It was proposed to remove “Solzhenitsyn’s lies” from the literature program and add Pavka Korchagin

Truthful “Young Guard” instead of Ivan Denisovich

The State Duma is thinking hard about how we can equip, oh, that is, change the school curriculum in literature. Discard Solzhenitsyn – insert Fadeev. Or, as it was suggested even earlier, to return Bondarev and Simonov to schoolchildren, and also Sholokhov with Don Stories. Which, to be honest, have been in the program for a long time …

Solzhenitsyn’s expulsion is explained intelligibly – he, they say, “has a lot sucked out of his finger.” Yes, and historians have proven – Alexander Isaevich, they say, “invented the facts.” Yes, in addition, “there was an attempt (by Solzhenitsyn) to get a bonus for this,” complains deputy Vyatkin. “For the fact that he (Solzhenitsyn again) blotted out his own homeland in the mud.” Remove, period!

At this point, the deputy, who is loudly worried about school literature not for the first time, would like to object. First, what does “tried to get” mean? Tried – and received: a state award, from Putin, in the Kremlin, in 2006. And the president personally noted Solzhenitsyn’s contribution to the formation of the Russian language and literature. And he called the writer “a true patriot of Russia.” And in 2007, the Gulag Archipelago appeared in the school curriculum.

At the same time, in the same way, in the secondary school literature curriculum there are works by Tvardovsky, Bykov, Astafiev and Simonov … Excellent Soviet writers, whose texts are not in doubt either in terms of literary or factual part. In contrast to Fadeev’s “Young Guard”, dubious in many ways, twice rewritten and even re-shot in cinema.

And Solzhenitsyn was also engaged in linguistics, compiling dictionaries of the modern language. How, when criticizing a writer in public space, can one blurt out “smeared in the mud”? It is possible to roll in the mud, nail it or smear it. You can still stain honor, conscience. And blot out – from the school curriculum. What the representatives of the elite deputy corps are trying to do with the classic of Russian literature.

So why are we being asked today to “bring back” the history of the Young Guards, ideologically verified by Stalin personally? Or the “iron” Pavka Korchagin? Is it an attempt to enter the same stagnant water, step on the same rake? To return to circles their habit of thinking “correctly” by the whole country in the same direction? A habit that once failed with such a crash and dust? ..

“In the first circle,” judging by Dante and Solzhenitsyn, the uninitiated are sitting in a hellish divine sharashka. Not baptized, not repentant, not doing conscious evil, but not knowing the light either. Ivans, who do not remember kinship, deceived by well-motivated ideologists, opportunistic kaifs. But even Dante, with all the genius of his imagination, is probably hard to imagine that the grandchildren of the deceived were once again read there. And after the revelation of the truth was revealed.