Famous critics. Literary criticism
Criticism from the Greek “kritice” - to disassemble, to judge, appeared as a unique form of art back in antiquity, over time becoming a real professional occupation, which for a long time had an “applied” character, aimed at a general assessment of a work, encouraging or, on the contrary, condemning the author’s opinion, as well as whether or not to recommend the book to other readers.
Over time, this literary trend developed and improved, beginning its rise in European Age Renaissance and reaching significant heights by the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.
On the territory of Russia, the rise of literary criticism occurred in the mid-19th century, when it, having become a unique and striking phenomenon in Russian literature, began to play a role in public life a huge role at that time. In the works of eminent critics XIX century(V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, A.V. Druzhinin, N.N. Strakhov, M.A. Antonovich) not only a detailed review of the literary works of others was concluded authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion of artistic principles and ideas, as well as the vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, its moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and the power of their impact on the minds of the public, and today they are among the most powerful tools for influencing the spiritual life of society and its moral principles.
Russian literary critics of the 19th century
At one time, A. S. Pushkin’s poem “Eugene Onegin” received many varied reviews from contemporaries who did not understand the brilliant innovative techniques of the author in this work, which has a deep, genuine meaning. It was this work of Pushkin that the 8th and 9th critical articles of Belinsky’s “Works of Alexander Pushkin” were devoted to, who set himself the goal of revealing the relationship of the poem to the society depicted in it. The main features of the poem, emphasized by the critic, are its historicism and the truthfulness of the reflection of the actual picture of the life of Russian society in that era; Belinsky called it “an encyclopedia of Russian life”, and in highest degree folk and national work."
In the articles “A Hero of Our Time, the Work of M. Lermontov” and “Poems of M. Lermontov,” Belinsky saw in Lermontov’s work an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian literature and recognized the poet’s ability to “extract poetry from the prose of life and shock souls with its faithful depiction.” In the works of the outstanding poet, the passion of poetic thought is noted, in which all the most pressing problems of modern society are touched upon; the critic called Lermontov the successor of the great poet Pushkin, noting, however, the complete opposite of their poetic character: in the former everything is permeated with optimism and described in bright colors, in the latter it is the opposite — the writing style is characterized by gloom, pessimism and grief over lost opportunities.
Selected works:
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov
Famous critic and publicist of the mid-19th century. N. And Dobrolyubov, a follower and student of Chernyshevsky, in his critical article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” based on Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”, called it the author’s most decisive work, which touches on very important “sore issues” social problems of that time, namely the clash of the personality of the heroine (Katerina), who defended her beliefs and rights, with the “dark kingdom” - representatives of the merchant class, distinguished by ignorance, cruelty and meanness. The critic saw in the tragedy described in the play the awakening and growth of protest against the oppression of tyrants and oppressors, and in the image main character the embodiment of the great people's idea of liberation.
In the article “What is Oblomovism,” devoted to the analysis of Goncharov’s work “Oblomov,” Dobrolyubov considers the author to be a talented writer who in his work acts as an outside observer, inviting the reader to draw conclusions about its content. The main character Oblomov is compared with other “superfluous people of his time” Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him “nonentity”, angrily condemns his character traits (laziness, apathy towards life and reflection) and recognizes them as a problem not only of one specific person, and the entire Russian mentality in general.
Selected works:
Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev
The play “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky made a deep and enthusiastic impression on the poet, prose writer and critic A. A. Grigoriev, who in the article “After the “Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky. Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev” does not argue with Dobrolyubov’s opinion, but somehow corrects his judgments, for example, replacing the term tyranny with the concept of nationality, which, in his opinion, is inherent specifically in the Russian people.
Selected work:
D. I. Pisarev, the “third” outstanding Russian critic after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, also touched on the topic of Goncharov’s Oblomovism in his article “Oblomov” and believed that this concept very successfully characterizes a significant vice of Russian life that will always exist, highly appreciated this work and called it relevant for any era and for any nationality.
