee zamechatel'no, na moj vzgljad, imenno
raznoobrazie poeticheskoj tehniki Voznesenskogo, ispol'zujuschego
dopolnitel'nye priemy, chtoby podcherknut' i obosnovat' svoeobrazie
etoj strofy: anaforicheskie "hleschet", pochti doslovnoe povtorenie
pervoj stroki v tretjej (kak sledstvie, tavtologicheskaja rifma),
unikal'naja dlja vsego stihotvorenija giperdaktilicheskaja rifma s
prosto daktilicheskoj (nastojavshajasja-nastojaschaja). Pervye tri
stroki - ritmicheskij tsentr vsego stihovornija, ego vysshaja
tochka. K nim, k etim sumaschedshim trem strokam vse stremilos'.
Mechta i toska ne nahodili ishoda, i imenno zdes' ih naprjazhennost'
dostigaet predela v sovershenno irratsional'nom, surrealisticheskom
obraze chernoj, rzhavoj, krasnoj hleschuschej vody. A posle, v
chetvertoj stroke, ritm vozvraschaetsa v normal'noe ruslo, a v
poslednej stofe i vovse rasslabljaetsa, uspokaivaetsa:

      Chto proshlo, to proshlo. K luchshemu.
      No prikusyvaju kak tajnu
      nostal'giju po nastojaschemu,
      chto nastanet. Da ne zastanu.

Vse. Stihotvorenie zakoncheno. Buri otshumeli. Strasti utihli. Dazhe
rifmy vovse ne nuzhno, i stroki pervaja i tretja povisajut
nesvjazannye. Nachali kalamburom (ne proshloe - nastojaschee,
nastojaschee - podlinnoe), i zakonchili kalamburom (nastojaschee -
nastanet - ne zastanu). Vse k luchshemu. Vse k smerti.

         -------------------------------------------

Etogo bylo by dostatochno, esli by Vy ne zakazali "ne tol'ko analiz
PROSTEJSHIH formal'nyh osobennostej". Chto zh, brosim beglyj vzgljad
na sintaksis Andreeva.

Chto my vidim u Voznesenskogo? - Dva predlozhenija, kazhdoe legko
raspolozhivsheesja vnutri svoego chetverostishija. Mne nuzhno
rasprostranjatsa pro podchinenija? pro inversii? pro svobodu
Voznesenskogo v obraschenii so strukturoj predlozhenija (eto pri tom,
chto on zhestko sleduet zadannymu ritmu)? ili Vy sami vse vidite?

A chto u Andreeva? Malo togo, chto on ne ochen' svjazyvaet sebja
ritmicheskimi trebovanijami, tak i v oblasti sintaksisa on maksimal'no
uproschaet sebe zadachu, ogranichivajas' korotkimi predlozhenijami. I
vse u Andreeva razvalivaetsa na kusochki i obryvki, v to vremja kak u
Voznesenskogo sojuznaja svjaz' podkreplena smyslovoj.

Naprimer, kakova funktsija sojuza "i" v pervoj stofe "Dnja kak v
Pitere"? Hochet li Andreev skazat', chto knizhka hodit vmeste s
"hillbillami"? Ochevidno, net. Mozhet funktsija sojuza -
protivitel'naja?  Opjat' net. Protivlenie chemu (dnju? brodjachim
"hillbillam"?) podcherkivaet sojuz "i"?  Na moj vzgljad, funktsija
dannogo sojuza zdes' - votknutsa, chtoby dat' vozmozhnost' neumelomu
poetu Andreevu sohranit' ritm.

Takim obrazom, zamechennaja Vami otkrovennaja oshibka s sojuzom "kto"
- prosto krajnij primer slabosti sintaksicheskoj tehniki Andreeva
(stoilo emu popytatsa rasprostranitsa za granitsu odnoj stroki, kak
tut zhe - oshibka). 

Dopolnitel'nyj primer: "No drugogo-to nety, odnako / v knizhnoi lavke
sei derevenskoi". Chego zhelaet liricheskij geroj Andreeva? Drugogo
pizhona? Escho vopros: pochemu palindrom - nebylitsa? Avtor vidimo
putalsja nameknut' na neznachitel'nost', pustjashnost', nichtozhnost'
tvorcheskih potugov Voznesenskogo... Kak ja ponimaju avtora! Zhalko,
chto on sam govorit' escho ne nauchilsja, prihoditsa za nego
dodumyvat'. Dal'nejshie primery privedeny u Dmitrija Manina.

Melochi skladyvajutsa ne v samuju veseluju kartinu.

Tak chto, na moe oschuschenie, rano escho Andreevu pohlopyvat'
Voznesenskogo po plechu. Slabovat poka poet A.Andreev, chtoby gordo
podavat' stariku Voznesenskomu svoi filantropicheskie pjat' baksov...

Budete li Vy nastaivat' na dopolnitel'nom razbore "Den', kak v
Pitere"?  Esli Vy ne protiv, perejdem luchshe k Majakovskomu, Krylovu
i Griboedovu...

Itak, Vy sprosili:

1. o Majakovskom, Krylove i Griboedove;
2. o Sartre i proiznoshenii (dumaju, pridetsa Vam snjat' shljapu...);
3. o metodike podscheta anakrus i tsezur.

Ja by ne hotel speshit'. V sledujuschej statje otvechu o proiznoshenii
familii "Sartr" i svjazannyh s etim voprosah ritma stiha.



========================================================
== Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily reflect == 
== ----------  opinions of my employer.               == 
==                                                    ==
==                                  P.Exarkhopoulo    == 
========================================================



>From: genyuk@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: O stihotvorenii A. Andreeva
Date: 5 Jun 1995 12:33:06 -0400



 There is probably something I don't understand about poetry. Unless
 somebody will explain me in nice theoretical terms why Andreev's poem,
 even if it will have the most exact rhymes in the world and incorporate
 every subtle stylistical suggestion of Manin's, will still seem hopelessly
 boring, rhetorical, immature and ultimately Pravda-style to me. Unlike
 Voznesensky, by the way.

  How about some poetry for a change?

        Bahyt Kenzheev. Iz knigi "Amo ergo sum".

             * * *

  Zasnet melodiya, a notam ne do sna.
  Ih redkii stroi molchit, ne ponimaya,
  kuda bezhit volna, zachem ona odna,
  kogda uhodit klyuchevaya

  rech' k moryu sinemu, gde zvukov krotkih net,
  gde pahnet vetrom i grozoyu,
  i utverdilsya v kamne hischnyi sled
  triasa i paleozoya.

  Da i na chei polozheny altar'
  nebesnye tel'tsy i ovny,
  kto uchit nas osvaivat', kak vstsr',
  chernifigurnyi sintaksis lyubovnyi?

  Tak telo k starosti stanovitsya trezvei,
  tak chelovek poet sredi razvalin,
  i v otsvete kostra nevesel vsyakii zver',
  a volk osobenno pechalen.


          * * *

  Dusha steklyannaya, kogo ty zhdesh', zvenya?
  Smotri, rashodyatsya lyubivshie menya,

  bledneet dal'nii svet, slabeet l'vinyi ryk,
  glodaet okean granitnyi materik,

  no pomnit vol'nyi volk i vedaet lisa
  xrust sheinyh pozvonkov pri vzglyade v nebesa,
 
  a ty vse silish'sya, vse tselish'sya v upor -
  dusha bubnovaya, zheleznyi ugovor...


      * * *

  Pchely, strekozy, osy li - vysohli. No plyvut
  oseni tonkoi posuly - pozdnii pauchii trud,-
  tak i zovut prostit'sya i ahat' Bog znaet gde
  saharnoyu krupitseyu v styloi nochnoi vode.

  Chto zhe zemlya upryamaya, ne prinimaya nas,
  slantsem i chernym mramorom gorbitsya v pozdnii chas?
  Vystradana, obolgana, spit na svoem postu,
  gornoi dorogoi dolgoyu vyskol'znuv v vysotu.

  I zakruzhivshis' s listyami, vydohnet naraspev -
  vot tebe svet i istina, a ostal'noe - blef.
  Serdtse moe, letyaschee skvoz' vodorodnyi roi,
  sladko li v zvezdnoi chasche, tesno l' v zemle syroi?


  J

Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Re: Molitva
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 17:28:12 GMT



In article  alexey@cerc.wvu.edu (Alexey V. Andreyev) write
s:
[I transliterated it for KOI-8-challenged readers]
o 
o Copyright 1994 Alexey Andreyev
o ------------------------------
o 
o                               _Molitva
o 
o                      Ot politiki, ekonomiki,
o                      ot ekranov, gde plyashut gomiki -
o                      ogradi menya, moe kreslo,
o                      ot oblozhek, gde golye chresla.
o 
o                      Ot korystnosti i ot skorosti,
o                      ot pokornosti russkoj topornosti -
o                      ohrani menya, moya kuhnya,
o                      ot kul'tury, kotoraya tuhnet.
o 
o                      I uver' menya, kruzhka chajnaya,
o                      v tom, chto serost' krugom - sluchajnaya,
o                      chto prekrasnoe mozhet vse-zhe
o                      ne tusknet', v luzhe lazhi lezha.

