#9 - JRL 8152 - JRL Home
TITLE:
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH WELL KNOWN SATIRE WRITER ARKADY ARKANOV
[AIF PRESS CENTER, 15:00, MARCH 31, 2004]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)

Moderator: Good day. It's hard to switch from a topic as Transvaal disaster to humor and satire. But our next press conference is devoted to the professional holiday of humor. And today our guest at Argumenty i Fakty is satirical writer Arkady Arkanov. The topic is "What We Laugh at. Are Satirists Afraid of Censorship?" In choosing this topic we took into account the opinions of our readers. They often respond to our articles and for some reason it is a topic that engages their minds.

The first question may sound banal. April 1, humor day, may be thought to be your professional holiday and how do you usually mark it?

Arkanov: Well, first of all I would like to dissociate myself from the word combination. I mean the notion of "satirical writer". It may be flattering for the word "satirical" but it is humiliating for the word "writer". This attitude may go back to the Soviet times when there was no genuine satire in the Soviet Union but the authorities felt that it should exist. So, this word combination, "satirical writer", harks back to those times. And the Soviet Writers' Union even had a division of "satire and humor". But it was thought at the time that there exists first-rate literature, prose and poetry, literary criticism, literature for children, but satirists were always treated with neglect and all major prose writers of the time or those who thought themselves to be major prose writers treated the satirical genre practitioners as junior partners.

They would go something like this, "in my idle moment I wrote a funny story." In other words, they thought it was not serious.

Q: I think major prose writers simply envied your success.

Arkanov: Well, I don't know if they were envious or not, this attitude applied not only to me. I always say that we have a lot of "satirists", a lot of "wits" and in everyday life in every party there is sure to be some witty person, but it doesn't occur to people to make a profession of it. So, to me the central word in this word combination is "writer". Because many so-called authors who enjoy huge success appearing on the stage can hardly be called writers. A writer is something special.

At present, unfortunately, people forget that there exists not only satire, but there exists literature that you should read with your eyes. This is the most terrible thing that is happening. At present everything that is said and draws laughter is called satire. And it has become mostly oral and it is uttered from the stage.

Q: I wonder what you think about non-professional comedians who do not measure up to their job and what side effects on the audiences can their work produce? Isn't there an overkill of satirists of this kind?

Arkanov: I think there is a great danger that people will lose the reading habit. There was a time when we were proud that we were the most reading of nations. Now I think there is no more cause to be proud because I have the impression that people have stopped reading, they have switched to looking and listening. So, everything goes in through the ears only. All the entertainment broadcasts, all the entertainment shows are intended for the ear. There are no literary festivals on satirical and humorous topics. There are no literary contests. There is just one thing.

Of course, we will eventually leave this period behind us. This is a period of chaos. I don't know how long it will last, but there is a danger that it will linger. And if this period drags on, we will end up with a new generation of people who will have no reading habit. This is what I find worrisome.

And just a couple of words about the so-called "professional holiday". It is called "April Fool's Day". I think it is a somewhat artificial association. But the same is true of many other such "occupational holidays". I don't see why you should concentrate on laughter precisely on April 1. Why not laugh all year round, why not crack jokes all year round? Why not treat yourself personally and your own country with a touch of irony? Why should we play practical jokes on people on that precise day? And by the way, it may be dangerous, you have to know the person whom you make the object of your pranks. Otherwise you may put a person into a state of depression and cases are known when people committed suicide because somebody played an unhappy joke.

Moderator: Do you know of such cases?

Arkanov: Yes, there have been such cases. It all depends on how you proceed, sometimes you tred on a sore toe. Sometimes such jokes are very rude.

Moderator: Can you give us examples of the kind of April Fool's jokes that should be forbidden?

Arkanov: Well, there is a great variety. For example, somebody calls a school and says that a mine has been planted. He thinks it is a practical joke.

Moderator: Yes, but unfortunately this does not happen only on April 1.

Arkanov: Well, it is a practical joke to the person who calls. He is pleased himself because he can watch what is happening, how the school is vacated, how people with sniffer dogs and mine detectors enter. The whole day was spoiled and he derived pleasure from what he had done. That was a joke but ...

Moderator: I think it is now criminally punishable or administratively punishable offense.