Selected work:
The famous critic A.V. Druzhinin, in his article “Oblomov,” a novel by I.A. Goncharov,” drew attention to the poetic side of the nature of the main character, landowner Oblomov, which evokes in him not a feeling of irritation and hostility, but even a certain sympathy. He considers the most important positive qualities Russian landowner's tenderness, purity and gentleness of soul, against the background of which the laziness of nature is perceived more tolerantly and is regarded as a certain form of protection from the influences of harmful activities " active life» other characters
Selected work:
One of the famous works outstanding classic Russian literature by I.S. Turgenev, which caused a stormy public outcry, was the novel “Fathers and Sons” written in 18620. In the critical articles “Bazarov” by D. I. Pisarev, “Fathers and Sons” by I. S. Turgenev” by N. N. Strakhov, as well as M. A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of Our Time,” a heated debate flared up over the question of who should be considered the main the hero of Bazarov's work - a jester or an ideal to follow.
N.N. Strakhov in his article “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev" saw the deep tragedy of Bazarov's image, his vitality and dramatic attitude to life and called him the living embodiment of one of the manifestations of the true Russian spirit.
Selected work:
Antonovich viewed this character as an evil caricature of the younger generation and accused Turgenev of turning his back on democratically minded youth and betraying his former views.
Selected work:
Pisarev saw in Bazarov a useful and real person, which is capable of destroying outdated dogmas and outdated authorities, and thus clearing the way for the formation of new advanced ideas.
Selected work:
The common phrase that literature is created not by writers, but by readers turns out to be 100% true, and the fate of the work is decided by the readers, on whose perception the future fate of the work depends. It is literary criticism that helps the reader form his personal final opinion about this or that work. Critics also provide invaluable assistance to writers when they give them an idea of how understandable their works are to the public, and how correctly the thoughts expressed by the author are perceived.
“Each era of Russian literature had its own consciousness about itself, expressed in criticism,” wrote V. G. Belinsky. It is difficult to disagree with this judgment. Russian criticism is a phenomenon as bright and unique as Russian classic literature. It has been noted many times that criticism, being synthetic in nature, played a huge role in the social life of Russia. Critical articles by V. G. Belinsky, A. A. Grigoriev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and many others contained not only a detailed analysis of the works, their images, ideas, artistic features ; behind destinies literary heroes, behind artistic painting world critics sought to see the most important moral and social problems time, and not only see, but sometimes also offer their own ways to solve these problems.
The articles of Russian critics had and continue to have a significant impact on the spiritual and moral life society. It is no coincidence that they have long been included in the program school education. However, for many decades, in literature classes, students were familiar mainly with criticism of a radical orientation - with articles by V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and a number of other authors. In this case, the critical article was most often perceived as a source of quotations with which schoolchildren generously “decorated” their essays.
Such an approach to the study of Russian classics formed stereotypes of artistic perception, significantly simplified and impoverished the picture of the development of Russian literature, which was distinguished by fierce ideological and aesthetic disputes.
Only recently, thanks to the emergence of a number of serial publications and in-depth literary studies, has our vision of the development paths Russian literature and criticism has become more voluminous and multifaceted. In the series “Library “For Lovers of Russian Literature””, “History of Aesthetics in Monuments and Documents”, “Russian Literary Criticism”, articles by N. M. Karamzin, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, I. V. Kireevsky, N.I. Nadezhdin, A.A. Grigoriev, N.N. Strakhov and other outstanding domestic writers. The complex, dramatic quests of critics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, different in their artistic and social beliefs, are recreated in the series “Library of Russian Criticism”. Modern Readers finally got the opportunity to get acquainted not only with the “peak” phenomena in the history of Russian criticism, but also with many other, no less striking phenomena. At the same time, our idea of the “peaks”, of the scale of significance of many critics, has been significantly clarified.
