Written by 丨 Chen Ningyuan
This personal reading experience of Russian literature was written more than 20 years ago. It was not at all expected that 20 years later, Ukraine would have a life-and-death war with Russia.
At that time, the former Soviet Union had been divided, but until now, I never felt in my heart that Gogol and Shevchenko were not the bright stars of Russian literature. Just as we will not subdivide Cao Xueqin as a naturalized barbarian of the Manchus, he is a member of the Chinese literary tradition.
I have no study of the ups and downs of the international situation, lack of judgment, and do not know how the future will evolve, but I do know a little history, that is, Ukraine and Russia have a common ancestor called Grand Duke Vladimir, who is the founder and ancestor of the two countries, and the head is printed on the currencies of both countries.
Grand Duke Vladimir on Ukrainian banknotes (Photo/Network)
This article was written more than 20 years ago, when I didn't think about it, but only made some lamentations about Russia's cultural and cultural traditions. This article that was thought of was actually a disagreement with Ren Dagang, a good walking partner, on the views of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and the specific differences were not to be said, and it was easy to quarrel.
But we all recognize that this will be a war that will change the world pattern and seriously affect the course of history. I confess that in the midst of this war, what will the future of the world hold? It does not depend on personal reflection in this literary reading note.
But if I talk about my experience from a historical point of view, I prefer to quote Toynbee's point of view. He edited the Complete History of the Second World War to describe Hitler as a historical figure in a different kind of historical possibility. In the preface to the fourth volume of the book, Hitler's Europe, he writes:
"The day after the signing of the Munich Agreement, Hitler was in Hitler's place by a historical British lord who founded the Empire, and we can then estimate the extent to which Hitler destroyed the works of his predecessors and his own hands. If the deck of cards in Hitler's hand was not in his hands, but in the hands of Augustus, Liu Bang or Cyrus, relying on that deck of cards, what great cause could such a talented man not be able to accomplish? He would undoubtedly build a global empire with Hitler's Europe, which would last for four hundred years after the death of the Founder. ”
Unfortunately, Hitler can only be a sinner for eternity, leaving a name for eternity, because he will only sin against mankind, and does not know that mankind needs a peaceful and happy life.
The global influence of politicized literature
Russian literature is brilliant, not made up of individual constellations of one or two, but of stars. From pushkin to the soviet era, this glorious tradition has been on fire, and it is the wonder and wealth that the vast Russia has contributed to the world.
Since the twentieth century, there are few readers on the earth who do not know the charm of Russia. Even if they do not understand Russian and lack knowledge of Russian history and culture, they will not refuse to identify with Russian literature. The radiance of Russian literature cannot be rejected, and this is an indisputable fact, and there is no need to say more.
The situation of the "Soviets" in Russia is a thing of the past, but its influence is far from being the withering of tomorrow's yellow flowers, and the situation of the "Soviets" in Russia will be discussed later, and in 1999, the literary work "How Steel is Made", which is deliberately pursued by the spirit of the "Soviets", has already recalled the youth of forty or fifty-year-olds and revived it. It can be seen that although the past has passed away, it does not mean that everything is gone.
1973 Former Soviet TV series "How Steel is Made" (Photo/ Douban)
But to put it another way, it proves the power of Russian literature.
Although How Steel is Made is not a great work, it is still a product of the great Russian literary tradition. The intellectual dictatorship of the "Soviet" era did not completely imprison the full vitality of the Russian literary tradition, and sometimes there was a wonderful marriage between the two, which was dizzying and made people feel elusive about the magical charm of Russia.
For example, the politicians who dominated everything in "Soviet" Russia: Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, until a little romantically, not very responsible for the "Soviets", Gorbachev, almost every one of them during their reign echoed a good writer of his contemporaries who could represent Russian literature.
For example, Lenin to Gorky; Stalin to Shohorov; Khrushchev to Solzhenitsyn; and Gorbachev, who was half-cut, almost also confronted Aitmatov, who was also half-cut.
Such an enumeration is not to say how their personal relations are, but only to illustrate some kind of intimate correspondence between Russian literature and Russian politics.
This intimate connection often makes the Russian political process literary and intervenes more strongly in all aspects of social life in the name of literature, but seemingly in the name of non-politics. On the contrary, literature also seems to be easily politicized, and intimately a certain seemingly non-subordinate independent thing of politics, which strongly literarizes politics.