Po-moemu, eto slaboe stikhotvorenie. V nem mnogo yazykovykh
neuklyuzhestei, net muzyki slova, net tainy, i obraz liricheskogo
geroya ottalkivayuschii. Dal'she mozhno ne chitat', esli vy soglasny.

1. Yazykovaya neuklyuzhest'. Eto proshche vsego.

1.1. Molitva dolzhna byt' obraschena k bogu ili bogam. Obraschenie k
kreslu, kukhne i kruzhke edva li tyanet dazhe na samoe primitivnoe
yazychestvo. Ne chuvstvuetsya v avtore very v moguschestvennost' ego
"chainoi kruzhki".

1.2. "Golye chresla" -- oborot dovol'no komicheskii. Slovo
arkhaicheskoe, prinadlezhit k vozvyshennomu stilyu, i upotreblyaetsya
preimuschestvenno v nemnogikh ustoichivykh sochetaniyakh: "prepoyasat'
chresla", "vyshel iz chresel", -- i skoree figural'no, chem
anatomicheski. Pomestit' "golye" chresla na oblozhki zhurnalov, -- vse
ravno chto skazat' "shlyukhiny persi". Konechno, prityanuto dlya
rifmy.

1.3. "Pokornost' topornosti" kommentariev, pozhalui, ne trebuet.

1.4. "Kul'tura, kotoraya tukhnet". Osobenno pikantno, chto ona tukhnet
gde-to v raione kukhni. Vidimo, zabyli polozhit' v
kholodil'nik. Ladno, "svet potukh" -- esche dopustimo, khotya
"gasnut'" -- bolee pravil'nyi glagol. No v nesovershennom vide
"tukhnut'" oznachaet tol'ko "protukhat'". Svecha tozhe ne "tukhnet", a
"gasnet", ne govorya uzh o kul'ture. 

K tomu zhe, poluchaetsya, chto avtor umolyaet kuhnyu ohranit' ego ot
kul'tury. Ne ot smerti kul'tury (eto kak?), a ot samoi kul'tury, pust'
dazhe i zatukhayuschei. Naverno, boitsya, chto kul'tura stanet ego
prosit', chtob spas.

1.5. "Chainykh kruzhek" ne byvaet. Byvayut chainye chashki. Dazhe esli
ty p'esh' chai iz kruzhki, ona ne stanovitsya ot etogo chainoi, kak ne
stanovitsya chainik kofeinikom, esli v nem zavarivat' kofe. Pochemu
avtor ne napisal "chashka" vmesto "kruzhka", -- dlya menya
zagadka. Razmer posvolyaet.

1.6. "Vse zhe" pishetsya bez defisa. K kachestvu stikha eto otnosheniya,
vprochem, ne imeet.

1.7. "Luzha lazhi"??? Chego tol'ko ne napishesh' radi somnitel'noi
alliteracii (sm. nizhe).

1.8. "Prekrasnoe lezhit v luzhe lazhi". Net, eto ya ostavlyu
parodistam.


2. Muzyka slova. Zvuchanie bylo, bezuslovno, odnoi iz glavnykh zabot
avtora. "Pokornost' topornosti" i "luzha lazhi" -- luchshee tomu
svidetel'stvo. Dostignuta li cel'? Pozvol'te privesti primer iz burime
(blago, tam uzhe mozhno naiti primery chego ugodno, ot chastushki do
verlibra):

Burime #544
        Afrika
My po Afrike breli, my s toboyu umorilis'
Ot chudes zamorskih stran. Snikla ty, ya tozhe snik...
Belye tsvety tsveli - Belladonna Amarillis
I p'yanil savann durman, i gien trevozhil krik...

Vot gde alliteraciya rabotaet. 3-ya i 4-ya strochki tak i poyut vsemi
svoimi "lllll" i "nnnn" i "jjjjj", a v konce obryvayutsya slovom
"KRIK", kak pryzhok l'va obryvaet mirno pasuschikhsya gazelei,
prostite za poshlost'. 

Ili esche:

Burime #269
        Novaya astrologiya
Radiatsuya.  Zavtra otkazhet reaktor.
Nas pugayut izgiby sozvezdij stal'nykh;
My providim pyat' bedstvij vneplanovyh, kak-to:
Smerch, uranovyj veter i tri ostal'nykh

Zdes' nastroenie inoe: pervye dve stroki svistyat i zvenyat zlovesche,
a v final'noi, chetvertoi, uzhe rokochet rok.

Chto zhe u Andreeva? Skorogovorka, prosti gospodi, vo vtorom
chetverostishii. Poprobuite-ka prochitat' etu topornost' vslukh na
skorosti. A nastroeniya -- net. A zachem dve poslednie stroki vdrug
zazhuzhzhali? Andreev, kak narochno, vybral dlya alliteracii
zvukosochetaniya, ne nesucschie dlya russkogo slukha emocional'noi
nagruski: "krst", i "zh".


3. Taina. Prochitaite esche raz burime #269. Takoe nel'zya pridumat'
special'no, eto plod vdokhnoveniya (da popravit menya avtor, esli ya
oshibayus'). Ono polno neozhidannostei, pered kotorymi
ostanavlivaesh'sya, porazhennyi, a potom ponimaesh' -- da, tak i
nado. Pochemu sozvezdiya stal'nye? Blestyat, i kholodnye, i uvideny
glazom, privychnym k mashinam. Pochemu bedstviya vneplanovye? A kakie
esche, zaplanirovannye, chto li? A zachem togda voobsche k nim takoi
epitet, esli eto tavtologiya? A zatem, chto v bedstvii samoe strashnoe
dlya togo zhe industrializovannogo uslovnogo liricheskogo geroya, --
imenno to, chto vse zaplanirovano, a bedstvie net. A uzh "i tri
ostal'nykh" vyzyvayut u menya takoi misticheskii vostorg, chto
analiticheskie sposobnosti otkazyvayut. No esli kto zainteresuyutsya,
ya mogu poprobovat'. 

Chto zhe u Andreeva? Dazhe i slov tratit' ne khochetsya, nastol'ko vse
plosko, poshlo i mnogo raz slyshanno. Zhaloby na to, chto vokrug
serost' i eskapizm v kreslo, v kukhnyu, k kruzhke chayu. Nu, esche
gomofobii nemnozhko (skoree vsego, tozhe prityanutoi dlya rifmy). Fu. 

I nikakoi vnytrennei samosoglasovannosti, v otlichie ot
procitirovannogo burime. Pochemu, naprimer, imenno kruzhka dolzhna
uverit', chto serost krugom -- sluchainaya, a imenno kukhnya --
ogradit' ot pokornosti i prochego? Zub dayu, nikto ne obosnuet. A na
pervom chetverostishii ya pri pervom chtenii voobsche nadolgo
zastryal, pytayas' predstavit' sebe, kak eto tak nuzhno sest' v
kreslo, chtoby ego spinka zagorodila vas ot oblozhek. Ser'ezno,
zastryal i stal vertet' tak i syak -- net, ne poluchaetsya. 

4. Lichnost' liricheskogo geroya. Sobstvenno, ob etom uzhe
napisano. Ne lyublyu bryuzzhaniya, i osobenno ne lyublyu, kogda
schitayut, chto vokrug serost', podrazumevaya pri etom, chto sami-to
sverkayut vsemi cvetami radugi. Da prostit menya Andreev, no obraz
etot vpolne posledovatel'no vystupaet v ego stikhakh i stat'yakh. 

--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 596

        Vot takaja istorija
Odnazhdy staryj mrakobes
Sobral kompaniju poves.
Zakrichali gosti s piskom:
"Oznakom'te nas so spiskom!"

Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi





Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Re: a nice poem - real stuff :) (Re:Molitva)
In-Reply-To: alexey@cerc.wvu.edu's message of Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:56:19 GMT
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 00:11:32 GMT


Copyright notice: Non-exclusive rights for unlimited commercial
                  reproduction are hereby granted to Alexei Andreev


Khorosho byt' umnee vsekh!
Sredi stroya stradayuschikh stressom,
Oborzevshikh prezrevshi brekh,
Vyvodit' izyaschnye presto.

- Tuk. Tuk. Tuk. 
- Nikogo net doma. 
- A kto govorit?
- A govorit kievskoe radio. Kievskoe vremya 12 godyn, 13 khvylyn. *)

Znaete, kakoi samyi seryi kardinal?
Eto -
         Serye Massy

Raz~yaryaet steril'nykh sterv moi stikh
No v brone iz kruzhek i kresel,
Rastoropnost' topornosti serosti
Mne, voobsche govorya, do chresel.

