Posted 12 февраля 2021,, 12:58

Published 12 февраля 2021,, 12:58

Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38

Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38

Question of the day: who actually wrote the Manifesto for the stage director Bogomolov?

Question of the day: who actually wrote the Manifesto for the stage director Bogomolov?

12 февраля 2021, 12:58
After the publication of the article by Konstantin Bogomolov, a version of her real authorship immediately appeared on social networks.

Political scientist and historian Boris Yakemenko also decided to take part in the dispute over the article by Ksenia Sobchak's husband Bogomolov, and even put forward his own hypothesis of authorship of this Manifesto. However, Yakemenko was by no means the first to name the name of the true author; this hypothesis appeared on social networks literally immediately after its publication in Novaya Gazeta. It's also funny that the equally scandalous article by Grigory Yavlinsky, which appeared a few days earlier, was credited with the same authorship... Who could it be? But who:

“What is this hoax, my dear Pyotr Ivanovich? You are writing stories! Who will believe you? And you thought to trick me, the old sparrow!.."

A. Goncharov. An ordinary story.

Here the "director" Bogomolov burst into a "manifesto", which everyone hotly began to discuss and comment on. I managed to argue with several people about whether he wrote this text and, convinced that he had read this text at best, he remained alone. And discussing a text that a person did not write, but reproduced, is strange and meaningless. It's like arguing seriously with a Yandex-delivery courier about the quality of the dishes delivered from the restaurant.

Why is not Bogomolov the author of the text? I am a historian, among the courses I teach there is a course on source studies. That is, I am familiar with the method of working with sources and their analysis. Determining the authorship of the source is one of the key tasks of the historian and it is solved, in particular, by comparing our knowledge about the alleged author with the text of the source itself. Any source of knowledge knows that a good, bright, deep text (and we have just such a text) is not born "suddenly", "suddenly" - historical science does not recognize glossolalia, insights and visionary work.

An alleged author with syllable, power, something to say, usually doesn't keep it all secret. Therefore, several paths always lead to the text under consideration - letters, notes, essays, reasoning, speeches, recorded in one way or another. From them, as from drafts, one can see the creative growth of the author, the improvement of his tools, the search for stylistics, a set of arguments. The presented text has intelligence, knowledge, the ability to make serious generalizations, a special author's style, the art of metaphor, the text is distinguished by a good literary language.

And now it's time to turn to the "author" Bogomolov. He never had a single (!) Text, even approximately equal to this. He never talked about complex problems, civilizational contradictions, cultural and mental gaps. In his interviews (I had to watch and read), he speaks in a primitive, monosyllabic, flat language, without the slightest reference to anyone else's authorities. His "performances" amaze with the squalor of stylistic brushstroke, text design, shallow plot of water, lack of means of aesthetic expressiveness, which are always compensated for by naked butts.

That is, to write “Europe has decided to castrate a complex person. By definition, Bogomolov could not castrate his dark nature, forever immure his demons”, “in the New Ethical Reich, a person is trained to love and deprived of the right to freely hate”.

But there is one person ... This person has a very good acquaintance with Bogomolov, which manifested itself even through stage images. This person's name is V.Yu. Surkov. And that's how he writes. I read everything he writes with great pleasure. The depth of metaphors, references to complex music and conceptual cinema, love for unusual headlines, a special, personal, author's style that distinguishes a person who has written for a long time and in different genres - all this is openly present in this text.

The similarity of the problematics of the previous texts and this one ("Isn't it time to think about instability", "Putin's long state", "Crisis of hypocrisy" - this is about the same), interest in the phenomenon of death and the problem of immortality, reasoning about the fate of Europe... "The new Reich announced the war of death. death is unpredictable and divine... a strange and mystical sign of the New Reich's war with the sacred secret life and death revealed in the Cross "- this is what Surkov writes and says, but not Bogomolov.

In addition, the genre of the Manifesto itself recalls those times when strategies, trends, ideas were ruled by Surkov, it was inspired from there. Finally, the passion for hoaxes, the desire to infuse styles, trends, ideas, finally, in the closest people for such an infiltration - this is the style of only one person".