Biography of Igor Vinogradov

Conversation with the editor -in -chief of the Magazine "Continent" Igor Vinogradov several years ago, being in the writer's house "Peredelkino", I drew attention to a person who looked like a musketeer. Former tenant of the House of Chekists. Ivan Tikhonovich Vinogradov. Maybe they heard? .. Moreover, the Vinogradovs lived in the "House of the Chekists" - a kind of Perm "House on the Embankment", if you recall Yuri Trifonov.

A pretty somersault - from the "House of Chekists" - to the "Novomirov" team of Tvardovsky, and then - to the opposition "continent"? .. However, not any of the biography of Igor Vinogradov "Perm trace" was listed. We settled on the top floor of the "House of Chekists" directly above the rotunda - there is such a semicircular part of the building. It's also funny. When I later arrived in or a year in Perm with a student detachment, a tourist trip through the Northern Urals and went to the house, I obviously, after Moscow, was struck by how small it was, this "house of the Chekists"!

And when I lived in him, he seemed great. We lived in it for four years. I went to Perm to the sixth grade and finished the ninth there. And the school was called, in my opinion, the ninth, Pushkinskaya. In general, my teenage youth was held in Perm, marked by some undertakings and hobbies. For example, theater. During the war, the Leningrad Mariinka was evacuated there during the war, the production of which I passionately loved.

I went to every concert, almost to every ballet performance, I saw on her stage all the then stars - and Ulanov, and Semenov, and Dudinskaya, and Shelest, and Vechelov, and Sergeyev. Now other of these names, probably, do not say little to anyone, but then they thundered. After the war ended and the Leningraders left for them, my father put a lot of effort so that the Perm Opera and Ballet Theater was revived, where part of the artists from Leningrad remained for some time.

And I spent a lot of time in the art gallery, I was familiar with its then legendary director Nikolai Serebryannikov, who really favored me. And all the nooks of the gallery and, of course, the artists’s canvases exhibited there, I knew a nazubok. In the year, our father was transferred to the Central Committee and we moved from the "House of Chekists" to the capital. The tenth - graduation - I finished the class already in Moscow.

Then it was supposed to follow: Alin. But four letters were not completed ... And what did this house mean for you? It was Arkady Shvetsov, the famous person - the chief designer of the defense plant, the creator of many aircraft engine. I was at his house. He was a wonderful interesting person, very educated, smart. In addition to everything-amateur artist. I was 16 then, and he was Major General, Hero of Socialist Labor ...

Nevertheless, we talked. And the fact that I lived in the "House of the Chekists" - then I did not attach any importance to this. There was a war ... - You were the son of a man who held a serious post - secretary of the regional committee of the party in agitation and propaganda. What was your father? Are there any problems of "fathers and children" between you?

In general, a prominent public figure in a school scale of the city of Perm. I always remember my father with gratitude. He was a peasant son from the Tver province, a very capable person who finished the philosophical faculty at one time in Leningrad. At first he worked in the city on the Neva by the editor of the youth newspaper, then he became the dean.

Father was a crystal pure person. Thank God, I was lucky in this sense. I saw quite a lot of “golden youth”, sons and daughters of party bosses - both in Perm and in Moscow, but other orders reigned in our house. Of course, the father was a convinced communist, a major party functionary. And now the Khrushchev times began. I remember that my father was then in a terrible internal opposition and irritation in relation to what was happening.

But not as a Stalinist. And as a person who was excited by an increase in the proportion of intrigue and systems on all floors of power. And in our home conversations, he reproached the new party lifestyle so that it probably came in the Kremlin! And for me it was already the completed stage. There was a “thaw” in the yard, and I was already published in the New World. It was clear to me that the time had come when I had to try to do as much as possible so that the word of truth was sounded while at least some kind of freedom valve was opened.