Ty leti, plevkov moikh staika,
Neudobno byt' tonkokozhim...
Nu-ka khaiku moyu okhai-ka --
Schas kak kharknu v glupuyu rozhu!

Dvenadstat' slogov
A skol'ko mudrosti v nikh
Ya sumel vlozhit'

---------------
*) Izvestnyi anekdot
--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 1089

        Otvetnaya zapiska
Spasibo, madam, za frantsuzskij kon'yak,
No ya govoril vam raz pyat',
Chto muzh vash, revnivyj i zlobnyj man'yak
Menya ugrozhaet raspyat'."

Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi




>From: khrabrov@cccc.com (Alexy V. Khrabrov)
Subject: Re: Pri oslablenii hrustyaschih svoistv - just relax (Re: Molitva)
Sender: compcom@tigger.jvnc.net (Scott Andrews)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 02:57:00 GMT


In article ,
Alexey V. Andreyev  wrote:
>Dmitrii Manin (s bol'shimi duxovnymi zaprosami i slozhnym vnytrennim mirom)
>wrote:
>: liricheskii geroi Andreeva prost, kak valenok, -- eto tochno.
>
>..i posle etogo Dime by ostanovit'sya, edak krasivo-liricheski, glazki vdal' -
>deskat', chto uzh tam govorit'!... A on ne sderzhalsya:
>
>: Burime No. 703
>
>:      Kazanovskoe (a)
>: Vmyal ya devku v ugolok,
>: Uderzhalsya, chtob dozor--
>: Mimo, dal`she povolok
>: V seni--prichinyat` pozor...
>
>Net, u menya est' chelovek pyat' znakomyx, kotorye mogut skazat' - ty, Lexa,
>xernyu napisal - i ya ix obychno s bol'shim vnimaniem slushayu, eto vse-taki 
>lyudi so vkusom: haiku pishut, krutuyu prozu, pesni obaldennye...Ili prosto
>skazhem - talantlivaya (v svoem rode) zhenschina skazhet: "Ne interesno!" - 
>byvaet takoe.
>
>No isvinite! - etot tovarisch Manin s ego bezdarnymi chastushkami-burime
>mog by i pomolchat', ne pozorit'sya na publike. Takie burime razve chto 
>provintsial'nye baryshni da tylovye intendanty pisali v proshlom veke, da
>i to prilichnye byli lyudi, nikomu ne pokazyvali...
>Tak chto, Dima, publikuj uzh chego-nubud' prilichnoe sam, a ne mogesh' -
>pomalkivai da sushi svoi "xrustyaschie svoistva". 
>                              --Lexa "I-know-nothing-about-killfiles" Andreyev

Lexa, priznayus', chto avtor vysheprivedennogo bezdarnogo_burime -- ja.
Esli by ty znal uzhe dovol'no razvituyu stilistiku i istoriyu Burime,
to vosprinimal by sami burime inache.  A imenno, chto est' mnogo
takih, v kotoryh podrazumevaetsya "talantlivaya (v svoem rode) zhenschina".
Dalee, odin iz dostojnyh Burimejsterov, Alex Ershov,
pridumal konkurs, "Burimestnik", v kotorom vse poluchali odinakouyu
gruppu rifm.  Zachinatel' vyrazhal blagodarnost' za nevoplowenie obraza
Kazanovy.  Vysheprvedennoe burimiwe vozniklo za 0.5 min. kak spontannaya
poluparodiya i protest v obwirnom zhanre Burimejskoj Kazanoviany.
I v maniniskoj podpisi poyavilos' sluchajno, kak i lyuboe drugoe.
To-est', sostryapannoe dlya druzheskogo vnutrennego pol'zovaniya,
ono -- ne povod dlya kritiki Burime.  Kotoroe, sobstvenno, ne nuzhdaetsya
v zawite -- posmotri hotya by No. 9.  Ono odno uzhe okupaet gryaduwuyu
tysyachu let Burime, i kazhdyj chestnyj poe't poraduetsya emu, kak
stihotvoreniyu dlya stihotvorcev.  Uchti, chto bezvestnyj, no vydayuwijsya
avtor (ne ya) byl ogranichen vsemi chetyr'mya popolam rifmami, kak i vse
Buiimejstery.  

Prilichnyj chelovek -- tylovoj intendant s harakterom
provincial'noj baryshni,
--
        Alexy V. Khrabrov 
        ``Una simus, ait'' (Zaodno, tak vmeste.)



Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Crunchy properties exposed at last! (Re: Molitva)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 17:01:36 GMT



In article <3vmb94$186k@news.doit.wisc.edu> delitsin@etna.geology.wisc.edu (Leonid 
L. Delitsyne) writes:

o    So, here I object  Manin's words and  state:  no, Lexa's  poetry is
o fine, as was proved by my numerous articles.  

Lenya, I suspect that all this article is a big fat joke,
Delitsyn-style. I can't prove that, so I'll answer more or less
seriously, risking a minor embarrassment. 

o After I posted my final
o article,  containing several examples  of the correct understanding of
o Lexa's verse,  Manin gave  up, realising,  that he  misunderstood what
o does "pokornost' russkoj topornosti" mean.

I understood it from the very beginning. My objections are on other
levels: 1. grammatical awkwardness (piled-up genitives),
2. semantical ineptness (an abstract concept having an equally
abstract property: "vysota shiriny"), 3. arrogant attitude.

o It is also possible  that
o Manin is incapable to understand it at all because of his limited life
o experience, which  just proves  how  useful Andreyev's poetry   is for
o Manin.  I  would suggest Mitya to read  more of Lexa's stuff  and make
o further progress.

Nu tochno, shutit, podlec.

o    There  is   no  answer  to    the    statement: "your   poetry   is
o shit".

Of course. However I wrote it only after he systematically failed to
answer more specific criticisms. Either does not care, or can not. The
former is hardly compatible with his general attitude and
behavior. Hence, the second.

o    Andreyev's perception of the poet's job seems to be perfectly right
o and has nothing in common with bard's or  pop-art (unlike what Iriska,
o whom I admire, suffers from). I just do not  see any reason for him to
o stop from making further progress and ending up in Peredelkino.

What a pityful fate for the one aiming at Nobel's Prize. Polozitel'no,
ty segodnya v udare.

o    I have to  note also, that so  far Mitya didn't  demonstrate *here*
o any special  knowledge of the   modern poetry.

I do not possess such, and never pretended to. Neither do I see how it
is relevant to the topic. 

o  Those, who are big in
o flames here, never post their traditional-style poetry.

I thought of it from the very beginning. The trick is that my own
traditional-style poetry (which I quit writing somewhere about 20
years of age) is in some respects very similar to Andreev's. It is as
awkward, constructed, dry, and false. Adolescent, in a word. Still, it
would be funny to post an example. Remember however that it was
written by an immature individual. Also note that I chose this one,
because it's about the only one I happened to remember in full.

        * * *

Vernemsya v proshloe. Voz'mem bilet
I poudobnei u okoshka syadem,
I budem prinimat' parad primet
Bylogo. No bez grusti, skuki radi. 

I vot my edem. To, chto bylo szadi
Mel'kaet mimo. Ostanovok net,
Steklo ne b'etsya. Beznadezhno glyada
V okno, my edem skvoz' sherengu let.

A tam -- davno zabytye privychki
Rzhaveyut v zastoyavsheisya vode,
Butylochno blestit oskolok schast'ya,

I chto-to izmenit' ne v nashei vlasti,
I na tablo u etoi elektrichki
Gorit: "Segodnya. Dalee -- nigde."


--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 215

        nakazali...:-(
Ya nakazan, mne ne budet krem-bryulle
Pe-da-gogi...:-( Tak rebenka vyzhimat'!
Vzaperti. I na okonnom na stekle
Gryaznym pal'tsem vyvozhu ya: "...vashu mat'!"

Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi



Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Re: a nice poem - real stuff :) (Re:Molitva)
In-Reply-To: alexey@cerc.wvu.edu's message of Thu, 3 Aug 1995 20:05:18 GMT
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 14:52:04 GMT


In article  alexey@cerc.wvu.edu (Alexey V. Andreyev) write
s:

o PS. Tol'ko vot, ubej bog - ne pojmu, pochemu "dvenadtsat"?

Poyasnyayu: rech' idet o zaklyuchitel'noi strofe parodii na Andreeva,
predstavlyayuschei soboi kak by khaiku:

        Dvenadcat' slogov
        A skol'ko mudrosti v nikh
        Ya sumel vlozhit'

V haiku, kak khorosho vsem izvestno, semnadcat' slogov: 5-7-5 (byvayut
isklyucheniya, konechno). Vysheprivedennoe trehstishie ukladyvaetsya v
etot razmer, i imitiruet tvorchestvo cheloveka, schitayuschego
sochinenie khaiku vernym priznakom khoroshego vkusa,
soprovozhdayuschego podborki svoikh stikhov podborkami vostorzhennykh
otzyvov chitatelei, i sposobnogo po oshibke napisat' v stikhotvorenii
o "chernoi glybe neba" v beluyu noch'. Dazhe ya, nikogda ne videvshii
beloi nochi, eto zametil. Nu vot, "dvenadcat'" -- kak raz takaya zhe
oshibka. 