Arkanov: At any rate, in the past such jokes in school were punished by a slap on the face, to put it crudely.

Moderator: Now I think that the parents pay money and it is a no small amount of money. Arkady Mikhailovich, you said that we might laugh not only on April 1 but also on other days. But given the hard life we live, could you give us some practical advice as to how to find those little grains needed to be optimistic?

Arkanov: Again, in the past some French historian -- it was during the French Revolution, the time of Robespierre -- said and I cannot quote him verbatim. He said: "The times have come and the whole of France was dying of laughter and enjoyed the incredible, the remarkable jokes of Voltaire. So, one can assume that Voltaire was as famous as Zhvanetsky. The historian said that with those jokes and felicity we have even failed to discover that we were on the brink of the chasm and suspended over our heads was the blade of the guilliotine.

What is now happening in the entertainment industry, I stress that it looks like that. Indeed it is a hard time and we say that it is no time for laughter, nevertheless we can put to laughter all the main aspects of our life. And we will fail to notice anything. We will just wake up tomorrow morning and it will be another day.

Moderator: But so far we have not yet laughed everything away.

Arkanov: So far not yet.

Moderator: It is just that I remembered one of your stories and the name was Electing the Chief Doctor. It looks to be quite a topical thing.

Arkanov: Yes, it is a miniature story and incidentally I read it again recently myself and I have the impression that it is indeed quite topical.

That is why laughter for me is first a purely physiological phenomenon.

Moderator: You are telling us about it as a medic, aren't you?

Arkanov: Yes, this is a physiological phenomenon. One can laugh at anything and at any pretext. The laughter may be of different origin but it is very important to reason and reflect while laughing. You should remember "what are you laughing at"? You would remember that famous question. This is a phrase by Gogol. And that is important. For me, the main kind of laughter is laughter that goes with the notion of "self-irony" because self-irony for me is the curative thing. Man must learn to treat himself with irony. It is easy to be ironic on account of another person but you try to be ironic in regard to yourself.

In the past Bulat Okudzhava -- I was visiting his home and he was washing dishes -- and he said: I derive extreme pleasure when I wash dishes myself. There are two aspects to the exercise. Firstly, the dishes at the touch of my hands become clean and this is my achievement. Secondly, at this point in time I am thinking that I am not a poet and I am no celebrity because at this moment the dishes are being washed by another several hundred or maybe tens of millions of people around the world. And if I tear away from the exercise and look at all this from above, I will just be only one of those tens of millions of people who are at this point in time washing dishes. This is very important because if you don't treat yourself with a touch of irony, even on the scale of the nation or the scale of the personality, you may get canned, turn into bronze and stop.

Moderator: I have two points here, also reflections which may not be deep. It seems to me that Bulat Okudzhava differs from those ten million people or hundreds of millions by the fact that they are washing the dishes without stopping to think of it, of the good thing of doing the washing of the dishes. But Bulat stopped to think about it.

And the second point. I wanted to ask you the following. The self-irony -- is it a virtue or a drawback? That's talking of character. It is because many are so self-ironic that it immediately grows into certain complexes.

Arkanov: Now if this grows into a complex, then this is a disease. But I am talking about a normal person and a normal person is bound to have a share of self-irony. This does not mean that the person should treat all that he does with a feeling of being self- ironic. This will indeed be a complex. So, a share of self-irony should be present. That means that nothing should be done wholly seriously. It is not in the sense that you can do anything carelessly but if you were doing something you should not attach to it some "ecumenical" significance. You should know that this exists but there is also something other and there is something which may be better.

If you look at it from above, you get the impression that you are not doing anything special. But I seem to have been carried away by my talking.

Moderator: Your questions, please.

Q: ... (inaudible)...

Moderator: Is there a danger that censorship may come? Maybe censorship already exists?

Q: ... (inaudible)...

Arkanov: I understood your question. In the past when there was the cruel state censorship that oppressed everything and did not allow anything to be said or published, one had to resort to form, which means that we had to present our idea not just like that but rather to wrap it up in something attractive so that the wrapping could be removed gradually piece by piece and thus the attention could be taken away from the main message and it proved possible to say something in between the lines. This had its own pluses because people who write in this genre were looking for the form of the work. Indeed, without the form there is no work of literature. As soon as censorship disappeared, in its cruel sense of the word, many could not withstand that moment and they ceased looking for the form of the work. What for? Now information was available to you and you can have it any time a day and you could compete with others as equal.