It seems that the practice of school teaching should form a more comprehensive idea of how Russian literature of the 19th century was reflected in the mirror of domestic criticism. It is important that the young reader begins to perceive criticism as an organic part of Literature. After all, Literature in the broadest sense is the art of words, embodied both in a work of art and in literary criticism. A critic is always a bit of an artist and a publicist. A talented critical article necessarily contains a powerful fusion of the moral and philosophical thoughts of its author with subtle and deep observations of the literary text.
Studying critical article gives very little if its main provisions are perceived as a kind of dogma. It is important for the reader to emotionally and intellectually experience everything said by the critic, think about the logic of his thoughts, and determine the degree of evidence of the arguments put forward by him.
The critic offers his reading work of art, reveals his perception of the work of a particular writer. Often a critical article makes you rethink a work or artistic image. Some judgments and assessments in a talentedly written article can become a genuine discovery for the reader, while others may seem erroneous or controversial to him. It is especially interesting to compare different points of view regarding the same work or the work of a particular writer. This always provides rich material for thought.
This anthology contains works by leading representatives of Russian literary-critical thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries, from N. M. Karamzin to V. V. Rozanov. Many publications from which the texts of articles are published have become bibliographic rarities.
The reader will allow you to look at Pushkin’s work through the eyes of I.V. Kireevsky and V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev and V.V. Rozanov, to get acquainted with how differently the poem was perceived" Dead Souls"Gogol's contemporaries - V. G. Belinsky, K. S. Aksakov, S. P. Shevyrev, how the heroes of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" were assessed by the second critic half of the 19th century century. Readers will be able to compare their perception of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” with how it was interpreted in the articles of D. I. Pisarev and D. S. Merezhkovsky, see in Ostrovsky’s plays, thanks to the work of A. V. Druzhinin, not only the “dark kingdom” with lonely bright “rays” penetrating into it, but the multifaceted and multicolored world of Russian national life.
For many, the articles by L. Tolstoy’s contemporaries about his work will undoubtedly be a revelation. The main signs of L. Tolstoy’s talent - the ability to show the “dialectics of the soul” of his heroes, the “purity of moral feeling” - were one of the first to identify and reveal N. G. Chernyshevsky. As for N. N. Strakhov’s articles on “War and Peace,” we can rightfully say: in Russian literary criticism there are few works that can be ranked next to them in terms of the depth of penetration into L. Tolstoy’s plan, in terms of the accuracy and subtlety of observations above the text. The critic believed that the writer “gave us a new Russian formula for heroic life,” and for the first time after Pushkin was able to reflect the Russian ideal - the ideal of “simplicity, goodness and truth.”
Of particular interest are the reflections of critics collected in the anthology on the fate of Russian poetry. The problems posed in the articles by K. N. Batyushkov and V. A. Zhukovsky, V. G. Belinsky and V. N. Maykov, V. P. Botkin and I. S. Aksakov, V. S. Solovyov and V. V. Rozanova. Here we will find original judgments about the genres of “light poetry” and the principles of translation that have not lost their significance, we will see the desire to penetrate into the “holy of holies” of poetry - into the creative laboratory of the poet, to understand the specifics of the expression of thoughts and feelings in lyrical work. And how true, how clearly defined in these publications creative individuality Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Fet, Tyutchev and A.K. Tolstoy!
It is noteworthy that the result of difficult searches and often fierce disputes was the desire of critics of the early 20th century to “return” Russian culture to Pushkin, to Pushkin’s harmony and simplicity. Proclaiming the need for a “return to Pushkin,” V.V. Rozanov wrote: “I want him to become a friend in every Russian family... Pushkin’s mind protects him from everything stupid, his nobility protects him from everything vulgar, the versatility of his soul and the interests that occupied him protect against what could be called “early specialization of the soul.”