Ponyal teper'?

Kstati, raz uzh rech' zashla ob etom, mne tut prishlo v golovu, kak
nado otvechat' na parodiyu. Nado pokazat' parodistu, kak ee mozno
uluchshit'. Esli mozhesh', konechno.

Nu naprimer, poslednee chetverostishie, pozhalui, luchshe by zvuchalo
tak:

Ty leti, plevkov moikh staika,
Ya, khranim moei kukhnei, kukharyu.
Nu-ka, khaiku moyu okhai-ka
Scha kak kharknu v glupuyu kharyu!

--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 1293

        Upravlyayuwij
-- Opanas.  -- Povrawaj zhernova ty.
-- Frol. -- Prismotrish' za kabrioletom.
-- Marfa, Grusha.  -- A, kak baby letom?
-- Vesely, barin.  -- M-da-s.  Zhirnovaty.

Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi



Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Re: Verbitskomu - o poezii i voobsche
In-Reply-To: alexey@cerc.wvu.edu's message of Sun, 6 Aug 1995 13:02:27 GMT
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 02:06:05 GMT



In article  alexey@cerc.wvu.edu (Alexey V. Andreyev) write
s:

o Prosto v dannoj, naprimep, newsgroup xorosho
o razvito iskusstvo obseraniya vsex podryad, krome "svoix"

Svoikh, svoikh... Ne videl ty plamennykh bitv Verbickogo s Vorob"evym. 

o  "Pokornost' russkoj topornosti" ("chemu?", a ne "chego?" - dlya
o tex, kto izobrazil znanie yazyka) v moem stixe dejstvuet, i v
o chastnosti, imenno svoej dvusmyslennost'yu deistvuet!

Deistvuet. Razdrazhaet zhutko. 

o nad stixom, kotoryj ya sochinyal pyat' minut, tut vse onaniruyut
o uzhe dve nedeli, da potom esche pominayut v P.S. k drugim postam.

Kak-to tak okazyvaetsya, chto vse kritikuemoe neizmenno okazyvaetsya
pustyachkom, kotoryi ty nakropal za pyat' minut, i kotoryi vnimaniya
sovershenno ne zasluzhivaet. Nu tak preduprezhdal by srazu, chto li,
kak vot pro testy preduprezhdayut: "Subject: Weak poetry. Please
ignore." 

o Neudivitel'no, chto Manin u vas - "Arbitr Izyaschestva".

Andreev, davai konkretno. A to ot etikh tvoikh obschikh slov toshnit
opyat'. Vot stikh, kotoryi mne ponravilsya. Nebezogovorochno,
konechno, no vse zhe, po-moemu, na golovu vyshe tvoikh
uprazhnenii. Imeesh' li ty chto-nibud' po etomu povodu skazat'
*soderzhatel'noe*?

                *  *  *

        Alyuminevyj kupol nevymytoy lozhki,
        Sebya nastigayushiy golos vokzala -
        Oni tak pohozhi. Prisyad' na dorozhku
        I chernye dyry sledov bez nachala
        Ne budut hod'boy bez posledstvij.
 
        Siluet cheloveka ukrytogo polkoy,
        Prokisshie lampy, zhelezo dvizhen'ya,
        Pustota i zhelan'e podarkov pod elkoy
        Rozhdaet v vagone lish' ryab' nastroen'ya,
        Da razgovor bez posledsvij.

        No teplym kasaniem dvizhetsya vremya,
        I skvoz' shevelyashijsya vozduh ya vizhu,
        Kak, lopnuv, prozrachnym stanovitsya nebo,
        I ta, chto saditsya na myagkuyu kryshu,
        Est' lomkaya mysl' bez posledstvij.

                                Bogdan Kulik


--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 1374

        Kak u Kuindzhi
Lunnaya noch' nad Dneprom. Katerok.
Pesnya zvuchit udalaya,
Komanda na katere - po-hot' i rok,
Ne znayu - chego ne dala ja?

Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi



Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: khrabrov@cccc.com (Alexy V. Khrabrov)
Subject: Re: writing PALINDROMES: CHALLENGE for dudes
Sender: compcom@tigger.jvnc.net (Scott Andrews)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:42:31 GMT


In article <40adt5$idb@news.bu.edu>, Mikhail Teterin  wrote:
>Some time ago (Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:02:10 GMT) honorable Dmitrii Manin, 
>residing at manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu wrote:
>
>|On diven, Andreev! Lit. sup otovaril -- tut lira, vot opustil
>|veer... Dna ne vidno!
>
>Ljesha na polke klopa nashel
>       /ili bylo uzhe?/
>
>               -mi
>
>|      * * *
>|Sud'bu tiranozavra razdeliv,
>|Khochu ya skinut' lishnie odezhdy
>|I vstat' v muzee, nag i gordeliv:
>|Se -- Chelovek! Divitesya, nevezhdy!
>               * * *
>       Vspomnilos':
>       Ja dostaju iz shirokix shtanin
>       ... ogromnyj kak konservnaja banka --
>       Smotrite, zavidujte: Ja -- GRAZHDANIN,
>       A ne kakaja-nibud' grazhdanka!

Nu vot, slava bogu, Misha othodit' stal -- otogreli cheloveka!
Teper' ostalos' propuski zapolnyat' chestno -- ty tochku ne trozh'
gde ne nadobno!  K 2000-nomu godu kazhdyj Mihail dolzhen stat'
v dushe Verbickim!  (Ya govoryu v dushE.)

>--
>    ģ ...
>               -- Why is that 2 o'clock all the time?!
>               -- It is a manometer!!!


A vot  neskol'ko palindromov.  

        GOGA -- DEPUTAT, SHOPEN -- NE PO SHTATU "PEDAGOG"


        NO I CAR' TUP, NETU MASLA...\
        VERHI V VIHRE VAL'SA...\
        MUTEN PUT' -- RACION?...


Moj lyubimyj "ne moj" takov:


        UDAVY RVALI LAVRY V ADU.



--
        Alexy V. Khrabrov  
        ``Una simus, ait'' (Zaodno, tak vmeste.  At one, so together.)




Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Sonet
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:12:15 GMT



Preduprezhdaya kriticheskie vypady, otmechu, chto skhema rifmovki
poslednikh shesti strochek soneta byvaet samaya
raznoobraznaya. Vozmozhno, komu-to moi dal'nie rifmy pokazhutsya
neubeditel'nymi. Pyatistopnost' i dvuslozhnost' ya, odnako, soblyul,
a ravno i logicheskuyu strukturu: tezis, antitezis, sintez i koda, ili
kak tam ono nazyvaetsya. 

           Po Andreevskim mestam. Sonet.

                        "V gryaznom dna stakannogo stekle"
                                        - Andreev

V gryaznom dna stakannogo stekle
Otrazivshis', zhenschina nagaya,
Mne "Uvy," -- rekla, -- "Iznemogayu!
Slovno v glyby neba nochi mgle

V sintaksisa ya tvoikh tvorenii
Zabludilas' debryakh. Mochi net!"
"Ukhodi!" -- ya ei skazal v otvet, --
"Kol' tebe neinteresen genii.

Li ot zlobnykh vypadov vraga ya,
Um- khirurga -ru li na stole,
Ot uma l' fatal'nykh obostrenii,
Tri dnya cherez il' chrez trista let, --

Tol'ko by ne utonut' v nebrezhnosti
Neizbezhnosti tvoei bezbrezhnosti!" *)

-------------
*)

   ______________________________________________
  |                  v chem?                     |
  |             ______________________           |
  |            |        ch'ei?        |          |
  |            |                      |          |
  |            V                      |          V
utonut' v nebrezhnosti neizbezhnosti tvoei bezbrezhnosti
               ^          |  ^                   |                  
               |          |  |                   |
               |__________|  |___________________|
                  chego?             chego?
--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 1721

        Zimnie zhaloby zaitsa.
Reztsy moi uze stochilis',
Poryadki na gumne uzhestochilis'.
Na shkure tut i tam moei podpaliny -
Skoree by vesna, teplo, protaliny!

Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi





>From: yulya@coxeter.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: a poem and thoughts on Voznesenskii etc. (Re: Evtushenko)
Date: 1 Jun 1995 19:49:44 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv



In article  manin@camelot.rockefeller
.edu writes:

Sorry for jumping in, as usual.  Don't think I can really add 
much, but anyway.