But how could you compete? You will lose if you write in form because you risk to lose your popularity and the spectators will not be willing to see you.

So, it was necessary to outpace the media, the newspapers, the printed media, radio and television. And how could you outpace them? You cannot outpace them with the speed of the information flow. That means you have to outpace them in quality. What is the quality? Regrettably, the quality is low. That is why they came to this conclusion now. As regards today's censorship, one must say that the censorship that was did not allow something through because you could not even thing of it but then the censorship would not let through some other things because the censors were very educated people and so they would not let through anything done in bad taste, any imprecision or illiteracy. The censors and editors would be watching it very strictly. There is nothing of this now. Now there is a huge number of misprints, stupid things and things are pronounced and even written in a wrong way.

I must say that now again that tumor of censorship had appeared in its bad manifestation. It has appeared and what do we have to discuss when on each TV channel there is censorship, that's talking about television. Every TV channel has its own censorship dictated by those who own these channels, to put it crudely. I wouldn't like to cite examples, but I know for sure that it exists on every channel. And besides I have already noticed that you are privately advised not to touch upon certain topics.

Moderator: Are you talking about the mass media or --

Arkanov: Yes, the media. I haven't yet noticed it in literature. But on television and radio I am seeing more and more of it. They tell me: "You know, you'd better not touch this topic." And this is not about taste, it is rather about politics.

Moderator: Could you be more specific?

Arkanov: Well, for instance, you are told to be very careful when talking, say, about --

Moderator: Doubling the GDP?

Arkanov: Yes, you have to be very careful. In fact, you are advised not to touch the topic at all. You are recommended not to moot nationality issues. You are advised not to focus attention on terrorist acts. Let us just accept that they exist, but let us not talk about them. So, there is censorship, I feel it.

To be afraid of censorship would be wrong. You shouldn't be afraid of it, it existed in former times as well. There were people who conformed and were always on the right side of the censor, they crossed out whole chapters and paragraphs from their stories, changed the ending that the censor or the editor didn't like and they got their works published. The same was true of stage comedians who only said what they were allowed to say.

But there were people who wrote what they wanted to write regardless of whether it would ever be published or uttered from the stage. They just didn't care.

So, I can say for myself that I am not afraid of censorship and I had never been afraid of it because well, I put it back into my briefcase if I knew it would be banned.

Q: What do you think about politicians who do not allow themselves to be made targets of jokes? That is my first question. And the second question. Do people laugh more loudly in the provinces where living standards are lower than in Moscow?

Arkanov: Well, on your first question I can say that whether it is politics or not -- but I think it is more about politics -- I just don't think that a person who does not permit jokes at his expense to be fully human. I am not interested in such a person regardless of whether he is the president or the Defense Minister or just a next-door neighbor. I don't find such a person interesting. I consider such a person to be narrow-minded.

But of course jokes should be tactful. If a person is lame, you can't make that target of jokes, like children often do. If the teacher is lame, they begin to mock their teacher. They find it funny. Children may be forgiven, but grownups cannot. Can you make fun of a lame person or a blind person? Or a person who is grief- stricken and you decide to make a joke at his expense? That is tactless. But in principle, any person and politician of the highest level should take a relaxed attitude and assume that he too may be the butt of a joke. Any person should be above it.

As for your suggestion that people with a lower living standard are more prone to laugh, it may be true, but this is no cause for rejoicing because I repeat, we have always prided ourselves on our humor carrying more social content than, say, humor in America or in Germany. But we tended to forget why our humor was laden with social content. Because we have a host of social problems, the kind of problems that they haven't had in America, for example, for decades and centuries. So, if they are interested in some social problem, they solve it in the simplest way, they elect another president and that's that. They stage a demonstration, but they don't joke about it. Because it's useless. And then of course they live well. They enjoy affluence.

So, their humor is light, dealing with everyday situations and it isn't intellectually challenging. And why should it be? They live well and they want to be entertained. But we find that now our humor has become the same as in America. We laugh perhaps twice as loud than they do, but our living standards are ten times worse. This is very frightening. That takes me back to what I said in the beginning, that you can laugh everything away. After all, I know as a doctor, that people in lunatic asylums can very easily be provoked into laughter. There are a lot of laughing people, but they don't even realize that they are sick. There is a lot of laughter.

