Dmitry Bykov - Writer, Literary Critic, Social Activist.

Dmitry Bykov provokes the most active interest - he is the brightest participant of literary and political processes. The writer is not unsuccessfully striving to fill the entire media space (A. Troitsky) as a bright and multi-format person (writer, literary critic, social activist).
However, in the context of the seriousness of the events taking place, in anticipation of changes in the direction of development of Russia's economic and political system, it is interesting to understand how well the scale of the personality process that personifies it.

Dmitry Bykov - master of verbose graphomania, effective and catchy phrase, in this craft he has no equal in the literary environment. Literary public, perhaps without the wishes of the author, erected the latter to the throne of the main Russian writer of our time. Undoubtedly, you can quote it with pages. However, the ability to add words to beautiful phrases is a necessary, but insufficient condition for the writer. A real writer is a visionary, a guide of ideas, often to themselves unconscious.
Ideas of D.B. Often ludicrous, banal and empty, although being voiced with the characteristic talent of the graphomaniac, at first glance may seem interesting and non-trivial, characterizing the author as a deep thinker, the largest analyst of Russian literary and political history. However, an attempt at critical thinking inevitably turns any of his thoughts into what it really is - a set of beautiful but meaningless phrases whose relevance is very short-lived. I would not be surprised if many of my assessments of the author now remember awkwardly, which he certainly will never admit, hoping for the fragility of the memory of his readers.
Here is a set of abstracts, with varying degrees of activity promoted by Bykov:
- a cyclical Russian history. Thaw followed by frost and so the century after the century;
- liberals - as the main haters of Russia. In the minds of the writer, the mainstay of liberal views is the well-known state, which is surprising given the author's obvious desire for non-template evaluations;
- the dictatorship of liberal discourse in the "dashing 90s", the impossibility of promoting alternative ideas. At the same time, liberal principles, political correctness and so on, are offered to opponents of freedom and democracy, the leaders of liberalism do not consider themselves obliged to follow their own ideals, the nobility of implemented ideas frees them from any moral restrictions.
The main, Bykov's program book, "ZHD", is wholly and entirely intended by the power of an artistic word to sanctify this set of concepts.
I'm sure, the author prefers not to remember now his epoch-making creation. It did not produce a coup in the public consciousness , the ideological helplessness of the work is so obvious that it has not even become a subject of discussion. What Bykovych gives out as a joke (alternating bald and hairy in power), Bykov suggests as the basis for a global generalization of Russian history. Stalin's terror, Nikolaev's stagnation and the reign of Anna Ioannovna seem to him homogeneous events.
The cruelty and unprincipled nature of liberal leaders, fanatics and dictators, potential maniacs and murderers, miraculously coincided in the work with the actively promoted power mythology of the "dashing 90s" and the global anti-Russian conspiracy of Western democracies. It is not surprising that Bykov's extremely tough assessment of the first serious and popular anti-Putin text, "The Tales of the Kremlin Digger," he crushed to the nines, the author accused of love for "dashing 90", which was at that time a sin unpromising, and many more in than.
The liberal liberals never materialized from the author's consciousness, the unprincipled Tregubova after a non-phantom assassination received political asylum, the author himself actively protests against restorers. What cycle of Russian history do rallies in Moscow? Does Bykov regard himself as a conductor of an abominable liberal idea, demanding fair elections and the replacement of power? No replies, claims to the title of an outstanding thinker, however, did not disappear.
Surprisingly, the refusal to publicly acknowledge their mistakes coincides with the position of the Bykov idol Limonov. Having been trampled on the principles of Western democracies and proclaiming Stalin as the most progressive figure, Savenko surprisingly loved the human rights, the independence of the judiciary and other previously hated liberal freedoms after a prison term for unknown reasons. Previously promoted concepts are forgotten, but not condemned.
We continue to disassemble the ideological assortment.
The urgency and inevitability of the coming to power of nationalists such as Kvachkov. DBS watched with especial interest the ideological and organizational ferment in this environment, and, as usual, everything was idle. Interestingly, being one of the organizers of protest activity, does he remember the figures that inspired him? Do you see columns with the face of Kvachkov on the banners?
The structure of Soviet society is represented by D.B. Delightfully multisyllabic, in contrast to the primitive of the existing system. For many years, being an attentive and thoughtful consumer of DB texts, I did not see the reason for this idea, even in thematic articles. Someone thinks such thoughts as a consequence of DB's inherent lack of principle, I'm inclined to see in them nothing more than a cheap outrage against the background of obvious intellectual helplessness.
The search for a coherent and topical idea, the creation of her literary guide, is the task that the author unsuccessfully solves throughout his literary career. Careers are successful from the point of view of winning the first positions among modern writers, and categorically failing from the point of view of the historical perspective. It's easy to be ahead of Prilepin, Pelevin and Limonov, but obviously you will not be able to stand in the rank of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin. Our contemporaries Voinovich, Dovlatov, Aksenov - also completely unreachable for the writer Bykov magnitude.
Perhaps some of the tactlessness of the text is connected with the fatigue of waiting for a work corresponding to Bykov's claims to the leading position in the literary hierarchy. All the same, not everything is lost, maybe creative and ideological throwing will lead to the creation of something not so much faded as "Written off", "Spelling" and "Justification", for unknown reason erected by criticism in the avant-garde of Russian literature.
Your opinion?