SCORPION

                 2

     This empty place. Here my retelling should be. I have written the contents of the first twenty pages and have stopped. Too much important remains lost while retelling. And still...  I was interested in the novel «T». I have come to conclusion, that this is the best that have read from modern prose. I recommend it to everybody.

   If about associations, I have two: Bulgakov and Salvador Dali. Bulgakov and Pelevin are theatricality related with the verbal fabric. Here the cognation of two writers is more on style. As for Dali... I see a kinship in spirit. I see the kinship of symbols of the Russian writer and the Spanish artist. I think Pelevin is Dali in modern Russian literature:

- As on the decline of time the Lord come out Three together
To sing about the destiny of the creation which have made a full circle.
Cemetery of the museum cemetery stretches behind a vacant lot,
And after a long practice becomes just the meadow.
The ancient enemy of mankind comes to swing the rights,
And suddenly understands with melancholy, that it is umpossible to begin.
The meadow is transformed into the ground from which grass grows.
Then disappears everybody, who can call them so.
Right will be forgotten, and the left will disappear.
Here because of technical reasons failure is possible in the song.
But it is sung enough. And something behind it waits.
Not placed in a verse and it is rhymed only with itself...
                                                                 Viktor Pelevin.

   As the geosymbolist, I shall note a purple eye of a horse in the end of the novel «T», -
the most important symbol of the novel, the symbol of incomprehensibility of understandable.
That incomprehensibility by which pictures of Dali of the Distance are filled.
 
    What do reviewers write about Pelevin? Dmitry Bykov - gzt.ru and Vadim Nesterov - gazeta.ru.

…Pelevin's new novel is a book in a genre « now I wrote the novel ». One publishing house has started a new scale superproject – the novel about reconciliation of Tolstoy with church. This publishing house has employed a brigade of popular authors, but crisis has begun. The project has been closed. The thrown characters have not disappeared, but get out of control and have begun to live their own  life. And everything has got confused.
                                                            Vadim Nesterov.

… Pelevin is not the strongest thinker. Pelevin is not a  philosopher, but a sophist, the remarkable destroyer of other  philosophical systems.
… Pelevin's New novel is certainly bad as a  novel…
… it is essentially new literature in which the reader is suggested to consume not any ready dish, but components in turn … Synthesis is not present …
…The skeleton is not important in the book. Meat is important. As in a peach the pulp is important. And not the stone.
                                                                                                          Dmitry Bykov.
   At once I shall object mister Bykov. In any book meat is not  important. The skeleton is important. The pulp of a peach is not important. But not the stone. The trunk of that tree on which these peaches grow is important. Any peaches without a trunk are senseless. In the novel «T» the trunk is present. The trunk is the most powerful. It consists of two bound trunks:

Trunk, as the search for truth in the structure of the universe.

Trunk as search for the God.

  Why does Dmitry Bykov sees only peaches in the novel? And does not see two bound trunks? Maybe, because the trunks here are special. Trunks exist as it in a projection. They consist not of postulates, and questions. And answers to these questions – questions as.

   As for the trunk of the first that is searches of true in a structure of the universe. After the first meeting of the count «T» with some Ariel, much seems to become clear. It turns out that over the lower tier, where the count lives, tier of adventures created by fantasies of Ariel and his comrades, there is a higher tier, where Ariel and his comrades live themselves. It is constantly proved to the Count during the novel. Count does not lice it. He tries to find the validity over granted. In the end of the novel, in my opinion, other truth also opens to the hero. But this truth, consists not from exclamatory, and question marks. And each question assumes both the answer, and its absence:

- But now it`s time to go home.
- But at first you should give a name to this house, - the horse suddenly said turning back.
- It is impossible, - T answered, That`s the matter.
- Why? – the horse said. Maybe it is impossible to describe, but you can give the name to it.
- For example.
- The term in my opinion must be Russian-Latin to scow succession of civilization of the third Rome to the first Rome. So we shall kill two Ariel Edmundoviches. How do you like the wordcombination «Optina Pustyn», the Count.
- But where is the latin language here?
- Why? The word «Optina» is originated from the latin verb «orgage» that means «to choose». It points to the endless row of possibilities. And «Pustyn» is the emptiness.How many meanings are opened here.
- I don`t like it, - «T» said.
- Why – the horse took offence. If I were you. I would jump on my feet in the cart and cry: «On, yes, «Optina Pustyn». It is the window, opened to all sides. It can`t be, but it is.
  The horse was walking, having turned its head to «T» and the cart began to mace a wide circle.
- This window is I – it continued sparkling its purple eye. I am the place where the Universe exists, where life and death, space and time,  my body and bodies of all other participants of the performance are, though if to investigate, there is nothing at all in it.   

                                                                 Victor Pelevin.

   As for the trunk of the second…  Trunk as searches of the God.  Initially for the count «T» gods are Ariel and all those authors that write it. Ruling acts the count, they constantly prove their authority above him. But the squalor of creators means squalor of the creation itself. And count «T»  tries to find the God above Gods. And maybe someone writes the Ariel? Who there is, more above? Maybe, 'Deity-hermaphrodite'? Or again a brigade of unworthy creations of writers? So, we must look even higher ... And if there still nothing is visible. If above and around it is emptiness … It is necessary to search. Well, the emptier is the emptiness, the fullier this emptiness may turn out.
                                                    
   In the text of the novel «T» it is often said: the 'Deity-hermaphrodite'. And a lot of disputable is there in the novel. But... Pelevin searches on an admissible side near to world religions. It is engaged in «God-seeking».
     God-seeking is one of the basic lines of geosymbolism:

… There always was a simplified form of belief which was called to as God-seeking. It is now dead. We shall reanimate God-seeking,  as support of all beliefs by creativity, as searches of the God between beliefs not to the detriment of them …
                                           The manifest of New Decadence
                                       http://moy-bereg.ru/leonid-shimko/novoe-dekadentstvo.html


   Geosymbolists assure, that searches near to world beliefs, in particular, near christianity, are simply necessary. Variants of great near the great do not belittle great at all. I shall refer to the novel «Anna», as a successful example of God-seeking in the literature.

Let's return to peaches. What is the peaches?

… Here a piece of References, here is a drink of pseudo-political science, here is a page of fashionable philosophizing, here is the feuilleton, a landscape, a joke, a psychological sketch (to the best pages the description of the creative certificate in chapter XIV of the first part belongs), here is a stone thrown in the literary offender, a parody to the literary contemporary, an autoparody, an autocartoon, the summary off one`s own book, a piece from release of news and an advertising roller, the script of a computer game, a parable, a pray …
                                                                            Dmitry Bykov.

   So Mr. Bykov represents peaches.That pulp which mister Bykov savours so much. But it is necessary to consider peaches only in connection with that tree with two bound trunks on which these peaches hang. I consider, peaches is everything, that, pushes the count «T»  to searches. And simultaneously prevents from these searches.

  For searching of the true universe – peaches are false ideas about a structure of the Universe. For searching the God – peaches are those disputable and false hypotheses about the God, those barriers which should be overcome by the count «T». Peaches is the world of the top circle filled with nasty. The world discrediting idea of  Divinity. Peaches is that dirt that prevents cleanliness to open. That worthless lie that prevents the big truth be opened. Meetings not with those and not in the right place. Externally being extremely different, peaches are extremely similar by their connection with trunks. Meaning of their abundance in weight pulling trunks aspiring up to the ground to break them. Or to force them to raised still higher.

  And now I again would like to argue with Dmitry Bykov. Dmitry assures, that «Pelevin is not the philosopher », «he isn`t able to sinthesize», and « the sense is not present in the novel». I approve: Pelevin is the philosopher. And he can sinthesize. And there is sense in the novel. And more... I am convinced, that «the remarkable destroyer of other  philosophical systems» Victor Pelevin is deeply believing person.

   And now we shall leave the novel «T» for a while. We shall visit the country professing polytheism In ancient Babylon.