I remember coming to a psychiatric hospital with the "Twelve Chairs Club" and there were both doctors and patients in the auditorium.

Moderator: What made you go there?

Arkanov: Well, we gave a performance for the doctors and I will never forget that when the late Viktor Veselovsky, opening the event said, "Good evening, dear friends. Today we are going to laugh". And It triggered uproarious laughter in the hall...

Moderator: (Laughs). Like now.

Arkanov: Yes, like now. But you understand that those were sick people. So, it's a sad reflection that in regions with low living standards... In general I don't think that Moscow has really a higher quality of life than other places. It's another question that in the regions with low living standards there is a greater need for good humor, not just something that makes you laugh. That I have definitely noted. Interest in literature, interest in substantive humor. Because in the provinces the stupidities that fill 90 percent of our entertainment broadcasts do not go down very well there. The people who come to your shows have very lively, very avid and intelligent eyes. I have made a note of it.

Moderator: This is probably the reaction of their organism protecting them against all the hardship, I mean laughter?

Arkanov: Yes, of course. Of course laughter is a defensive reaction. No doubt about it. But I repeat, it can defend you, but it cannot protect you against everything, it can alleviate your hardship, but it can't protect you against everything. A person may, perhaps, protect himself if he has a sense of humor.

Moderator: You said that politicians who don't understand humor, who have no sense of humor don't exist for you. That applies to all people. The reason we ask about politicians and representatives of the authorities is that they are the people who make decisions and that is why we are more interested in their reaction. Of the politicians in the public eye, could you name those that do not exist for you on account of not having sense of humor?

Arkanov: Well, I am not one of those people who --

Moderator: Well, but could you just give us a hint?

Arkanov: I am not cultivating friendships with politicians and I am never close to them.

Moderator: But you can see them on television.

Arkanov: Yes, I observe them.

Moderator: Well, can you give any names?

Arkanov: Well, you know I have the impression that among present-day politicians even Shandybin, I think, can sometimes allow people to laugh at him, although he doesn't always understand what it is about him that makes people laugh. But he has to allow it because this is the done thing at present. In the former times if you paraphrased someone or copied someone's accent, you were in deep trouble. During the times of Stalin you couldn't as much as hint at the Georgian accent. If you did so, you would never be allowed to go on stage again.

And in the Khrushchev times, too. If you tried to copy from the stage how Khrushchev garbled the name of Azerbaijan, you would immediately get your comeuppance nobody could do that. But as I see it, starting from Yeltsin, the political elite today seems to take a generally benign view of jokes made at their own expense.

Moderator: Not many people remember Brezhnev. Were you allowed any liberties in the Brezhnev times?

Arkanov: I'll tell you. I had a friend, a good artist, Garry Grinevich. He dies recently. He was among the first to parody Brezhnev. He did it behind the scene. And eventually somebody snitched and overnight they banned all foreign travel for him. So, you were not supposed to do it. It's another question that the pendulum has swung the other way at present as if there is nothing more to do than making parodies of politicians.

Moderator: But don't politicians on news programs sometimes behave as comedians?

Arkanov: Zhirinovsky... Yes, this is what all the parodists do. Maxim Galkin does all of them, Mikhail Grushevsky does all of them. There are a lot of wonderful actors who can parody any politician from Lenin to Putin, and they do it wonderfully. But this is just entertainment, no more.

It's another question that you must have tact, because when all the parodists played up Gorbachev's birthmark on his head, I think this was tactless.

And when they parodied his manner of talking and the way his misplaced accents in Russian words -- that was normal. But I think he, too, took it in good part.

Moderator: I remember when he came here, he was quite relaxed about it.

Q: Doesn't it seem to you that at present -- (inaudible) --

Arkanov: Yes, you're absolutely right.

Moderator: And the routines are very repetitive.

Arkanov: Yes. This is a fact. Things are in a kind of dead end. There is nothing but Anshlag all the way. All these "Distorting Mirrors", all these "Funny Folks", all these programs. There is nothing new compared to "An Ordinary Concert". The same people moving from one program to another and the programs hardly differ in form or meaning. There is an overkill obviously.

