Derek Offord - Using Russian - A Guide to Contemporary Usage

prose Pelévin’s narrator describes his relationship with N´ıka (a

diminutive form of the female name Veron´ıka). N´ıka is a rather simple creature who is never seen with a book and likes eating, sleeping and gazing out of the window. The narrator, who seems to be an artistic

intellectual and would like to confide in and share his views with a partner, is disconcerted by N´ıka’s air of indifference and independence, but is attracted by her grace, charm and natural spirituality. As the relationship culminates in betrayal the reader’s normal expectations are subverted when it turns out that N´ıka is not a woman but a cat.

He то´ что´бы Hи´кa былa´ рaвноду´шнa к удо´бствaм – онa´ с

пaтологи´чeским постоя´нством окa´зывaлaсь в том сa´мом крe´слe,

кудa´ мнe хотe´лось сeсть, – но прeдмe´ты сущeствовa´ли для нeё,

то´лько покa´ онa´ и´ми по´льзовaлaсь, a пото´м исчeзa´ли. Haвe´рноe, 5

поэ´тому у нeё нe´ было прaкти´чeски ничeго´ своeго´; я иногдa´ ду´мaл, что и´мeнно тaко´й тип и пытa´лись вы´вeсти коммуни´сты дрe´вности,

нe имe´я поня´тия, кaк бу´дeт вы´глядeть рeзультa´т их уси´лий. C

чужи´ми чу´вствaми онa´ нe считa´лaсь, но нe и´з-зa сквe´рного склa´дa хaрa´ктeрa, a оттого´, что чa´сто нe догa´дывaлaсь о сущeствовa´нии

10

э´тих чувств. Когдa´ онa´ случa´йно рaзби´лa стaри´нную сa´хaрницу

кузнeцо´вского фaрфо´рa, стоя´вшую нa шкaфу´, и я чe´рeз чaс по´слe

э´того нeожи´дaнно для сeбя´ дaл eй пощёчину, Hи´кa про´сто нe понялa´, зa что eё удa´рили, – онa´ вы´скочилa вон и, когдa´ я пришёл извиня´ться, мо´лчa отвeрну´лaсь к стeнe´. для Hи´ки сa´хaрницa былa´ про´сто

15

усeчённым ко´нусом из блeстя´щeго мaтeриa´лa, нaби´тым бумa´жкaми;

для мeня´ – чe´м-то вро´дe копи´лки, гдe хрaни´лись со´брaнныe зa

всю жизнь докaзa´тeльствa рea´льности бытия´: стрaни´чкa из дaвно´

нe сущeству´ющeй зaписно´й кни´жки с тeлeфо´ном, по кото´рому я тaк

и нe позвони´л; билe´т в кино´ с нeото´рвaнным контро´лeм; мa´лeнькaя

20

фотогрa´фия и нe´сколько нeзaпо´лнeнных aптe´чных рeцe´птов. Mнe

бы´ло сты´дно пe´рeд Hи´кой, a извиня´ться бы´ло глу´по; я нe знaл, что

дe´лaть, и оттого´ говори´л витиeвa´то и пу´тaно:

– Hи´кa, нe сeрди´сь. Xлaм имeéт нaд чeловe´ком стрa´нную влaсть.

Bы´кинуть кaкиé-нибудь трe´снувшиe очки´ ознaчaéт признa´ть, что

25

цe´лый мир, уви´дeнный сквозь них, нaвсeгдa´ остa´лся зa спино´й, и´ли, нaоборо´т и то жe сa´моe, окaзa´лся впeрeди´, в цa´рствe нaдвигa´ющeгося

нeбытия´ . . . Hи´кa, e´сли б ты мeня´ понимa´лa . . . Oбло´мки про´шлого

стaно´вятся подо´биeм якорe´й, привя´зывaющих ду´шу к ужe´ нe

сущeству´ющeму, из чeго´ ви´дно, что нeт и того´, что обы´чно понимa´ют

30

под душо´й, потому´ что . . .

Я и´з-под лaдо´ни гля´нул нa нeё и уви´дeл, кaк онa´ зeвaéт. Бог

знaéт, о чём онa´ ду´мaлa, но мои´ словa´ нe проникa´ли в eё мa´лeнькую

крaси´вую го´лову – с тaки´м жe успe´хом я мог бы говори´ть с дивa´ном, нa кото´ром онa´ сидe´лa.

V´ıktor Pelévin, ‘N´ıka’, Generation ‘П’: Paсскa´зы (Moscow: Vagrius, 2001)

It’s not that Nika was indifferent to comfort – with pathological permanency she turned up in the very chair I wanted to sit in – but things existed for her only while she was using them, and then disappeared. That’s probably why she had practically nothing of her own; I sometimes thought that this was exactly 66

2.12

Literary prose

the type that the communists of old had tried to breed, having no idea what the outcome of their efforts would look like. She did not take account of the feelings of others, and not because her character was bad but because she often did not suspect that they existed. When she accidentally broke an antique sugar-bowl made of Kuznetsov china which used to stand on the dresser, and an hour later I slapped her face without knowing I was going to do it, Nika simply did not understand what she was being hit for – she just rushed out and when I came to say I was sorry, she silently turned her face to the wall. To Nika the sugar-bowl was just a truncated cone made of shiny material and filled with pieces of paper; to me it was a sort of money-box, where the proofs of the reality of being that I had gathered throughout my life were stored: a little page from a note-book that had long ago ceased to exist with a telephone number that I did not ring; a cinema ticket with a stub that had not been torn off; a little photograph and several blank prescriptions. I was ashamed of myself but felt it was stupid to apologise; I did not know what to do and so I spoke in a rhetorical and muddled way:

‘Don’t be angry, Nika. Old things have strange power over you. To throw away a pair of cracked spectacles is to admit that the whole world that you have viewed through them is left in the past forever, or vice versa, it’s ahead of you, in the realm of impending non-being, which is the same thing . . . Nika, if only you could understand me . . . Fragments of the past take on the likeness of moorings that tie us to things that no longer exist, from which you can see that what people usually understand as the soul doesn’t exist either, because . . . ’

I looked at her from under the palm of my hand and saw her yawn. God knows what she was thinking about, but my words did not penetrate her beautiful little head – I might have had the same effect if I had been speaking to the sofa on which she was sitting .

This is an example of the modern written language in its most highly crafted form. The passage has an elegant, polished quality. It is the antithesis of the spontaneous, broken utterances of colloquial speech and the informal variety of the language of the internet, as exemplified in 2.1 and 2.2 above. The purpose of the user differs too from that of the authors of other texts presented in this section: it is not to inform, as in the formal registers illustrated in 2.5–8 inclusive, but to produce an aesthetic impact on readers.