The relationship between literature and politics is not a rare topic, nor is the mutual penetration of politics and literature rare.
Rarely, politicized Russian literature, instead of becoming dry preaching, as usual, remains charismatic politicized literature and at the same time gives literary politics a force that even politics itself cannot create, legitimizing and lyrically illuminating politics itself.
Literature plus the image of the "Soviets", which in fact (to a considerable extent) vividly replace the "Electrification plus Soviets" on the mainland, is a cruel and moving example of this. This means that the Russian literary tradition is definitely different from other literary traditions.
For example, in Europe and the United States, there is rarely such a phenomenon of political and literary integration. There, literature is mostly the result of a departure from political action. It is a work of literary and political integration, but it seems difficult to achieve such a strong, charming, and undiminished brilliance of Russian politics.
The influence of Russian literature on this nature, after the "transformation" of all literature, has been powerful and has affected the world. Identifying with Russia is dominated by identifying with its great literature, which is a worldwide topic, a world event. Even the European and American ideas that lead the process of world civilization today are within its reach.
The so-called European and American ideas that play a leading role today are completely different from those of Russia. But the superficially different appearance does not necessarily negate the evidence of whether there is a relationship or not.
The twentieth century represents an integral part of the European and American tradition and is generally considered to have two aspects: an Anglo-American tradition and a Continental tradition (mainly referring to the Franco-German tradition, where Russia is on the fringes of this tradition). Prominent figures who represent these two traditions, such as Heidegger and Wittgenstein, who spoke German, can each find evidence of their influence on Russian literature.
Although both men expressed their ideas in German, it did not mean that they represented only one tradition: Wittgenstein was the bearer of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, and Heidegger was the inheritor and new pioneer of continental philosophy, both of which are undeniable facts.
Wittgenstein, for example, used his actions to directly prove his connection with Russian literature. It is said that he was bloodied on the front lines of The First World War and carried with him a volume of Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, as if this book were a talisman that could protect his body and soul safely through the smoke of the battlefield and reach the philosophical spiritual realm he had desired.
The evidence of Heidegger's influence on Russian literature is not so straightforward, but it is traceable. For example, in his study of Nietzsche, he exaggerates Nietzsche's "God is dead" (he has a famous article); and Nietzsche's "God is dead" is common to Dostoevsky.
Another example is that Heidegger's founding place was deeply influenced by phenomenology. Not only Husserl, but also Another phenomenological master, Scheler, had a shallow influence on Heidegger. Scheler's academic revelation by Russia is a certain fact. For example, the relationship between Scheler and Solovyov.
In addition, Scheler praised Russian literature and worked hard to provide philosophical interpretations of Dostoevsky's work. For example, explaining that "The Brothers Karamazov" has "outstanding academic content and religious prophetic significance", but using fiction to express the reasons.
Scheler also believes that the "submissive passive endurance qualities" of Russia, which Dostoevsky and another great master, Tolstoy "poetically and prophetically praised," are already components of the world theory of the "doctrine of the meaning of suffering and suffering."
In short, Scheler is close to Russia and close to Russian literature.
The closest evidence of the flow of thought in this way of heidegger's "Nietzsche" and "phenomenological" behavior leads to Russian literature, and the closest evidence is the great name of Russian literature: Dostoevsky, who always appears on the path of Heidegger's thought with one indirect face or another.
Dostoevsky (Photo/Network)
The two figures who can represent the European and American tradition that led world civilization seem to be connected to Dostoevsky's name, which also seems to prove that the tradition they represent is deeply influenced by Russian literature. The all-round influence of Russian literature is an undeniable world event.
In this incident, the influence has stood out from the simple character image, storyline, poetic feeling, artistic skills, language and writing, reading appreciation, and ideological content, which are the elements of literature. Attract or enter other cultures in every possible way.
This process of influencing different cultures in all its aspects has never stopped, and has always been magical, charismatic and powerful. It substantively enters the core depths of different cultures in the process of all the literaryization that at some point does not seem concrete. As for what is buried in this depth, it is not entirely a combination of literary elements. What is the role of this literary burial that cannot be used as a literary burial?