But the worst of it is that when you come to a studio, you find that everybody is mesmerized by the concepts of share and rating. Rating is something I can understand, but when they speak about share, I am mystified, although everybody uses the word and I sometimes use it myself. Everybody seems to be entranced by these two concepts. So, you sometimes come with a reasonable, but a rather more subtle idea to the managers of a TV channel and invariably, if it is a subtle idea and it doesn't add to the channel's rating, they tell you, well, take this stuff to the Culture Channel. As a kind of grab-bag. Take it to the Culture Channel. Well, I must say that our Culture Channel does not make very good viewing, but not because it is a bad channel, but simply because this channel crudely speaking is not being cultivated.

Moderator: I think it has improved recently.

Arkanov: Yes, it has definitely. I conduct a program there called "Laughter Non-Stop". This is a hark-back to the wonderful program of that name that existed in the last and which provided the launching pad for many actors and writers and by comparing the way things were then and the way they are now we are throwing a bridge and we see how things have changed and in what direction. I think such a program must exist.

Unfortunately, there are no clever programs because everything is geared to a rapid-fire kind of mentality. A plate full of food is put on the table before you and you have to eat it quickly without thinking. And by the way, your body digests it quickly and quickly discharges it. It needs some more. That accounts for the surfeit of such programs. But they are watched at prime time.

Moderator: Perhaps people watch them as a background while going about their household chores.

Arkanov: Yes, absolutely. But the most distressing thing is that more intelligent and sophisticated programs simply have no chance to compete with them. This is the point.

Moderator: Is there tough competition among comedians? How far can rivalry go? For example, a ballerina may have glass put in her slippers, we have seen in a film that they put broken glass in a pianist's pockets. What methods are used in your milieu?

Arkanov: Among ourselves? Well, I don't know. I think many actors who practice this genre have something called envy, only with some people it is "black envy" and with others it is "white envy" when he says what a shame that it hadn't occurred to me and "black envy" is when you see a person perform or read what he has written and think, why doesn't he write badly? I wish he would write badly.

Moderator: What feelings gain the upper hand more often?

Arkanov: Well, first, I am living my own life and I have never competed with anyone, nor am I going to.

Moderator: And as regards yourself, does this black-and-white come often?

Arkanov: No, but I am occasionally unhappy with myself. I admire anyone who comes up with something I cannot come up with, and I recognize this. I cannot invent this, but I admire it. I could not write this thing, but I admire it. And if that person is ahead of me, but I understand that I could have done it as well, or even better, I am quite unhappy with myself.

Moderator: Today many people of the arts, just like journalists, say that thinking is material: I am just thinking about it, but competition has already gone to print. What do you think about it?

Arkanov: Unfortunately, thinking is material.

Moderator: I say this not in the sense that you get money when it goes to print.

Arkanov: But it is material in this sense as well. It is material precisely because today you have to be very careful with thoughts and ideas, because there are many people around, including people of the arts and even your friends, which are hanging on your words. You are still trying to put your thoughts together and formulate an idea, but that idea has already voiced somewhere. It has been used or shared with someone without any notice to you. This happens even with very close friends, and this is what makes me sad.

Therefore, in this sense thinking is very material, and those who steal your thoughts know this very well.

Q: You have mentioned television and the two words on it: they are not talking about the government, and also ...

Moderator: The Culture Channel is immediately looking back.

Q: But do you think there are any key words today that would define our day to day life, that would characterize it from the point of view of satire?

Arkanov: Well, today we have a lot of -- I do not think this bad, but when we have too much, it is bad -- well, today we have such notions as money, business and success, which are very much in vogue. From my point of view, perhaps, this is what makes this transition period dangerous because we do not yet know where we will arrive. And we do have a transition period, and these notions obscure more serious things. What I mean is, for example, humanity - - excuse my being so banal -- and then decency, ethical relationships between people. Hence all the rest. I do not have anything against it -- rather, the contrary is true. I the past the word "business" was obscene.

It was a horrible and dangerous word. I remember when I was young, I introduced a friend to my Mom. He began visiting our home. He was a smart boy, but once she said: "I don't like him, he is a businessman." That was in 1949 or 1950. Commersant was a bad word -- when anyone was referred to as a commersant, he deserved to go to jail.