Perhaps pseudo -free. But this chance had to be used. As for our discrepancies with his father, they began after his retirement, then, roughly speaking, he still remained in the positions of that is already clear to me: Stalin was a product of Lenin, and Lenin was a product of Marx. In one- as if after removing from the post of editor-in-chief of Twardowski, you left the editorial office in protest.

The second: when Vinogradov, along with Lakshin, Kondratovich and Satsa, were expelled from the magazine, Twardowski also - in protest - left the editorial office. Which of these versions is true? At the end of the year, the decision was first made at the level of the Central Committee, and then - the Secretariat of the Union of Writers - about our dismissal.And when we were removed from the New World and, among other things, were imposed on Alexander Trifonovich, again, the devil knows what editorial board, Twardowski filed an application for his release from the post of editor-in-chief.

It lay on the table near Brezhnev for a long time, although the Union of Writers seemed officially doing this. It is known that Brezhnev wanted to talk about Tvardovsky on this score, but the meeting did not take place.

As I later found out, one of the reasons why it did not take place was a story in which your humble servant turned out to be one of the “main characters”. I was fired with a “wolf ticket” - nowhere. I was a candidate of philological sciences, a senior researcher. But, nevertheless, they did not take me anywhere. The resistance turned out to be terrible. And only then I found out what, in fact, the matter.

The forces who tried to blame Twardowski is still a very significant name for the country! And then they launched the “duck” that the poem of Alexander Trifonovich “by right of memory” was transferred abroad, and that I had almost the first violin in this. The absurdity is absolute! We generally did not get involved in such things, because it was important for us to save the magazine.

But the criminal "legend" spun and, apparently, played a role-and about the final decision on what to do with Twardowski, and in relation to me. It seems that at some stage of our lives, literary magazines began to steer people not even the second, but of the third row, who are not just to consider in the most magnificent glass? As David Samoilov wrote: "That's all: they laughed at the eyes of a genius ...

there is no them - and everything is allowed." Of course, everything changes over time. Naturally, other defendants come. And it is not at all necessary that the tradition of the magazine was to be the personality of the same scale at the head of it. Another thing is worse: the fact that the change of milestones, which, with the exception of the time of Sergei Zalygin, was in the "New World", was denoted as a departure from the traditions of Alexander Trifonovich.

And now, it seems to me that this magazine is positioning itself, rather, as a continuation of the "new world" of the 10ths than as a continuation of the "new world" of Tvardovsky. It is known that his social ideal is socialism with a human face. Once you noticed that "the development of society inevitably should come to the construction of such a social system." Could we find "socialism with a human face", without making a standing in "wild capitalism"?

Because the socialism that we built was absolutely not a life model. And socialism, which, thanks to the ideology of social democracy, is built in many Western countries, can really be called real socialism. The social protection of people there is much higher than what our socialism could offer. But the path to this goes, of course, through the liberal economy, through socially oriented capitalism.

And today we have not just a socially oriented, but a really wild, haping economy. This, of course, could have been avoided, although they say that history does not know alternatives. In this case, my position completely coincides with what Andrei Illarionov, a former adviser to the President of Russia on Economic Affairs, has recently been talking about. He gave the “continent” an exclusive and unprecedented interview on 10 printed sheets, some of which we have already published.

In it, Illarionov talks about how the transition of our country to the zone of wild capitalism took place, and believes that Russia could have a different development path. But the implementation of this path depends on the scale of the historical thinking of statesmen who come to power. And in this regard, Russia, unfortunately, was not lucky. It seems that only one Peter the Great was really historically adequate for his time by a figure, although he made his reforms in barbaric ways.

However, to a certain extent, this was inevitable, because then the situation was like this: either Russia would cease to exist, or it should reach some level where our power could compete with the same West. And then Russia all the time already lived in a state of constant lag behind the tasks that stood in front of it. So so we are still weaving in the tail.

From the Ruper of the confrontation between communist ideology, he became a more religious and spiritual orientation publication.