In the interaction with other traditions, what impact on the progress of world civilization is not clear in the fog. Because that's not something that can be done in general terms. Nor is it a matter of casually talking about Tolstoy and a few other great names and their great works, and you can sort out all the mysteries in one hundred and fifty.
Rather, this is only the beginning of knowing, knowing that there is such a thing, and it is far from knowing the real soul of Russian literature hidden deep under the faces of other cultures. Perhaps the more you know about this, the more invisible it becomes, the more like a mystery. And with its fan-like light, it is far above all kinds of identities.
But for this major and complex issue, we cannot give up lightly. Macroscopic arguments don't get very close to it. So talk about personal feelings, although superficial, but it is also a kind of correction that the above macroscopic theory is empty.
"Crime" is at the heart of Russian literature
Now let's talk about my specific personal feelings.
Cutting into such a huge topic in a purely personal way, all the disadvantages of being overwhelmed and fragmented can be excused, because this is only a representation of the individual, this is only a personal reading.
I think that of all the great contributions of Russian literature, the most prominent contribution is the depiction of the phenomenon of "crime" in this tradition. If Russia's great contribution to world culture is prominently manifested in its literary tradition, then the great brilliance of this tradition is inseparable from the literature of "crime", which can be said to be the core part of Russian literature.
Talking about Russian literature can even barely pass without touching other subjects, and it is impossible to imagine without talking about "criminal" literature.
Most of the great writers who created Russian literature directly created their masterpieces on the theme of "crime". Tolstoy's "Resurrection"; the act of "killing God" is embedded in the "Brothers Karamazov" of the murder of the father; Chekov is more direct, he interviews the exile land, writes "Sakhalin Travels"... Wait a minute.
This traditional talent did not cease in the twentieth century, and Solzhenitsyn's "A Day in ivan" and "The Gulag Archipelago" are highly concentrated in this aspect of the talent, and are regarded as a model of twentieth-century world literature.
I personally want to express my feelings about Russian literature, and my feelings began with Solzhenitsyn, one of the great contributors to "criminal" literature.
What was felt was Solzhenitsyn's situation.
Documentary "Dialogue with Solzhenitsyn" (Photo/Douban)
It is reported that Solzhenitsyn was a guest in the Russian homeland, and the disappearance of the "Soviets" that he had enthusiastically called for against did not ignite his possible enthusiasm in other directions. So the sense of being a guest is sour. Coupled with the one-year TV lectures, the hasty ending and the rarity of enthusiasm and audiences are really different from the big response to every call in the past.
I wonder if Russia has lost its enthusiasm, or whether it has lost its enthusiasm itself? In short, it is two phases of loneliness, in vain, in vain.
In this context, I recall Solzhenitsyn's work. I don't want to be sure what I can answer, but I'm looking for a clue. A personal clue to a personal interpretation of a person's feelings.
In my memory, it is difficult to forget two details of Solzhenitsyn's great works. One is in Ivan's Day and the other is in The Gulag Archipelago.
The former is about the protagonist Ivan who labored and reformed for a day and returned to prison. There was a routine body search before entering the prison, and Ivan, who was waiting for the body search on this day, forgot that he still had a small piece of saw blade hidden - to make a so-called exquisite knife to exchange food with him, but when he was about to search him, he touched the hard saw blade he had placed on his body, and he suddenly froze, there was nothing he could do, only regret and heartbeat, only hard waiting to be searched.
However, the doorman somehow only searched half of it, and then waved him back to prison, allowing him to escape this fate by chance, otherwise it was not a joke to be found to be hiding iron.
Another detail is a group of labor prisoners in the Gulag Archipelago who secretly dig tunnels to escape. The grandiose tunnel project was actually completed under the eagle eyes of the KGB. Other complicated and difficult, not to mention, is how much effort it takes to digest the excavated earth!
But the successful tunnel did not guarantee their successful escape. The reason is that one of the escape members was not very calm, and in the escape, because of an unwanted look up, it failed, and all the escapees were captured. When he was caught, the KGB's Eagle Eye had not yet found a tunnel. Fate is so different from Ivan's.
The reason why these two details are so impressive is that the translation does not let the charm be lost. I marveled at the author's artistic genius, but couldn't help but think differently about the characters in the book.
For example, Ivan, instead of forgetting in advance but hiding the saw blade, can't he calmly return to prison? For those who made mistakes in the escape, Solzhenitsyn did not blame him in the slightest, it seems that he was not at fault.