But today these are regular words, and thank God for that. But they are not my favorite words, with such things as honor and dignity relegated to the background. To me such things as money, success, business and politics should be at least at the same level as honesty and dignity.

Q: Going back to politicians and opportunities to poke fun at them, do you have a favorite joke about Putin, for example?

Arkanov: I should say that there are good jokes about him, which is symptomatic as well. But I remember a good one. You know, all those jokes about Vovochka were given a new lease on life following Vladimir Vladimirovich's advent. So, what I think the best joke about Vovochka is this: Once Vovochka decided to become president of Russia. So he did. I think this is the great joke.

Q: Clearly, politics always dominates satire, one way or another. There are attempts to raise some barriers, or to impose censorship. Are there any clever techniques, except kitchen talk, that satirists used to influence politics, to defuse tensions, to gain more freedom?

Arkanov: I've always believed that if you have chosen this path or if fate has pushed you onto this path -- I repeat, satire is a great genre, because here we have Swift, Gogol, although he is not only a satirist, and Saltykov-Shchedrin -- all great writers. You see, the important thing is that columnists are very witty and sharp- tongued, but they have not made their mark in history. That was why I mentioned those names. So, if this genre is your choice or the choice of fate, you should know that sooner or later you will find yourself out of favor with politics, and you should be ready for that.

But if you are awarded an order, you should really think hard whether you are a satirist or a court jester. These are two different things. That is why the satirist to me is like ... Well, let us take a plow field and a horse dragging the plow. Of course, it is hard for the horse to drag this plow, but without it the field cannot be cultivated. So, the satirist is that plow, which makes things difficult, but without which you cannot do. At all times the people practicing satire were suppressed materially and politically, but this genre, otherwise you will end up as the author of the anthem.

Moderator: So, a satirist by definition cannot be rich?

Arkanov: Yes, at the end of the day, by definition. Again, what does it mean to be rich? It is a difficult notion to define. Of course, he has to live, but a satirist, of course, shouldn't have a private jet or own islands in the Pacific, by definition. This is out of the question. Or else he is not a satirist and his main occupation is different. But he cannot be a satirist only.

Q: Arkady Mikhailovich, what do you think about the kind of satire in the pages of hard-line opposition publications? For example, Viktor Shenderovich was fuming over the fact that his name was used by the newspaper Duel. But that paper has long stopped using his name and Kukly program has stopped using his name. There is Yevgeny Nefedov whose satirical pieces are published in the newspaper Zavtra. Igor Yankevich, though he may not exactly be satirist, is still an original author who publishes in the newspaper Limonka. It is a marginal paper in sharp opposition to the establishment.

Arkanov: Yes.

Q: Can the satirical genre evolve in their pages? As a challenge to the official television, the programs of Regina Dubovitskaya and so on.

Arkanov: You know, in the Soviet times there were also so- called liberal magazines, they included, for example, the magazine Yunost (Youth). And there were magazines that were the mouthpieces of the government such as the journal Oktyabr. I take two opposite poles. And it was considered to be indecent if an author who contributed to Yunost were printed in Oktyabr and an author from Oktyabr suddenly appeared on the pages of Yunost.

To me such a distinction always seemed a bit artificial and politicized because I still hold that if Mr. Prokhanov whom I had the pleasure or misfortune, because I have known him for many years and I know him from the times when we were both members of the Union of Writers, "when we were both young and had all sorts of crazy ideas", and we were on very good terms. I don't know, if we meet with him now, I don't know how our conversation will go, perhaps it would go the same as in the good old days.

But I repeat, if I bring a story for which I am responsible -- I don't care what others think about it -- I am responsible for the story before myself, I don't care whether it will be published in the pages of the newspaper Zavtra or in some progressive or liberal publication or in the newspaper Izvestia. It doesn't make any difference to me. The main thing is that I am responsible for it. If satire is rabid and overpoliticized and does not address the human individual, it is bad, whether it is liberal or reactionary or marginal as we call it. But if it is talented and it enriches the human individual and does not pander to some vested interests, then it can be printed in the newspaper Zavtra or any other newspaper. This is my view.

In general, when a person writes proceeding from circusmtances and makes circumstances the main protagonists in his work, then that work will die as soon as the circumstance change because a real satirical work should address the human individual in these circumstances.