>o > But it is dull and primitive formally,
>o 
>o How nice to hear that!!! A whole year on the Internet, and really -- only
>o positive replies from England, Japan, USA, Russia and other countries.
>o What a flattery!!! Thank you for honesty, brother! I feel like at
>o home!!! 

>Sorry for making you feel bad.

The problem is, as I've said already, that the art of poetry
is dead nowadays.  Which means, nobody reads anything.  Otherwise,
even Mr.Andreev would have been ashamed of being so hopelessly
secondhand as a "poet".  Say, when he uses Gorodetskij's typical
structure like "Akh ty, pole, moya volya, akh, doroga doroga..."
to bring it down to the level of after-Brodskiish deep-thoughtish
gibberish, nobody seems to notice those, ughm, links with tradition.
  On the other hand, if you force verses down someone's
throat (by repeatedly posting them on the net, for instance), you are
certain to get appreciation.  A kind of psycological thing.
  The other way is to form a community and share with its members
your, er, achievements.  Praise them, and they will praise you.

>o : there is not a single metaphor in it.
>o 
>o Please read something about Japanese art of haiku. Metaphors are considered
>o as a failure there :-)
>
>If you had squeezed the poem in 3 lines and 17 syllables, I'd judge it
>with different criteria.

:) Of them neophites, The Old Grey Donkey Eeyore is my favourite.
Remember what he did to the letter "A" when it turned out that
the Rubbit also knew the Meaning of it?  Hope Mr.Andreev, unlike
that other ass, won't lose his interest in "the art of haiku"
just because it's actually a common thing for (very boring) 
official American "poetry" and no secret for anyone.
   
>o : Rhymes are often too loose:
>o : "tusklYI/russkOM", "turkAM/kurtOK", "palindromOM/ogromnYI".
>o 
>o Please read "Leaves of Grass"; try also something closer to Europe,
>o Charlz Bukovski, probably :-)
>
>Please don't refer me to English-language poetry; its attitude towards
>rhymes is dramatically different. Moreso, had you chosen not to use
>rhymes, I'd never say anything, but you chose to use them -- so you
>should do it well.

Manin, please, heal yourself.  Read Pushkin, "Domik v Kolomne" or
something.  Let this demon leave you for good.  Let it enter
a herd of pigs instead -- or s.c.s. poets, for that matter.

>Well, let's see. Hey, anybody knows what "mazhor" means? And, the
>second question: what is the correct adverb -- "po-mazhorski",
>"mazhorno", "mazhorovo", "mazhorski", or something else? And what that
>means, too?

"Mazhor" means a person who cares about luxury (as the commons
understand the notion).  He/she wears expensive clothes (compare
"mazhorskij prikid"), has or dreams about a first-class car etc.
There is also a characteristic "mazhor" pattern of behavior 
which is undescribable.  "Po-mazhorski" and "mazhorski" are
established expressions, that's for sure.

>Any communication carries a message. Your poem is a communication,
>otherwise you'd not post it (don't tell me you're not a postman
>either). This message is clear: "Voznesensky -- gavno, ya luchshe, no
>ego pechatayut dazhe v Amerike, a menya -- net, potomu chto on --
>gavno" (if you prefer to spell "govno", use your favorite editor to
>edit this posting).

If I were A.Andreev, I'd say that this is how you understood the
poem due to your own narrow-mindedness.  Now that I am just
my humble self, I'll say the message is not important.  "Ne to
beda, Faddej Bulgarin, chto na Parnase ty tsygan..."


>- M
>       V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
>       produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
>----------------------------------------------------

Yulya.



>From: yulya@coxeter.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: a poem and thoughts on Voznesenskii etc. (Re: Evtushenko)
Date: 1 Jun 1995 23:21:09 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv


In article  manin@camelot.rockefeller
.edu writes:

>o >Any communication carries a message. [...] This message is clear:
>o >"Voznesensky -- gavno

>o If I were A.Andreev, I'd say that this is how you understood the
>o poem due to your own narrow-mindedness.  Now that I am just
>o my humble self, I'll say the message is not important.
>
>Not important for whom? 

For quite a lot of people, I'd venture to guess.  Moreover,
it's not important for appreciating the poetry.  Remember
Mandelshtam's "Chetvertaya proza"?  Doesn't it contain the
same message you ascribed to Mr.Andreev's verse?  I bet it
does.  Is it a mediocre thing?  I don't think so; in fact,
it's one of my favourite Mandelshtam's works.  And I'd say
it's poetry and not the prose.

>Also note that by message I don't necessarily mean "information
>consciously put into and accessible from" the communication. On the
>contrary, what I tried to express in words, is actually a state of
                                                           ^^^^^^^^
>mind in which the poem brings me, and which I actively
^^^^^^
>dislike. Perhaps Andreev will say, as you suggested, that this state
>of mind is not in any way programmed in the poem, and so is my own
>responsibility. However it appears as a result of my reading the poem,
>and does not appear as a result of my reading, say, "Domik v
>Kolomne". 

This looks reasonable.  However, that "state of mind" is nothing
too objective.  I don't like Andreev's poems; I'd even say I feel
a kind of shame reading them.  However, he seems to be able to
hypnotize a few reasonable beings (Maia Botvinnik, for instance)
into acknowledging his achievements.  All right, but can't it be
that I myself was somehow hypnotized into being a fan of Gandlevskij, 
Kibirov, Prigov, Anna Nessis etc., not to mention the poets of the Golden
and Silver Ages?  I don't have any evidence to prove the contrary.

>The hell with it... Probably it's just that I can't stand this lame
>hopping _dol'nik_, be it Esenin, Rozhdestvensky, or Andreev.

This is kind of stupid, actually.

>--
>- M
>       V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
>       produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
>----------------------------------------------------

Yulya.




>From: yulya@coxeter.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: a poem and thoughts on Voznesenskii etc. (Re: Evtushenko)
Date: 3 Jun 1995 05:06:39 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv


In article  manin@camelot.rockefeller
.edu writes:

>OK. Not having any "adult" Pushkin on hand (nomadic life), I
>thoroughly read the "Skazki". Result: there's not a single inexact
>rhyme in "Skazka o care Saltane", "Skazka o pope...", "Skazka o
>mertvoi carevne...", and "Skazka o zolotom petushke". 
>
>Here's a sample, btw. Enjoy. 

"Skazka o tsare Saltane" starts with: 
"Tri devitsy pod oknom
Pryali pozdno vecherkom."

"-nom" --- "-kom" is not quite an exact rhyme.  Same goes
for "polby" -- "polnyj" ("kak naesh'sya ty svoej polby/
soberi-ka s chertej obrok mne polnyj"), although I, too,
wouldn't expect to find an inexact rhyme in "Balda".
"Skazka o mertvoj tsarevne" -- well, reread the sample
you've posted (starting from the very first lines).
"...Govorit Dadon, zevaya, --- /A?.. Kto tam?.. Beda kakaya?.."---
"Skazka o zolotom petushke."  Another quote, for you to enjoy:

"... Ved' rifmy zaprosto so mnoj zhivut;
Dve pridut sami, tret'yu privedut.

A chtob im put' otkryt' shirokij, vol'nyj,
Glagoly totchas im ya razreshu...
Vy znaete, chto rifmoj naglagol'noj 
Gnushaemsya my.  Pochemu? sproshu.
Tak pisyval Shikhmatov bogomol'nyj;
Po bol'shej chasti tak i ya pishu.
K chemu? skazhite; uzh i tak my goly.
Otnyne v rifmy budu brat' glagoly.

Ne stanu ikh nadmenno brakovat',
Kak rekrutov, dobivshikhsya uvech'ya,
Il' kak konej, za ikh plokhuyu stat', ---
A podbirat' soyuzy da narech'ya;
Iz melkoj svolochi verbuyu rat'.
Mne rifmy nuzhny; vse gotov sberech' ya ,
Khot' ves' slovar'; chto slog, to i soldat ---
Vse godny v stroj: u nas ved' ne parad.
<...>

("Domik v Kolomne").

As a side note: you've just inspired me to dedicate you a
double-headed acrostic (if you know what I mean):

"Mirskoj  soblazn  v  grekhe  neischerpaeM," --
 An   net,   uzh   dno  vidneetsya!  toskA...
 No grust' sladka; ostav' somnen'ya, ManiN!
 Idi,    igraj,    krasavitsu       laskaI: 
 Nevezhda*)  ne   vosstanet  iz   razvaliN.

(Dedicated to Igor Kotlyarevskij as well.)
*) variant: Nadezhda

>--
>- M
>       V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
>       produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
>----------------------------------------------------
>Burime No. 720
>
>       Volshebnaya sila iskusstva
>V pavil'yone Pivo-Vody
>Znamenitaya aktrisa
>Napilas' kak bissektrisa
>I vodila khorovody.

This one is beautiful.

>Play at http://camelot.rockefeller.edu/~manin/br.cgi

Yulya.


