- As a writer and the president of the Union of Writers, how would you describe the literary-creative situation today?
- I do not differentiate between the writer and the president of the Union of Writers Hrant Matevosyan. I don't think that if I hadn't been the president of the Writers' Union, my attitude, every line of my personality would have been different towards everyone. Hrant Matevosyan, the president of the Union of Writers, does not care at all about my taste, my personal sympathies. My view has remained the same: my reader, who expects a high-level text from Armenian literature, has not hardened from thirst, has remained the same. I separate names in the poem, also in prose. I don't know much about dramaturgy. In children's literature, Yuri Sahakyan and, perhaps, Yervand Petrosyan, who are still beloved and tend towards classicism, remain. In prose: Levon Khechoyan, Gurgen Khanjian. I can give more names, but let them remain memorable in my heart, I don't want to give the names yet. it's hard to guess. I was the only correct one in the history of Armenian literature in my guesses, and I don't want to be wrong now. I will single out Violet Grigoryan and Khachik Manukyan in poetry.
- What is the role of the Union of Writers today? They claim that it used to create a literary atmosphere... Can we say the same for today?
- Yes, it really manages to create a literary atmosphere. Writers Guild is a concept of immense importance. It is a moral and civil institution, an integral part of the establishment of the nation. The Writers' Union was the first in Armenia to give civil status to literature in the Armenian nation. That said, the traders, merchants, Russians, the people away from the national and cultural life were attracted to literature. Literature began to be talked about, breathed in Mantashov's, Palanshev's house. Nobility came to literature. During the 1500 years, literature received attention, otherwise our people would have remained a people of merchants, who never came to their senses. This is what our ancestors were able to do. As of today, the so-called Union of Writers of Armenia is a very fragile institution. It is not a significant thing in today's life by its meaning, essence, vitality, but it will become a significant thing by its loss. It is in this sense that this structure should be pampered and cherished by the attitude of literary circles, the state, and society. If there is no Writers Guild, it will be very bad.
- In other words, is there a fear of loss?
- Yes, there is. The Union of Writers was not a big thing even during its power years (the past 70 years), but the loss will be bad. Today, it should be responsible for those who have passed, and in these times of declining standards and morals, it should be able to impose standards of literature on today's society.
- What new literary qualities are being created today that did not exist in the Soviet Union?
- There is absolutely nothing new, unfamiliar to the previous literature. It all matured and came from there. The sin of the past was perhaps that they were constrained and there was no freedom of discovery; it created a situation of revolution. Revolutions, instead of being a daily renewal, renewal, were canned, and this state of explosion was about to come. If I say that today G. Khanjyan or V. In Grigoryan, the quality that was completely unknown to our names of yesterday is revealed, isn't it? It's just that the scale is different. Paruyr Sevak used to say. "Poetry is not for the people, tomatoes, eggplants, and bread are for the people. poetry is an elite thing." Here is what this mass culture has said, which has attacked on the whole front, this is the news that never happened before. Yesterday the gates were closed, and our society was slowly being trained to the values that arose on the other side of the iron curtains; it was still a human approach. However, after the gates were broken, the society immediately found itself in a besieged, conquered state.
- What is the relationship between the state and the writer today? The current president organizes meetings with writers and intellectuals relatively often. What should be the state's attitude towards writers?
- It was nice when the RA president came to that meeting as a little Hrant Matevosyan, as a man of literature, even though he is not so much a man of literature. I don't want to give in to the general idea that when the state did not exist, the state took refuge in literature (from the time of Raffu, Abovyan), that the state and the nation owed us, yesterday it took refuge in us, and today we must take refuge. Let's not talk about it, but still, literature should have state patronage. National literature needs national protection. If we as a nation want to face this cultural expansion, to be in the global cultural ensemble, it is necessary to show the best possible help and support to the writers. It would be right if 20 writers were sponsored by the state with a pension so that they could do nothing but pen, because literature is a professional business, not a dilettante's business. Dilettantism spoils everything, you can't refer to literature case by case, if possible. Every day the writer should be given the opportunity to practice literature and then wait for a certain result.
- How do you feel about our political transition, the policy pursued by our authorities?
- They are all me. In this forced distress, in this impasse, in which we have found ourselves, they do my convulsions, my heroics. Can't say anyone isn't me. And I don't hold any grudges against anyone. I know that all the pain and suffering is nationwide, imposed, and I must say that they are a part of me, my brothers. It is a theater. some play badly in this farce, some play well.
