Yelena Skvortsova interviews Boris Akunin, Sobesednik, 15.10.2008

The much-discussed exchange of views between writer Boris Akunin and former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky has created a stir in society. What has changed for the creator of detective Erast Fandorin since the publication?

In your correspondence Mikhail Khodorkovsky said that he was no longer afraid, and that he was no longer sent to the punishment cell for such publications. Now he has been punished again, and for that publication.

Khodorkovsky is an idealist and thinks better of people than they deserve. Even of those who imprisoned him and will not let him go. He believes in reason, logic and that those running the State are genuinely concerned for the well-being of the country.

But as an “engineer of human souls” I’m not the person to offer criticism, it turns out. When they stopped punishing Khodorkovsky for giving interviews to several Russian and foreign newspapers I also believed that our bosses had wised up. Alas, I was mistaken ... There are two explanations for what has happened: the bad and the very bad. Perhaps Mikhail Khodorkovsky was punished by a zealous colonel who wants to become a general more quickly. If so, that’s a partial misfortune. Or the colonel consulted the highest authority and was told to get on with it — in which case, things look very bad, not for Khodorkovsky (he has nothing to lose) but for the rest of us.

Just take a look at what’s happening now. Svetlana Bakhmina was allowed to take a break, as a reward for exemplary behaviour, and then again put back behind bars and is being forced to give birth in prison. Aleksanyan with his cancer is still behind bars. Khodorkovsky was imprisoned not yesterday, not three days after and not a week ago but today, when his parents are marking their golden wedding. Do you remember how his mother asked the president to let her son go on this day of celebration, and give two old people such a present? The punishment cell was the present they received. Lord, I ask myself, who are these people running the country?

You said that you made a thorough study of the Khodorkovsky case. Evidently, before you wrote to one another you had formed some opinion of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Then you noted that the most important thing you had understood was that he had not become bitter in prison. And overall? Did his answers confirm the view you had formed of him, or did they surprise or in some way disappoint you? Did you not feel the desire to get to know his parents, wife and daughter better? In other words, to delve yet more deeply into his character?

Before we began to correspond, I thought — how can I put this? — that he was a harder, more invincible person. An unbending champion of a certain ideal, who did not feel pain or fear like us ordinary people. Those who read his answers will see that it’s not so. He feels pain, fear and loneliness ... I do not want to delve more deeply into his private life, nor do I have the right do so. I already asked questions that were too personal, which he made special efforts to answer, being a very reserved person.

Have you felt the urge to talk to Judge Kolesnikova and the prosecutors? That would be logical after your correspondence with Khodorkovsky: these are people whose dependence on the regime forces them to commit evil acts. Or, as a writer, do you find such characters uninteresting?

They’re frightfully interesting. I want to understand what goes on in the hearts and minds of these people. Did they find it shameful and unpleasant; did their conscience prick them. What possessed them: was it fear of their superiors? Hopes of advancement? Or did they honestly believe what they were doing was right (if not in legal terms then as concerns the State)? Unlike Khodorkovsky, however, they will not speak frankly with me.

On your side this correspondence was an act of courage. In the interview Khodorkovsky revealed himself to be a very decent person, who evokes sympathy. Thanks to this publication, I think, a great many people have begun to respect him. Moreover, even the most sceptical would understand from the interview that he is in prison for no good reason and one can hardly say it’s just that the authorities should treat such people this way ... Has the attitude of our intelligentsia towards changed in any way since this publication?

What have we come to if questions that a writer poses a prisoner can already be called an act of courage? It’s nothing of the kind, simply a desire to get a better understanding of someone whom I find interesting.

Have there been people who have started to avoid you, because it’s dangerous, or, on the contrary, are there those who have genuinely thanked you for this correspondence?

As concerns “avoiding me”, that’s a little exaggerated ... I don’t have anyone quite that nervous among my friends. What kind of Giordano Bruno am I, that they should avoid me? Yes, people did express gratitude and for me that is very important. Yesterday Khodorkovsky’s mother rang me and thanked me. Today, it’s true, I have already called her to ask her forgiveness for what has happened. On her anniversary she is taking a sedative and not drinking champagne ...

Your wrote to Mikhail Khodorkovsky that there are many people in the arts who consider he is unjustly imprisoned. Have any writers responded to this interview?

More than that, I can tell you that many writers, and not just writers, also want to support Khodorkovsky. They’re also interested in communicating with him. There are few people of his stature in Russia.

Have you already felt the effects of the “short-sightedness” of what you did? Were you prepared that your reputation would suffer as a consequence of your correspondence? For instance, I’ve found an article on a popular website claiming that your interview was the gravestone of liberalism in Russia, since it was published just when the Kremlin was destroying the remnants of liberal parties. It said that Khodorkovsky did this to please the authorities, since there was nothing else he could do in his position, while you did it as compensation for your position on South Ossetia. That’s untrue but it’s been published ... Were there any other attacks?

Most certainly! I collect them. Well, the above quoted interpretation of events linked to the punishment cell, evidently, will go down the toilet. But it turns out I dreamed this all up in order to promote my new book. I call on all writers and show business people to use the same technique. I’ll grant them the know-how free of charge. Well, and naturally without the enormous sums that I was paid by Yukos nothing would have happened.

Your correspondence with Khodorkovsky stirred a truly surprising response. However, I noted something, having read more than two hundred commentaries by ordinary readers. For the most part they passionately discuss, for some reason, whether Mikhail Khodorkovsky is guilty, if he is good or bad and if the courts are working in Russia. One has the impression that they overlooked the most important part of your conversation. As if thoughts about building a future Russia, the place of liberals and a strong State in the country’s life, do not worry people. You’ve certainly also read these commentaries. Did they not disappoint you? How are we to build the civil society that Khodorkovsky spent so much effort to create and which you, as I understand, hope for yourself?

That’s how we must build: persuade, argue, and appeal to people’s sense of their own dignity. A writer has no other means. Someone will hear, someone will not. Incidentally, many have heard, in my view. Although Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s answers were dictated verbally to his lawyers, his thoughts are always expressed sharply, precisely and in a most characteristic manner. It seems that I can even hear the intonation with which it was all said.

Note: How they corresponded

Both sides (Khodorkovsky’s lawyers and Akunin) firmly state that they did not stray one jot from the prison regulations in creating this exchange of views.

“It took three months,” the writer said. “I wrote down my questions and sent them to Khodorkovsky’s lawyers. They read them out to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, he considered his answer and then stated it aloud. The lawyer wrote it down and sent it to me. I then gave the next question, at the same time clarifying something in the answers I had already received.”

The writer says that Khodorkovsky saw the final text. Akunin asked him to clarify some things since spoken words do not always appear very easy to understand in written form. These corrections were also given verbally. The conversation ended in August and the remaining time until October was taken up with the preparation of the October issue of Esquire’s Russian edition in which the conversation was published.

Two weeks, and sometimes more, elapsed between question and answer. None of the lawyers arranged to go and see Khodorkovsky simply in order to ask these questions.