>From: yulya@coxeter.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: poems, Ili, Ura!  Nakonec-to philosophiae!
Date: 6 Aug 1995 22:14:50 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv


In article  khrabrov@cccc.com (Alexy V. Khrabrov) write
s:

>Blin, ja propustil variant ""pokornost' (chego?) topornosti" absolyutno,
>s ne men'shej skorost'yu, chem Manin -- protivopolozhnyj variant!
>Mozhet, "ob~yasnit' smysl phrazy <>" budet
>novym testom Rorshaha, vernee Andreeva?  (-;

A ved' est' i tretij variant: pokornost' russkaya mozhet
okazat'sya topornoj.  "Ot (pokornosti russkoj) topornosti
okhrani menya, moya tyotya..." -- ili kak tam v originale.

>A ja vot zasomnevalsya, i pridumal, hudo-bedno, po stuacii dlya kazhdogo
>iz vysheprivedennyh slov, gde vernost im osmyslenna.  IGRA: pridumajte
>suwestvitel'noe, vernosti kotoromu, po-vashemu, ne mozhet byt', i ja
>potorayus' pokazat' protivnoe.  Za proigrysh -- po 3 edinicy valyuty
>strany prebyvaniya. 

Konechno, takikh slov ne byvaet.  Uzh kotoroe tysyacheletie
ustritsa verna svoej dvustvorchatosti, a suda -- svoemu
vodoizmescheniyu.

>--
>       Alexy V. Khrabrov 
>       "Una simus, ait"

Yulya.


>From: yulya@coxeter.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: This merciless art of writing the last line.
Date: 12 Aug 1995 00:53:20 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv



In article <40elpr$1c94@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu> cnz2@Lehigh.EDU (CONSTANTIN N ZHIKHAR
EV) writes:
>In article <40dfeg$5gk@decaxp.harvard.edu>, yulya@coxeter.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridm
an) writes:
>
>>                            Konchaetsya ochen' plokho,
>>konechno, no poslednyuyu strochku pisat' voobsche malo
>>kto umeet.  

>   Tak vot, ja teper' sizhu i vspominaju, vspominaju, vspominaju pos-
>   lednie strochki stihotvorenij poetov, kotorye mne nravyatsya... Po
>   elegantnosti poslednih strochek Brodskij poka vedet so znachitel'-
>   nym otryvom...
>
>     "... kak budto zhizn' kachnetsya vpravo, kachnuvshis' vlevo..."

Ya po Brodskomu ne spetsialist, no dumayu, chto
poslednyaya strochka zdes' -- prosto "kachnuvshis' vlevo".
Vot i ya ne znayu, kak luchshe zakonchit' posvyaschenie
vam, A.Andreevu i Vijonu zaodno (chtoby on uzh tochno
ne obidelsya).  Ne posovetuete?

                        "Rozhden'e stikhov podobno ponosu"
                                  --- A.Andreev
          * * *
Veter stikh, s potukhshego Vostoka
Donesya dukhanie navoza...
V nem -- ukhmylka zmeya-gonokokka
I kholery vlazhnaya ugroza.

No strashnee vzbukhshego zheludka,
Khuzhe strasti, gor'koj spolup'yana,
Zlykh stikhij bezzhalostnaya shutka --
Yadovityj virus grafomana.

Vejte, vetry, v zhope do rassveta!
Trizhdy kriknet Zhikharev s nasesta...
Publika -- v smyaten'i, kak nevesta,
Zhdet kakashki Russkogo Poeta.

>   Zhikharev.     

Yulya.


>From: yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: Russian nerl (Re: Russian girl)
Date: 1 Sep 1995 04:42:47 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv


In article ,
Alexey V. Andreyev  wrote:

>why don't YOU YOURSELF stop insulting people, you fucken techno-nerd?!
>I told you, no need to show your infantile stupidity on public - for me
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
in public

>it was enough just to glance at your necrophilic HomePage where you
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Webster's 7th Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright (C) 1963 by Merriam-Webster,
Inc.  

No definition for 'necrophilic'.

>youself as a tipical shitseller - pages of cheap ads, tasteless covers of 
              ^^^^^^^
typical

Well; enough of this.  So far, not a single line without 
a spelling mistake...

>Or, if you really wanna entertain people and make them laugh - please 
>post here
>a piece of your cybercrap fiction that you keep out of my reach so secretly. 
>Oh, I see, you DARE NOT. I smell this "pi-pi" in your pants, Pepe - you are 
>afraid that people would make fun of your childish writing and noone'd then 
>buy your "pigs in a poke". And instead of such posting, you'll just reply with
>new offences. Moreover, you are too yellow to do even this straightly, 
>honestly and ALONE - you will use your schpitzhunds "who will die for you in 
>cyberspace"...

Nice spelling here.  I put it to you, mentally retarded 
"Andreev" piglet, that you've just swallowed the sharp end of 
the electric cord they've been shoving up and down your rectum
while training you to perform annilingus.  Frustrated, your
masters threw the pink bloody "Andreev", twisting with 
pain, over a keyboard.  Feces flying all over the place, 
"Andreev" screaming and pleading for mercy, the keys being hit 
in an arbitrary (though fitting the case) manner -- this is 
how the "article" of the late piglet.  Hey, poor boy, are 
you still around?
  If yes, you will of'course try to deny the facts mentioned above.  
You'll say, "See, I told you someone was going to speak for my esteemed
opponent P.Vorobieff (whose anal cavity I, "Andreev" the piglet, will gladly 
salivate over after I acquire sufficient skills through harder training)!"

Or else, you might choose to answer this polite article of mine
with senseless, even sexually abusive insults.  Worse yet, you
might opt for flooding the net with badly rhymed excreta, which
is one of your nasty habits.  

Then again, having nothing to say, you might "ignore" this 
post and die of shame in silence. How predictable you are.

>                                         <^> A.
>                                          |\
>

        STORMFEEDER


>From: yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: Mishe Verbitskomu ot Zheleznogo Drovoseka (long :)
Date: 1 Sep 1995 19:02:44 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv


In article ,
Alexey V. Andreyev  wrote:
>
>! , ,  !      !
>
>
>            -  ,   -   ...
>                                    (  ,   ϣ)
>          
>             -   
>                                    (.......................)
>
>                
>
>          ̣     
>
>                  
>                                                     
>          etc.
>
>
>
>                                                 o 
>                                                <^>  
>                                                 |\ 
>
>PS.   ݣ   .
>
>     "      " -- 
>     "   ֣  " -- 
>

Andreev, nu pochemu ty takoj BEZNADEZHNYJ IDIOT?!  Nu 
pochemu vas takikh ne otstrelivayut, a?  Malo togo, chto
ty ni cherta ne soobrazhaesh' i glukh, kak sapog -- ty
esche i redkostnyj nevezhda.  V tom, chto ty protsitiroval
zdes' iz "Grebenschikova", odna strochka (i pesnya, iz
kotoroj ona vydrana) prinadlezhit Vertinskomu, a drugaya 
predstavlyaet soboj _ves'ma_ prozrachnuyu ssylku na
Apollinera, do smeshnogo neumestnuyu v dannom kontekste.

  Ty by khot' BG s Egorom i Yankoj ne trogal, uebische.
Nu vse byvaet, no neuzheli ty ne slyshish' v tekh
vyderzhkakh iz dvukh poslednikh (kotorye ty zhe sam i
privel vyshe!) -- kak eto na vashem blyadskom yazyke --
gor'koj samoironii ("zhestokoj nasmeshki nad soboj"?),
Vselenskogo Placha O Slyunyavosti Nashikh Stereotipov?
Nu na koj kher ty ikh syuda sunul?  Ne mozhet zhe
zhivoj chelovek ne videt' NASTOL'KO ochevidnykh veschej, a?

  I ne trudis' zasypat' chelovechestvo tsitatami iz
lyubimykh avtorov, sirota ty derevenskaya.  I ya, i 
Verbitskij _vse_ eti pesni znaem naizust' i proslushali
v millionakh raznykh variantov.  Syad' luchshe i
podumaj o chem-nibud' pomimo obyvatel'skikh shtampov,
osnovatel'no zasorivshikh tvoyu bednuyu golovu.

Yulya.
P.S.  Ya vot ne lyubila Pavla E. za to, chto on 
bez kontsa obsasyvaet ochevidnye i (kak mne 
kazalos') nikomu uzhe ne nuzhnye istiny.  A 
vykhodit, est' lyudi, kotorym eto moglo by byt'
polezno.




>From: yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: Hristos, Gitler, zolotaja rybka...
Date: 25 Sep 1995 07:16:11 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv


In article ,
Alexey V. Andreyev  wrote (to Vorobieff):

>Tak chto ya prosto xochu porekomendovat' emu pochitat' "Igru v biser", skazku
>pro cheloveka, kotoryj vsyu zhizn' somnevalsya i v suschnosti - 
>"refleksiroval", i pri etom dostig vershin v Igre. Odnako zhe pod konets on 
>uverilsya v svoej znachimosti, v "zhivoj", tak skazat', "svyasi pokolenij", 
>proniksya etoj samoj "self-respect" - i tut zhe potonul, kak durak.