Maybe it wasn't his fault, the KGB's eagle eyes were around, how could he blame his companions? However, how can the efforts of other companions and the sacrifices of other companions end after the fact?
Solzhenitsyn and his works are silent about this. In other words, Solzhenitsyn's tendency is not in these links; his tendency is to tie the success and ruin of human affairs to the favor and non-care of destiny.
All successes and failures do not seem to lie in the meticulousness or carelessness of personnel, and this sense of fatalism pervades the entire work of Solzhenitsyn, and although he is a powerful and great "dissident" in this literary grasp of fatalism, his "dissent" is not known for its personnel, nor does it seem to be optimistic about personnel.
Maybe the personnel is wordy and not attractive. If Solzhenitsyn had devoted himself to personnel, perhaps his work might have been less glamorous? Of course, this is just my guess, because in such details, we can only feel a heartbeat, a heartbeat that fate makes people have to.
Of course, the personnel and destiny are the eternal topics of literature, and they are also one of the sources of literature's charm. But whether or not to wait day and night for the favor of destiny, is it necessary to raise the heart to the throat every day to live a life? How can this state of affairs be so turbulent? And what kind of psychology is needed to bear it? Who can guarantee that everything will be excused before the end is not good? -----------------
In short, such a life is anti-everyday, strongly stimulating, and reckless. It is extremely difficult for people who do not maintain a strong endurance to the situation after the daily situation. Not to mention the peace of mind? Rest assured that you don't know what to do next, just wait for the destiny!
This brings to mind Dostoevsky, who in a father-killing case, collaborated with criminals to "kill God." The world has been troubled by this for a century, and no amount of compensatory solutions can dispel this trepidation. For even the next step that is most likely to be counted on, God, is gone. This kind of stimulating power really completely hollowed out the basis of the word "constant" in everyday life.
Tolstoy, on the other hand, went to the black, for the sake of God's purity and purity, completely "resurrected" himself as a saint, abandoned his wife, and denied literature (both Sassipria and himself) at the same time. In short, everything on earth is gone, and it must be replaced by heaven and earth.
All three are great representatives of Russian literature, and I am not sure whether they cover all of Russian literature. But in terms of one of the dominant directions of Russian literature that they reflect: the attack on evil, they all share a certain paranoid fanaticism, a fanaticism in which the moral and ethical forces that emerge in a glorious image run the risk of crushing everyday life.
In this way, as far as my personal feelings are concerned, I do not think that it is unfair and unfounded.
1960 Soviet film Resurrection (Photo/Douban)
Both Solzhenitsyn's tendency to rely on the Mandate of Heaven and Dostoevsky's hollowed-out orthography foundations, including Tolstoy's opposite pure and pure path to God, have the power to crush normal life.
This power is so strong that sin is hidden. But these forces are not necessarily nourished by human fireworks; they may not be fundamentally related to human fireworks; and even as far as the sharp edges are pierced by sin, they hurt the innocent.
Of course, what these three people have in common in this regard is that in all kinds of activities of literature and ideology, they have reached a great realm, and sometimes they can be said to be good and good, but they are enemies with the ordinary words of daily life.
Even if they have behaviors related to human fireworks, these behaviors are cast by them, most of them are eating "constant" self-fattening, and it seems that the vitality of the "constant" is dripping, but it is always unrelated to the word "constant" and does not help.
The Russian philosopher Berdyaev (perhaps the less literary thinker among Russian philosophers) said that "the Russian nation ... It does not know the method and is good to go to extremes" This sentence I think is the best summary of the special commonalities of the above three people. This summary may have philosophicalized my personal sense of danger.
The danger persists and has not disappeared in Russia.
Since "shock therapy", the Russian nation has been seriously injured, the economy is in crisis, and there is no definite view in the ideological field. The withdrawal of the "Soviets" from the stage of history did not see a suitable other thing on the stage. This is not only a difficult question of re-election itself, but also of the way in which the "Soviets" actually withdraw in Russia.
It withdrew in a big way, just as it came revolutionarily, as if only a few lines had been prepared, no action or plot had been prepared, as if there was no kung fu. The absence of a national anthem in Russia for a decade is also a miraculous example.
