Maxim Zamshev explained how Russia does not fall into the “zone of darkness”

The well-known poet, prose writer, critic, editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta Maxim Zamshev expressed an idea worthy of mention and citation: “When we start jailing for words, performances and books, we cross a dangerous line, especially in the absence of any rules in this area except for very controversial bills.” We are talking about the criminal prosecution of Yevgenia Berkovich and Svetlana Petriychuk because of the play “Finist Yasny Sokol”, which previously received two “Golden Masks”. The director and playwright of the production is accused of justifying terrorism. Both were arrested for two months on the basis of a linguistic examination of the text, which took only a day. The writer commented in detail on “MK” about his position on this case and other significant situations around cultural figures.

– Maxim Adolfovich, you write that “the story of Berkovich and Petriychuk, with the dismissal of the brilliant Mighty and pressure on the great Dodin, is not something that causes pride in the country.” At the same time, it is really difficult to suspect you of a lack of patriotism.

– As for the will of the artist, any censorship, prohibitions, and even more so persecution, is a fact of the defeat of power, a manifestation of weakness, not strength. We see how the West and Ukraine are in the “zone of darkness” in this regard. Yes, from a cosmetic point of view, they continue to play democracy, but in fact in Ukraine we have been witnessing the triumph of censorship since the Maidan. One of the strategic plans of our enemies is to cover us with this darkness. Influencing emotions, playing on the difficult situation that is now emerging, they seek to put us on this path. But this path is extremely dangerous.

The policy of prohibitions has never led to the expected results. In the current media field, when it is still impossible to block everything, prohibitions only whip up interest in an object or subject. Even if the state or specific services pursue a specific goal, say, to reason with this or that figure or to show society that he appears to be a harmful phenomenon, attention to him is growing. Let me give you an example – after the recent scandal, all the tickets for the performance with Kozlovsky have already been sold. Probably, they would have been sold out anyway – the theater is still popular, but the story with the transfer, then the return of the production, clearly accelerated the process. That is, even if some figures end up being rejected by a part of society, the very methodology of the ban does not work.

– But calls for a “cultural special operation” still sound …

– Society is able to figure out for itself what to consume, what it considers dangerous, harmful and destructive. But in order for the people to understand this, efforts of a different plan are needed. The educational function of education, unfortunately, is completely gone. Now they are trying to return it, but this cannot be done in one or two years. And education should not be reduced to caricature forms, which were in the past: with washing dishes in the dining room, idiotic lightning and trips for potatoes.

– To be a patriot and to stand for freedom of creativity – things compatible, in your opinion?

– As a person who is under sanctions from 29 countries, it is difficult to suspect me of sympathy for Kozlovsky or Berkovich. But I am absolutely convinced that in contrast to the darkness, we must build a free country. And to punish real criminals – crooks, embezzlers of public funds, corrupt officials, thieves in law, and not settle scores with artists and cross out the names of directors from posters. We all went through this in Soviet times in the USSR; in terms of durability, this did not serve the Union in good stead. I understand this because a special operation is underway and our people are being killed; but people are dying not because the gloom of censorship has resumed in Russia, but because the Russian people who lived under Ukrainian rule have the right to choose. For example, I am pleased that in Crimea the Ukrainian language has remained one of the state languages. The wisest decision. Language cannot be the source of any ideology! Outstanding works have been written in Ukrainian. When we start to fight against language, we run the risk of starting to act with the methods that we oppose.

– We know that the word “war” is not recommended for use in relation to a special operation, but does this ban apply to literary texts? For example, evenings of “military poetry” are held, in the poems of the Donetsk theme, the word “war” is constantly heard. Does this mean that poetic reality has its own laws?

— During the parade on Victory Day, President Vladimir Putin uttered the word “war”. You need to look at the context – if we are talking about holding an NWO and some journalist deliberately tries to reproach our country that, they say, you started it all, you unleashed it, then there is a violation of the law. Because Russia did not declare war on Ukraine and Ukraine did not declare war on Russia, by the way. But as far as the global clash is concerned, what is happening in the world is, of course, war. That is, the word has many subtleties, and it is quite possible to use it in certain situations.

– In the situation with Berkovich, the criminal case was based on an analysis carried out by linguistic experts. In general, what institution has the right to determine what is good and what is bad in literature: State Duma commissions, public councils?

— Creation of such commissions is a vicious way. In this regard, Griboedov comes to mind: “And who are the judges?” If we look at who over the past 23 years has said anything about the Russian government, then we can simply jail everyone, from extreme patriots, communists to supporters of Kasyanov and Yavlinsky.

Undoubtedly, some rules of the game must be developed, but the laws being adopted now raise many questions. Their creators are apparently guided by some lofty moral goals, but when law enforcement begins, incidents and stupidities happen. Let us recall, for example, Vsevolod Chaplin, who demanded to check the works of Nabokov and Marquez for pedophilia.

We talk a lot about the “culture of cancellation” as part of the Western world’s strategy to fight Russia, but let’s not cancel ourselves. By banning something at home, we give our opponents a head start. There must be free competition in art. It is not right when all the staircases of bookstores were crowded with the current writers-foreign agents, and patriots were not allowed into the bookselling networks. But even if you do the opposite, it will not serve the development of culture. If, as a result of artificial restrictions, any one of the positions triumphs, let’s call it conditionally patriotic (Slavophile) or liberal (Westernist), this is bad. The main thing is that now we do not destroy ourselves in the heat of the righteous struggle.