Right!!!  Also, have you heard of Leo Tolstoj?
The one who wrote "World or Peace" or something,
one or two centures back then.  (Or was it Alex, 
I forgot).  It's about a guy who was a real man
all along, prince and an officer and all such, 
until he got wounded and started squealing.  
Respect to one's neighbour, compassion, blue 
infinity, all that stuff.  And there he goes,
dead like a Perdue chicken.  Did you know they
strangle them with electric wires?

  That's all because that Alex guy was mightily
taken with the late Jesus the X-tian: didn't 
kill no chicken alive.  Ate grass or something.
Or was it Leo, who cares.  Always had the Bible
on him, only he couldn't read very well.  Got
it all wrong, they say.  When they came to murder
his wife, he didn't even fight.  So they strangled 
her with a pillow, like a chicken.

Pushkin, the Negro guy, was also of that kind.
Know of him?  They married him to an Emperor's mistress
who got herself pregnant, to cover the shame.
Wrote a lot of pretty naughty staff, too.
All about gipsies.  Only he was a muslim, like
all arabs.  And that Leo (or Alex) I've been talking 
about, he was a X-tian.  His father was even named 
Constantin, after a saint or such.

Hope this helps,

Yulya.





Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
>From: manin@pendragon.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Subject: Re: Pri oslablenii.. svoistv - just relax.
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 23:15:56 GMT



In article <3vp3j5$4j7m@tigger.cc.uic.edu> Moore Lab  writes:

o A vot okhal'nyj Andreevskij  "Tsok-dva-tri" v ovezhevlyonnom vide -
o krajne zanimatelen. 

V kakom-kakom vide? Osvezhevannom? Ovesqestvlennom?  Ovezhetalennom?
Osvezhennom i ozhivlennom? Ne, "okhal'nyi" -- khoroshee slovechko, no
vot etogo ya, prosti, ne ponyal.

Govorit Rifmoplyuyu Andreev:
"Nakropal ya tut, bratec, khoreev,
Tak chto ty uzh togo, Rifmoplyui,
Poskoree ikh osvezhevlyui"

o                                  Levaya shtana, bez avtografa.      

Znala by pravaya...
--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 1393

        Intelligentnoe pohmel'e
Ya glyazhu po utru cherez stenku stakanchika,
Vspominayu rodnuyu Nevu, a ne tot,
Pro medvedya, chto gryazno ottrahal kabanchika,
Neprilichnyi, nedetstkii takoi anekdot.


>From: yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: Russian nerl (Re: Russian girl)
Date: 1 Sep 1995 18:06:21 GMT
Organization: Sozialistisches Patienten Kollektiv



In article <426i7n$1gck@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
Peter Vorobieff  wrote:
>In article <426307$8sd@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
>   yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman) wrote:

>>I put it to you, mentally retarded 
>>"Andreev" piglet

>On behalf of the piglets, I demand apologies.

  I hereby solemnly decline your suggestion --- on
behalf of the Nature, cruel and devoid of compassion.

Yulya.
(Until the Mentally Retarded Piglets Association
raises funds enough to hire a good lawyer, the poor
cuties are to be occasionally insulted.  That's how
the life is; we have no choice but to get on with it.)






>From: pig3@brickhouse.gov (Third Little Pig)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: Russian nerl (Re: Russian girl)
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 95 16:19:53 GMT
Organization: The White... oops... Brick House
Summary: Bar zhfg or n pbzcyrgr zbeba abg gb trg vg ABJ.


In article <427bmf$1jet@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
   pig2@woodhouse.edu (Second Little Pig) wrote:
>In article <427beg$1jet@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
>   pig1@strawhouse.com (First Little Pig) wrote:
>>In article <4277fm$1c6f@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
>>   cnz2@Lehigh.EDU (CONSTANTIN N ZHIKHAREV) wrote:
>>>In article <426i7n$1gck@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, pv02@lehigh.edu (Peter 
>>Vorobieff) writes:
>>>>In article <426307$8sd@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
>>>>   yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Nice spelling here.  I put it to you, mentally retarded 
>>>>>"Andreev" piglet
>>>
>>>>On behalf of the piglets, I demand apologies.
>>>
>>>   By the way, Peter, how is your piglet doing?
>>
>>I am deeply offended with the insidious insult delivered to the 
>>entirety of the pighood by the vile, vicious and vitriolic pen
>>of Yulia Fridman. I am used to the human prejudice against pigs -
>>we have a lot to suffer in this porcinophobic world, but what
>>Yulia Fridman did is just unthinkable!
>>
>>First Little Pig.
>>
>>pig1@strawhouse.com
>>http://www.lehigh.edu/~pv02/bagpiper.html
>
>I have to add that I also do demand apologies from Yulia Fridman,
>however, I would not be so harsh. After all, she is a human, born
>in a simiocentric and hopelessly backward environment, and her 
>illiteracy in the issues of pig virtues should take at least a part
>of the blame from her.
>
>Second Little Pig.
>
>pig2@woodhouse.edu
>http://www.lehigh.edu/~pv02/frknswin.html

I will suggest that Ms. Fridman attend a course of government-sponsored
seminars "Get Friendly to your Neighborhood Pig."

Third Little Pig.

pig3@brickhouse.edu
http://www.lehigh.edu/~pv02/cyberpig.html



>From: makar@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu (Vladimir Makarenko)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: To the Pigs (was: Re: Russian nerl (Re: Russian girl)
Date: 2 Sep 1995 18:43:29 GMT


In article <427buc$1jet@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, pig3@brickhouse.gov (Third Little Pi
g) writes:
|> In article <427bmf$1jet@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
|>    pig2@woodhouse.edu (Second Little Pig) wrote:
|> >In article <427beg$1jet@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
|> >   pig1@strawhouse.com (First Little Pig) wrote:
|> >>In article <4277fm$1c6f@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>,
|> >>   cnz2@Lehigh.EDU (CONSTANTIN N ZHIKHAREV) wrote:
|> >>>In article <426i7n$1gck@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, pv02@lehigh.edu (Peter 
|> >>Vorobieff) writes:
|> >>>>In article <426307$8sd@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
|> >>>>   yulya@abel.harvard.edu (Yulya Fridman) wrote:
|> >>>
|> >>>>>Nice spelling here.  I put it to you, mentally retarded 
|> >>>>>"Andreev" piglet
|> >>>
|> >>>>On behalf of the piglets, I demand apologies.
|> >>>
|> >>>   By the way, Peter, how is your piglet doing?
|> >>
|> >>I am deeply offended with the insidious insult delivered to the 
|> >>entirety of the pighood by the vile, vicious and vitriolic pen
|> >>of Yulia Fridman. I am used to the human prejudice against pigs -
|> >>we have a lot to suffer in this porcinophobic world, but what
|> >>Yulia Fridman did is just unthinkable!
|> >>
|> >>First Little Pig.
|> >>
|> >
|> >I have to add that I also do demand apologies from Yulia Fridman,
|> >however, I would not be so harsh. After all, she is a human, born
|> >in a simiocentric and hopelessly backward environment, and her 
|> >illiteracy in the issues of pig virtues should take at least a part
|> >of the blame from her.
|> >
|> >Second Little Pig.
|> >
|> 
|> I will suggest that Ms. Fridman attend a course of government-sponsored
|> seminars "Get Friendly to your Neighborhood Pig."
|> 
|> Third Little Pig.
|> 

        Listen to me you, impudent pigs: I don't care about what that your 
the fifth column, that "Green pig peace" will say, I tell you: our fight isn't
over and you, pigs, are doomed to lose the battle- and winners will get a
nice dinner.
        All that cheap propaganda of yours about "bad humans", preposterous
accusation against wolves. One particular example -  the story of murder
of a poor wolf who had a bad luck to pass near your house and got killed just for f
un.
Yet you tried to persuade the rest of the world that he, being disarmed, was so cra
zy
as to attack a house where were three pigs, armed to teeth.   
Who believed in your crap? Only innocent children, it is too clear
that it was you who attacked and robbed and slain the defendless guy in cold blood.
        You are dirty, you are always looking for mud, you stink, you are fat,
you are savage and heavy drinking. You have no idea about democracy and humanitaria
n
values. You are shame of the Earth and we will get you.

V.

For a world without pigs.       



