Saturday, September 16, 2006

Normally, I'm on Marina Litvinovich's side - like, when they were demonizing her around the time of Beslan's first anniversary, when her name, along with the Mothers of Beslan, was turned into something like a curse. That wasn't fair - she was just making sure everyone could read the Kulaev trial transcripts, instead of relying on the media cacophony (though the trial materials are rather messy, too, but that's a different story).

Anyway, I kept telling myself that no matter what else she is - or was - involved in, be it helping Kasparov oppose Putin or helping Putin come to power, it shouldn't be lumped together with her work at, for that's a noble, very useful project, etc. But they - the media and individuals commenting on her blog - kept accusing her of making a name for herself off the suffering of others, using Beslan to promote herself. Those comments on her blog have always been quite nasty, very harsh, very silly, unfair.

But, following the fifth anniversary of 9/11, she posted a Beslan-related entry (RUS) that seems to have pleased all those assholes so much, they decided not to bark at her this time.

What she wrote is crazy: it's about C.J. Chivers' Esquire piece - how soft it is - "gladko vylizannyi glamurnyi geroizm" - I don't even know how to translate it, nor do I want to, really... Glamourous neatness or something... Neat, glamourous heroics...

Her point is that negative stories should be told, too:

There were ugly stories in Beslan, both in the gym and later, when they were sharing sorrow and grief and then some were fighting for money, apartments, jobs. How can one not tell about it?

I agree and I don't: everything should be told, but there have to be priorities.

For so many people, the Beslan Mothers are some crazy, regime-hating bitches, superstitious enough to believe that their kids can be revived (and how can you trust someone like this when they take the witness stand and claim that the blame isn't just on the terrorists, but on the law enforcement, government, etc.). They should shut up and go make more kids, replace the ones they've lost, as one famous/notorious Russian blogger wrote at some point. This year, quoted some Red Cross psychologist who seemed rather angry at Beslan victims - as if they were some spoiled kids who kept whining, despite all the goods and attention being given to them, wasted on them.

So yeah, the negative stuff does get reported - and it really helps to forget what those people have been through, and it really keeps everyone from thinking how this could possibly happen and how come no one but Kulaev and a bunch of cops have been put on trial, etc. And Litvinovich thinks there should be more of these distractions - and that they should be in Chivers' story, for some reason:

This is what I'm saying, that he's only writing about heroes. Which, of course, is very good, but not enough for objectivity. But he wasn't striving to be objective, he was just telling about people's good deeds.

I can't believe she wrote this crap. And this:

What I really believe is that the most terrible thing that happened in Beslan wasn't the terrorist act itself but what happened to some people afterwards.

All this moralizing. She's probably back on Putin's payroll. Or she's gone nuts. (See, now I'm one of those anti-Litvinovich assholes myself...)

It's so sad, I'm not even mad. Part of me wishes she were more specific, provided some examples, wrote her own version of Chivers' story... She mentions that her friend, Yelena Milashina of Novaya Gazeta (I guess), is considering writing a book about it... Still, it's making me sick...

1 comment:

  1. Neeka, you sound drained. No longer the energy to get worked up about Ukrainian politics and now no longer the energy to get worked up over Beslan.

    I have to catch up with your posts and see if you still have the energy to fight parking idiots! :-)

    Did you get a vacation this summer?