Whose biography

Whose biography of Nikolai Nekrasov, would you advise to read? Or, if you take prose, then this is "the life and adventures of Tikhon Trosnikov." He began to write an autobiographical novel in the e years. Nekrasov generally had two unfulfilled great plans: the autobiographical prosaic novel “Life and Adventures of Tikhon Trosnikov” and an unfinished gorgeous drama in the verses “Tear of Bear Hunt”, where he pronounces a generation and where bear hunting grows up to such a large -scale symbol.

Only at Tendryakov in the story “Hunting” she was also interpreted. Such a hunt for their own, leaving. Only Nekrasov could write about Nekrasov. A person obsessed with a bipolar disorder; A complex, depressive, never satisfied with himself, a brilliant poet at the same time really brilliant, here, in my opinion, there are no two opinions. Nekrasov cannot be interpreted by a poet of a smaller scale.

Galich could write about him, Akhmatova could write about him. She learned a lot from him, but, unfortunately, she did little literary criticism. She had work not printed about Dostoevsky, destroyed later. I think, by the way, that Dostoevsky could write about Nekrasov, because his article about Nekrasov, still full of faith that he would recover, is a grateful, deep article.

It seems to me that a person like Chukovsky could write a biography of Nekrasov - the same obsessed and with the same sore conscience. But Nekrasov in general, Chukovsky was simply not allowed to write, he did not have time. His book “Poet and the Executioner” about the ants, about the notes of Panaeva, about the Ogarev inheritance - all this remained in the sketches, remained not finished.

All this was met by frantic and fierce recovery. And indeed the era did not have.

And the book “The skill of Nekrasov”, which nevertheless brought him the Lenin Prize, is a very Soviet book, written in a cloth language, albeit on huge material. There, unfortunately, the biography of Nekrasov recedes into the background. And for the first, for example, the composition "who live well in Rus'." This is rather philological work than biographical.

Here Nekrasov could come to life under the pen of Chukovsky, because Chukovsky was a man himself with a sick conscience, a knight for an hour, all things. To write a biography of Nekrasov - remember how Shklovsky said - we must "eat pood salt and cry this pood with tears." Then we can talk about Nekrasov and his mistakes. I would honestly don't take it. Because it must be a poet of Nekrasov's scale.

Although the fact that I move in his fairway is completely undoubted for me. In the fairway of naming things with his names. I'm not talking about the fact that he was a truly brilliant lyricist. Slepakova, who knew all the three volumes of the Nekrasov lyrics, if not by heart, then she knew so close to the text of Blok and Nekrasov, she could have done it. She clarified a lot to me.

From her I know: so, service! I heard this poem from her, having no idea about him. And it shocked me like that! We caught one family, father and mother with three puppies. Immediately struck the Musa, not from Fusey - fists! I could not believe that it was written then. Remember how a lighthouse, listening to how Brick reads “contemporaries”, asked: “Didn't I write this? I think that Nekrasov should write a biography when we understand what a terrible service Russia served him for all his exploits.

As the compraders of the Russian revolutionary movement, Russian Marxism, Russian critics disfigured this great talent. I continue to think that the cancer from which he died was inspired by incurable, tragic self -eaters. Still, somatic, psychosomatic reasons, it seems to me, were in the first place. No need to dissuade me, I am not a professional doctor.