Forgive me for saying platitudes, I am just sharing my simple thoughts with you: in the Middle Ages and during the times of the Third Reich in Germany and in the Soviet times in socialist Russia most of humanity were just people. Some of them were honest, some were dishonest, some were murderers and thieves, some were dumb and some were clever, some were rich and some were poor -- it has always been that way.

And a work endures if the satirical pen pinpoints something about human nature. You can take and reread today Gogol's Inspector General. The whole set of Gogol's characters. You find all of them today. You don't even have to make any adjustments. The same words are heard today and these characters ring true to life. This despite the fact that the circumstances have changed.

Moderator: Whom do you reread most frequently, apart from yourself, of course?

Arkanov: I never reread myself.

Moderator: Well, sometimes you do, I suppose. Whom do you reread?

Voice: You read your writings from the stage, don't you?

Arkanov: From the stage? I hardly ever appear on the stage these days. And if something appears on television, that, as a rule, has been plucked from some earlier and older programs. My stage activities are practically zero.

Moderator: Is it the way you want it to be? Is it the force of circumstances?

Arkanov: It's the circumstances because --

Moderator: By concert activities I meant tours or whatever you call it. Life outside a concert.

Arkanov: Tours. You see, I repeat what is intended for the ear and what is intended for the eye is written in accordance with totally different laws. I have always thought that I offer a pleasant combination of the two. There are stories that can never be read from the stage because they are not meant to.

And there are stories that you can read both with your eyes and read from the stage. And there is a small number of stories written for the stage. I have never enjoyed writing that sort of stories. There was a time when there was a demand for them, when people wanted to hear the oral word. So, people who are good at oral creative work are popular and in demand. And of course, they get a lot more publicity.

Many actors appear on stage -- some very capable, others mediocre -- but you will notice that none of them read stories, everyone reads monologues which have no plot, no structure.

Moderator: Yes, all based on play on words.

Arkanov: Yes, they are structured like a skewer with 12 or 15 pieces of meat on it which are called gags. That is all that you need for success.

If my performance is announced, I will assemble a certain number of people and I would be happy with that number, but the sponsors of the event would not be happy because the gate receipts will not even pay for the rent of the auditorium and they won't be able to pay my fee, they will just have half the audience. But for someone else, who is high demand today, they will get good money.

That is why I say that my concert activities are now virtually zero.

Moderator: When I asked whether this is worth re-reading, I masked a simple question, because it is about a favorite writer. Indeed, I could not have asked you straightforwardly, regardless of the genre.

Arkanov: I see. But you know, it is hard to answer the question about my favorite writer: if I name one, I will hurt several others.

Moderator: But if we are not talking about today's writers?

Arkanov: I could give you the names of 5-7 writers who to me are Gods of literature.

Moderator: Do please.

Arkanov: Gogol, Zoshchenko, Hamingway, then Bradbury ... Well, who else? Swift, of course, Bulgakov and certainly Nabokov. I would have been very unhappy to have missed Nabokov.

Moderator: You mentioned feuilleton, and the word indeed sounded unusual because this genre has disappeared ...

Arkanov: Indeed, this genre has disappeared.

Moderator: Perhaps, it was simply renamed? As a professional, what could you say?

Arkanov: No, it simply disappeared. The latest representative, Oleg Zhadan of the Trud newspaper, has died, and ...

Moderator: And Mikhail Likhodeyev.

Arkanov: Yes, and with the death of Likhodeyev the genre was finished.

Moderator: irrevocably?

Arkanov: There is no need for it, it is forgotten. No one writes feuilletons. Perhaps, the genre was good for a certain historical period, God knows.

Q: Well, All Fools Day is not a holiday. Do you think, in principle, that in our country some political or economic issues are associated with this day, such as the raising of utility tarrifs...

Moderator: Yes, some tariffs are going to be hiked on April 1...

Q: And another question: How are you going to spend All Fools Day?

Arkanov: Well, the coincidence of usually unpopular measures with April 1 is not deliberate, I think. Perhaps, someone just didn't think about it, and this could have been done on April 2. This is unimportant, of course, but provokes a lot of speculation, questions, irony and even malice.