Casually interject a plot note about the Russian national anthem. Russia, which did not have a national anthem for ten years, has since adopted the melody of the former Soviet era. But the controversy has almost obscured the true meaning of President Putin's statement.
Putin said, "Using the melody of the former Soviet Union is to prove that the life of our fathers is not without any value." This may be the few sober people in Russia who have begun to understand the method, but have noticed the daily "constant" word.
Without it, it is necessary to maintain a certain continuity steadily. The construction and existence of civilization is the result of the confluence of many factors, not the monopoly of power, especially the crushing force of criticism.
Live opposite the saints
But the danger I am talking about does not disappear completely because of the soberness of the few.
Those who, because they see the truth, think that the truth is omnipotent, and burst out of the passion of life, they think that Heaven has so kind to me that they can move forward...
All these are still fascinating, not less powerful than the sober, and sometimes might be stronger.
I feel this not to deny the importance of truth orientation and passion for life. I am just afraid that such an act will become a pure and pure guide, and that it will be whirlwind into the vast world.
In this guide, everything past and present is involved in this purification act, and the banality of human fireworks is ashamed to stand in the whirlwind, and there is no cone to stand on. There may be people who fully embody truth, morality, mission, justice, justice, conscience, and even compassion and tolerance in this action. This is the saint.
But such a fully embodied success can only belong to a saint who has succeeded individually, although it can also be proudly said after the saints that the saints belong to our nation and our homeland.
If we try to impose these great qualities on every individual of all the citizens of a nation and a country, I think this is the most dangerous signal, and it means that tyranny may be uncontrollable.
This is by no means my personal alarmism. The purity and despotism of the saints are often separated by only a piece of paper, which is difficult to resist.
Berdyaev added, "The Tsar was concerned not only with the interests of heaven, but also with the salvation of the soul." It seems that the heart of the saints is the basis of the wonderful marriage of Russian literature and Russian politics. The two sides penetrate each other through a paper gap, making the saintly despotism even more tempting and destructive. So my personal feelings are not entirely personal alarmist dangers.
I thought that saints could not live in everyday life. A saint who has been smoked by fireworks is not a saint – and may tempt others. I thought the saints could only provide for them, to make them lonely, but it was not okay. Otherwise, they haunt the ordinary people and ask harshly, such as the famous question of the communist saint Paul Kochagin: How can this life be meaningful? A lazy and vulgar guy like me can't answer and won't answer.
Paul Kochakin in the TV series (Photo/Video Screenshot)
As for how others are, it is not within the scope of my consideration. Because I personally have many problems, such as chai rice smoke, careful eyes, selfishness and greed, dimwitted vulgarity, and lack of faith, how can I answer such noble questions as "meaning"? And because of his laziness, he couldn't think about what it would be like to be a saint.
But the world is unpredictable, and the charm of the saints is hard to resist. If there is a great power to save my soul, and though my insensitive heart remains unchanged, how can I not let this power shine brightly? This is what I consider to be a concrete sign of danger, but it is not entirely due to the length of the individual.
Charisma of saints always has a compelling reason, and there is nothing wrong with making human beings involuntarily good.
The problem is that the hearts of all the saints are burning day by day, and then the saints are rare, and everyone is saints. Straight like Mao Zedong's heroic atmosphere: "Six hundred million Shenzhou shunyao". The heavens and the earth have since been overthrown, and the world of only the saints may not be the same as the world of Only God. Because both are omniscient and all-powerful worlds. This kind of encyclopedia may be more lonely, unknowable—because it has never been like this.
And a parable seems to say that God created all things for the reason, saying that God created things because God was idle, so that this unknowable number is somewhat really knowable and lonely!
Solzhenitsyn played a certain saintly role in the exit of the "Soviets" and the appearance of the "quasi-free world" of Russia today.
Now that the performance is more than halfway through, the "quasi-free world" on stage is not in line with his imagination because of "quasi", so he is lonely. If it were entirely in his imagination, I think he might be lonelier. Because he is still living in the process of sainthood, he is not yet dissatisfied with the fact that the world is a saint, and there is loneliness after enthusiasm—perhaps the loneliness that is offered.
If it is completely in line with his imagination, and the whole saint is transformed, he is afraid that he will not even have the opportunity to disagree; without the opportunity of dissent, he will have no passion and the charm to be exerted, to be able to exert.