Subject:      Re: Collections // AA 96
>From:         manin@camelot.mssm.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Date:         1996/03/27
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,alt.russian-club,k12.lang.russian



In article  alexey@cerc.wvu.edu (Alexey V. Andreyev) writes:

o Vo-vo. Tut ty yavno ulovil, chto ya voobsche imeyu v vidu. V smysle, etoj,
o kak bush' eya? - poezii. A to - rifmy, udareniya. Lazha ved' eto vse, verno?
o Generatory, ponimaesh', krasivyx tekstov. Giganty, ponimaesh'. Perepisyvayut
o po trista raz. A chuvstva gde? A oni - sami po sebe, i ne tryasut ix 
o formy - to lyagushka v staryj prud siganula, to telefon v dome soseda
o ne perestaet zvonit'.

Kak ni stranno, glavnyj porok soderzhatel'noj storony stikhov Andreeva
-- ikh soderzhatel'nost'. Za redchajshimi isklyucheniyami (khajku pro
telefon v dome soseda -- odno iz nikh), kristal'no yasno, chto khotel
skazat' avtor svoim proizvedeniem. Sobstvenno dazhe, ne to beda, chto
yasno, a to beda, chto on tak pryamo i rezhet v glaza, chto imenno
on khotel skazat'. Eto, konechno, est' i takoj rod literatury. Basnya,
naprimer, ili ballada, mozhet byt'. No dlya etogo roda literatury
zhiznenno vazhna ottochennost' formy imenno. V etom zhanre napisana
"Klinika Kinika", poetomu razbiraya ee, ya osobenno pridiralsya k
forme. 

No Andreev pretenduet i na tvorchestvo v zhanre liricheskogo
stikhotvoreniya, gde prozrachnost' soderzhaniya -- smertnyj
grekh. Ili, tochnee, ne "prozrachnost'", a "vyrazimost' svoimi
slovami". Lyuboe stikhotvorenie Andreeva mozhno pereskazat' (za
vysheukazannymi redkimi isklyucheniyami). Podi pereskazhi "Vykhozhu
odin ya na dorogu" (aga, Pavlik pereskazal, no dlya etogo emu
prishlos' sochinit' novoe stikhotvorenie). 

Eto to samoe, chto kto-to (ne pomnyu) stavil Andreevy v vinu osen'yu,
pod nazvaniem "otsutstvie domashnego zadaniya" v ego stikhakh
(priznat'sya, etot termin vyzyvaet u menya aktivnuyu nepriyazn'). Ne
pomnyu, otpariroval li Andreev chem-nibud' krome khajku.

--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 15
        Zhizn` na pyatak
Vot, vspominayu, broshu ya pyatak,
On gulko zvyaknet, slovno elektrichka,
I zhizn` vot tak zhe tochno uhnet--tak
I vdal`, i uzh ne vykovyryat` spichkoj...

Play at http://camelot.mssm.edu/~manin/br.cgi




Subject:      Re: Nemnogo soltsa... (poem) // AA 95
>From:         manin@camelot.mssm.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Date:         1996/03/26
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.soviet,alt.russian-club,k12.lang.russian



In article <4j28di$elg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> maznev@athena.mit.edu (Alexei Maznev) writes:

o |> manin@camelot.mssm.edu (Dmitrii Manin) wrote:
o 
o >   Udarenie nepravil'noe (povtOrish'), rifma banal'naya (moikh/drugikh),
o >   sintaksis neuklyuzhij (slova drugikh)
o 
o  " "- ?

Andreev slishkom priverzhen bespredlozhnomu upravleniyu imen s
roditel'nym padezhom (sr. "ot pokornosti russkoj topornosti", "v dna
stakannogo stekle"); ono neorganichno v russkom yazyke, my
predpochitaem obrazovyvat' prilagatel'nye; khoroshij primer --
nazvaniya ulic.

o          ,    
o             
o 
o            
o             
o                 ..
o 
o , , ,      ? :)

Zdes' -- nichut'. V pervom sluchae rifmuyutsya raznye padezhi i
chisla, vo vtorom -- raznye chasti rechi; v oboikh sluchayakh
rifmuyutsya korni, a ne tol'ko padezhnye okonchaniya.

Konechno, mozhno privesti kuchu primerov khoroshej poezii s banal'nymi
rifmami, ne govorya uzh o pushkinskom passazhe pro glagol'nye rifmy
(ironicheskom, vprochem). No eto nevazhno, potomu chto my govorim pro
posredstvennuyu poeziyu, a ne pro khoroshuyu. Khoroshaya rifma mozhet
ukrasit' nevazhnyj stikh. Plokhaya mozhet ego pogubit'
okonchatel'no. Imenno eto chasto proiskhodit u Andreeva.
--
- M
        V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
        produkt recomenduetsya podsushit'
----------------------------------------------------
Burime No. 320
        NEKROFILOSOFSKOE
U mavzoleya eli golubije
Trup Il'icha -- horosh pashtet iz serdtsa!
Strana moya, tebya umyli my li
Shlya na tri bukvy s chastotoj tri gertsa?.. 

Play at http://camelot.mssm.edu/~manin/br.cgi




>From: afanas@catalyse.univ-lyon1.fr (Pavel Afanasiev)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: S PRAZDNIKOM, Lilechka !
Date: 2 Mar 1996 10:32:01 GMT


In article <4h5fna$3nk@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, 
xron@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu says...
>
>:       SLUZHU SOVETSKOMU SOJUZU
>
>Pashen'ka, tseny tebe net. Ja chitala, sovershenno zavorozhennaya. 

Spasibo tebe, krasavica, dai tebe gospod'  zdorov'ichka.
Eto. Grafomany chego-to takoe molchali, sobiralis' vse ,
sobiralis', da ne sobralis'.. Tak i postish' sjuda zhe, v SCR.

>Do chego zhe vy dokatilis, gospoda, takie proizvedeniya bez vnimaniya
>i folloapov ostavlyaete ? 

Zanyat narod. Moderated Forgery Complaints obsuzhdaet.
Kto - moron, a kto- pedofil, razbiraetsya. Trudnoe delo, no interesnoe.
Vprochem, sporili vsegda. Ran'she byvalo, napishet Lexa Andreev
stih pro svoi vnutrennii mir, tipa kakoi on slozhnotonkii. A Mitya Manin
srazu zhe i otvetit - deskat' shket ty Andreev, i mir u tebya shketskii, 
lozhnotonkii. A tot emu - ty mol, Manin, v samom luchshem sluchae
mog by mne gryaz' po domu  ubirat' (domrabotnicei znachit, ili 
sekretarem).. Nu i diskussiya sama soboi voznikaet, interesno ved',  kto
iz nih umnee. Sam tozhe napishesh' inogda, deskat', Bulgakov tak sebe
pisatel', a vot Platonov - golova ! Tozhe variant. A kakie ljudi byli, blin !
Ya ih ne cenil, kajus'. Naprimer V.Makarenko - chto za chudnyi byl chelovek !
Kak on s nami tonko, ceremonno obrash'alsya, vse na "vy"  norovil
("vyblyadki", mol). Hotya net, vyrazhenii on ne upotreblyal. No ya ne 
o tom.  glavnoe - zhizn' byla, "krugi na vode" rashodilis'.  A s Novogo 
Goda primerno, zakonchilas' lafa. Ne vidat'- ne slyhat'. Kto ?  Geroicheski  
Panikovskii ostalsya. Obizhajut ego, no s Panikovskogo, kak s gusya voda.
Da. Kak s gusya, s Panikovskogo. A v ostal'nom redko -redko. To glyadish',
M.Hyde proskol'znet, to tezka Klark  stih sochinit. Horoshii, konechno. No  - 
"plonk". "Chpok". Skazala  Derevnya Bol'shie Govnish'i.  Poglotila objekt, i 
snova - "moderated forgery pedofile fields  forever". Nu, dumaesh', skazhu
ya vam, rebyata, malo ne pokazhetsya ! Da tol'ko skazki takie v FAQ davno 
boltajutsya. Pulju lit' ne rezon - pulya neizbezhno "iz togo zhe materialu" 
poluchaetsya. Inogda priobodrish'sya. K primeru, "O Dostoevskom" vdrug
uvidish', thread, nakonec-to.. Aha. Bolshoi i tolstyi thread. Vot takoi (kak 
ruka do loktya)...Na-kos'.  Est' pravda, v tom zhe  FAQ, reshenie problemy.
Mudroe reshenie takoe. "Ne nravitsya - ne chitai". Predstavlyaesh' ? 
Tebe ne nravitsya ni #$&, a ty beresh' i ne chitaesh' ni #$& !  Vot tak vot !
Ni bolee ni menee... Itogo:
"Kto vinovat ?" - sami zhe, t.k. opustilis' nizhe kriticheskoi massy tusovki.
"Chto delat" ? - dolbit' po klavisham, kak rekomenduet M. Papisov.
Nevziraya na "forgered complained okraino-jew pedofile liars of tchurkia",
kotorye, naskol'ko ya pomnju byli vsegda. 

>Cheshira

Pavlik

>
rockwool . STIHL. . STIHL. www.stihl.ru.
: http://www.stoloto.ru/ - .