As for how I observe this day, I try to ignore it. After all, this is just another day. Tomorrow, for example, I leave for Odessa. The reason is that Odessa is about to mark the 70th birthday of Mikhail Zhvanetsky, which makes him a national her. There will be a great celebration there, and they asked me very much to come. Mikhail has also invited me. Of course, I will go. I hope that if I celebrate my 70th birthday in Kiev, my home city, Mikhail will come.

I will certainly go to Odessa. Mikhail and I have a great relationship and I love him. I will spend two days in Odessa. There is usually much ado there around April 1, many people are celebrating. So, on these days many people go there.

Moderator: But could you share some practical jokes you have seen in your life?

Arkanov: Well, that thing with Mitya was a silly practical joke.

Moderator: I understand this must sound banal, but...

Arkanov: Of course, it is like asking about what one is working on now, something like that.

Moderator: Yes, about artistic plans.

Arkanov: No.

Moderator: Well, I understand.

Arkanov: I don't remember any practical jokes at my expense, perhaps, there has been nothing of interest. Once I played a practical joke on a fellow artist who should remain unnamed not to offend him. He felt offended. And I thought it was very funny.

Moderator: I said, amusing incidents.

Arkanov: Or perhaps it was funny. Those were the Soviet times. You can imagine a person who is immersed in literature. He has nothing to do with the show business. And he is unknown. Or shall I say, little known. And I tell him that there is a collective farm outside Moscow that would very much like to meet with me and him. I named the location, it was 80 kilometers outside Moscow. But they have no money to pay us, I said, and they can only pay us in kind. They would be prepared to give us several sacks of potatoes, carrots and cabbages instead of a fee. But they have no transportation. He says: "I can get transportation all right." He swallowed the bait at once.

And he found a little truck and we had agreed to meet with him on the ring road near a traffic police station.

I was the first to arrive on the spot and he drove up in the truck with a driver confident that he would go to a farm 80 kilometers outside Moscow and perform and get enough potatoes, carrots, cabbages and beets to last him through the winter. He drove up to the traffic police station where I was waiting for him. I got into the car and I told the driver, let's go back. My friend stared at me in disbelief. I said: "Don't you understand that it was a practical joke? Who needs you or me in a collective farm? His reaction was: "Oh, my God, it's such a shame because I told my wife and she is waiting for me to bring potatoes, cabbages and carrots."

Moderator: So, he had to face the consequences at home.

Arkanov: Well, perhaps it was a silly prank, but I thought it was funny.

Moderator: If the colleagues have run out of questions, I would hazard a question myself. Are there any writers practicing your genre or any writers who are in a position to initiate legislation? Perhaps, a Duma deputy, because I don't know the names of all the 450 deputies. The reason I am asking is that if April 1 is made an official red-letter day, then definitely there will be no tariff raises on that day, they'll have to wait until April 2.

Arkanov: No, I have no pull with the State Duma and this is out of the question. In general, I don't think an artist's place is in the State Duma. This is my point of view. I don't think that a man of art can be, say, the governor of the Altai Territory.

Moderator: Well, he hasn't become a governor.

Arkanov: Well, Misha is a good friend of mine. But he knows very well how I feel about it. This is all play. Playing at something. It is not serious. We have always had a lack of professionals and government is for professionals. Well, Schwartzenegger has become a governor. Well, this is a stupid thing, it is nonsense from my point of view.

Reagan was the President of America and, incidentally a strong president riding his popularity as an actor. But he had long ceased to be an actor. Before becoming president he was doing politics for a long time.

Moderator: Yes, there was a long transitional period.

Arkanov: Yes, of course. But Reagan had a colossal staff that enabled him to be a strong president. And if I go to the Duma, what do I understand about it? Nothing.

Moderator: You can learn as you go along.

Arkanov: No, I couldn't. I would just be sitting there and singing songs during the breaks. Thank God, I have no urge to become a civil servant to represent my genre in government. I would not regard such a person as one of my kind.

Misha Zadornov was asked whether he would like to run for president. I think he turned it into a joke, thank God.

Moderator: Thank you very much. I thank you all and especially Arkady Mikhailovich. And what I find very heartening is that for all the tough competition that you have to face, not you personally, but I mean actors who practice your genre, you quote and refer to your colleagues who are still alive and kicking and this is heartening and it shows you for the kind man that you are.

Arkanov: Maybe you are right.

Moderator: This is a very rare quality.

Arkanov: Thank you.