Solzhenitsyn in the "Soviet" era once dealt with Gorky, another saint and father," but he was a dissident at the time, a false saint who denounced Gorky. I think he was not yet a saint at that time, and he did not have a deep understanding of the various situations of saints.
There is also a widely circulated story in Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago that shows that Solzhenitsyn did not understand how to treat saints at that time. The widely circulated story says:
Gorky had inspected the hellish Gulag Archipelago, and after a few moments of admiration. But a child who is only found in Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale, exposing the emperor's new clothes, stands up and tells all the truth to the saints and like a father, and the power is the lightning disease of the petrel in the storm. But Gorky was indifferent. Not to mention helping the suffering labor prisoners in the Gulag Archipelago, not even taking this fairytale child with his bare hands. He just didn't do anything, so that the fairy-tale children still died in hell.
Solzhenitsyn was furious, and he denounced his lashes...
But perhaps he did not know that the saints of Gorky were physically and mentally perfect, and that he was only a saint's world for everything that surrounded him. Of course, everything around him was also for him. In this way, there is no difference between Gower's lonely heart or other mortal hearts.
At this point, not listening to and not asking, not being able to smell and not being able to ask, and being omniscient and omniscient, although it is still completely opposite, it is the same as the complete opposite.
Solzhenitsyn's anger may have been misunderstood because of this same image, and the misunderstanding of the image condemned and attacked hypocrisy, but there is no distinction between true and false, and only the word loneliness is used to sigh. But I don't know if Solzhenitsyn's sense of living in the motherland is similar to this? Maybe there's a difference? The spring river is green and cold and warm, and the twists and turns are only to pay loneliness.
In 1993, Nobel Laureate in Economics Douglas M. North once said: "Revolutionary change will never be as revolutionary as its supporters." Perhaps this is not an economic point of view that is not inappropriate to prevent the dangers of this article from getting out of control.
Solzhenitsyn (Photo/Network)
I am not against saints, I am against everyone taking saints as models and striving to be saints. All expect that once the saints are made, all problems will be solved. This is dangerous. Not to mention that this is a fantasy. The price to be paid for the appearance of the saints cannot be predicted by either the saints themselves or society.
Law and common sense, and even the normal order in all societies, cannot provide a guarantee for the appearance of saints, saying that such an ABC has such a saint. Even if the saints have been made, the saints are offered mainly for viewing, what is the use of them? Then it may not be chaotic; if it is not used, it is not easy to have, how not to use it?
But the function of the saint who was offered was by no means available, especially if he was expected to solve the crisis – Gorky's story on the Gulag Archipelago is the best example. Solzhenitsyn's anger at that time was so misunderstood.
Cover of the Mass Publishing House "Gulag Islands" (Photo/Douban)
Thinking that the people had given their passion and desire for the saints, the saints hung the salvation upside down. As everyone knows, the magic of this kind of salvation hanging upside down is that the giver is illusory because the cost of the enthusiasm paid is too high.
Saints have no relationship with the givers of investment and return, and the greatest practicality of the saints' output can only be used to decorate, such as decorating the so-called national pride and pride. Nothing else! Nothing else! From this point of view, I thought it would be better to stay away from the saints.
Without destroying all the saints who already exist, the old giver may wish to do so as long as he does not worship and think of all spirits, and does not expect anything that has not yet appeared until then. Just step by step to the future, there is no luck, even if it is more mediocre, less sacred heart, it is by no means a worthless life.
This requires that the actual life be taken seriously, and that the painstaking efforts of one person, one nation and one country will never be less. But is there a "constant" way to pay so much? Have a huge payoff? Although this is not certain, it is expected to be a little more ordinary than the world of saints, and I think it is predictable. But I can't be a prophet because the prophet is one of the usual faces of the saints.
So I just stand in peace in the present and ask for a reassuring next step – maybe to eat, maybe to sleep.
As for Russian literature, I would like to paraphrase Douglas's words and make a beautiful and relaxed sense of personal stability after the conclusion appears:
The greatness of Russian literature will never be as dangerous as its equally great creators. Because in any case it is just a beautiful text, a legend of the heart of the saint in the portrait, and the offering on paper. That's a blessing in disguise. In this way, we are leisurely basking in the splendor of Russian literature, but if there is less excitement and less heartbeat, then I can't do it.