- Today, literature is neglected, before, in fact, there were both social difficulties and war. But people, on the contrary, were inclined towards literature.
- The alarm of the decline of the so-called culture was sounded by the West before us, because the theater broke through the curtains and went down to the street, and so did literature. The same thing happened to us. There was no life, there was Paruyr Sevak. Historiography was under ban, Paruyr Sevak's "Silent Bell Tower" was emerging. The answers of the head of state, diplomat, historian were given by poetry and had a wide resonance. Paruyr Sevak was both an Andranik military commander and an Armenian diplomat - he was everything. Here, our interest and the emotional thirst of society were satisfied by poetry and literature. It's not the same now. The theater spilled out onto the street, so life and books fell by the wayside. The square is open: you want Tumanyan, you want Sevak, you want porn - everything is out on the street. The street has become a theater square. If yesterday I could boldly print my volume with 50,000 copies, which wouldn't stay at the auction house for two days, today it is a big boldness to print 500 copies.
- Are you writing today?
- I have unfinished business, I definitely want to finish it. The pen is my bread, religion, freedom, friend. The white paper is the only place where I am a country builder.
- Vano Siradeghyan and many others always said. "If Hrant Matevosyan writes again, I will read it." Otherwise, they do not follow the works of our modern writers.
- There was something precise in Vano Siradeghyan's answer. at all times, in the hardest times for the book, the powerful force themselves to read. Like a trooper, a close friend, they fall by your side and come. Strong friends. Each of us must be able to extract from ourselves that great, powerful, guiding thing that will not leave the reader.
- The events related to Vano Siradeghyan became the best way to expose your "hidden" enemies.
- Indeed, many were looking for an opportunity. To tell the truth, I have not been flattered by the great love and good treatment shown to me, and I am not afraid of hostility at all. It's just that the writer's attitude towards their literary friend should have been more friendly. Regarding Vano Siradeghyan, the treatment of his case and related cases, especially in the literary circles, was at least ugly, as it was not the case for the previous non-writing president. If we consider the previous authorities of the republic as criminals, out of 11 thousand criminals, the writers should not have singled out the person who was close to their circle, who was a member of the Writers' Union, and should have stoned him in particular, and vice versa. If the republic is in a severe crisis, it is not the fault of Vano Siradeghyan, but of all those who enjoy it, who have built 11,000 castles. Vano Siradeghyan should not be singled out. They stone him because he is on stage today. We are obliged to protect the boy of our factory, community.
- It was said that Silva Kaputikyan was going to go out before the famous events, and the occasion was not that at all.
- And if I say that I am leaving the Union of Writers... S. Kaputikyan is certainly a non-ordinary voice, but he is just one voice in the Writers' Union. What if I go out too? What if I don't want to be a member of this Writers' Union for a long time (since the 60s), where every meeting becomes an occasion for stoning, and which never once defended me? I also have reasons to be upset. Why should we be angry with each other? Shouldn't we forgive, tolerate the line each of us has found, the word written? Literature is a difficult thing. We fill thousands of pages, and in rare places one can do politics. Literature is created by loving, forgiving, tolerating, so that we become a response to each other. We need to revive the past and commemorate the future. Our attitude should be like that, and not create an atmosphere of hostility and tear the society apart.
- Some assumed that you will resign.
- I will resign again, I will leave here. I said a long time ago, I come here every day like an animal driven to the slaughterhouse, I will bring any honest official here and leave this position, because really my life here is a pity.
- Will you resign if you know that you will be replaced by someone who will not be able to maintain at least the current importance of the Union of Writers? For many, the Union of Writers is highlighted by Hrant Matevosyan.
- No. Then I won't go out. They bring me to an ugly fight. Let them not make me tell them who they are, where their line is, what they are. Don't let me get into ugly conversations. What, I would have to be an outsider to be able to tell from a distance that you are 400 members of the Writers' Union, 390 of them don't even know how to write an application, and those who don't know how to write an application come and manage here... Can I curse and leave? If they consider it proper to, say, send a greeting message to the State Duma of Russia and write under it the President of the Union of Writers of Armenia Omn Omnyan, let them come.
Lilit Seyranyan spoke
"Zhamanak", 23.02.1999