We hope that the anthology will become an indispensable guide to the works of outstanding Russian literary artists, will help to truly understand these works, compare various ways their interpretation, to discover in what was read what went unnoticed or initially seemed unimportant and secondary.
Literature is a whole Universe. Its “suns” and “planets” had their own satellites - literary critics who fell into the orbit of their inevitable attraction. And how we would like that we could call not only the classics of Russian literature, but also these critics our eternal companions.
Literary criticism in modern times literary process occupies one of the central positions, largely determining the development of domestic literature and traditionally being the connecting link between the writer and the reader.
If in Soviet time Having become an instrument of ideological propaganda, criticism practically lost its influence on the readership, then since the late 1980s. its revival and return to literary situation as a full-fledged phenomenon of modern literary life. Young critics, such as P. Basinsky, N. Eliseev, N. Ivanova, A. Nemzer, S. Chuprini, K. Stepanyan, saw their task primarily in an objective examination of the diverse, multidimensional literature that came to the reader in the perestroika and post-Soviet years . At this time, criticism acutely felt the need to abandon outdated templates in the study of Russian literature, especially modern literature. Criticism was the first to sense the creation of a new aesthetic system, destroying previous myths and offering a new artistic language and, therefore, requiring the development of other criteria for evaluating and comprehending emerging works. Understanding the continuity of the literary process and constant dialogue modern literature with the literature of past eras has become one of the leading principles of a critical approach to a literary text.
Modern criticism actively participates in the discussion of issues of the further development of Russian literature. In the 1990s - early 2000s. on the pages of “thick” magazines a number of discussions took place that were fundamentally significant for understanding the general trends observed in modern Russian literature: “On mass literature, its readers and authors” (1998), “Criticism: the last call” (1999), “Modern literature : Noah's Ark? (1999), “Russian poetry at the end of the century. Neoarchaists and neonovators" (2001). Critics and writers who participated in the discussion of the stated issues expressed very different opinions about the prospects for the development of literature, but the unifying point was the statement of the fact that the talk about the “death of Russian literature” that was popular in the early 1990s turned out to be completely groundless.
New criticism at the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries is closely connected with literary everyday life. The critic informs the reader about emerging new works, gives a competent analysis of the artistic value of the literary text, therefore his assessments, recommendations, reflective attitude towards what he read are not only assumed, but also expected, and not only readership, but also writers. IN current situation The opinion of critics often contributes to the success, and not least the commercial success, or failure of a particular work. Sharp, often scandalous, critical articles often provoke interest in texts written in an unusual aesthetic manner, as was the case, for example, with Vic’s novels. Erofeeva, V. Pelevina, V. Sorokina. Realizing his dependence on critical evaluation, the writer is forced to take into account the opinions of critics when working on a new work. At the same time, critical discussions on the pages of literary magazines and newspapers often open the way to readers for many talented authors. Thus, it was thanks to critical reviews and discussions that such writers as T. Tolstaya, L. Ulitskaya, D. Rubina, V. Pelevin, M. Shishkin gained fame among readers.
Modern critics are free to choose their function, their approach to a literary text and their tools. Literary criticism of the late 1990s - early 2000s. extremely diverse, as is the object of her interests. The following areas of activity of critics can be distinguished:
– traditional historical and literary approach, presented in articles by L. Anninsky, N. Ivanova, I. Rodnyanskaya, A. Latynina, M. Lipovetsky;
– reviews and reviews new literature, compiled by A. Nemzer, D. Bykov, L. Pirogov;
– critical essayism, occupying an intermediate position between criticism proper and fiction (A. Genis, P. Weil, V. Novikov);
– criticism of a provocative nature, updating attention to controversial literary phenomena (Vik. Erofeev, M. Zolotonosov, B. Paramonov);
– youth slang criticism of literary sites on the Internet and fashion magazines.
Another important component of modern criticism is its openness to artistic creativity: many critics create their own works (for example, O. Slavnikova, D. Bykov, V. Kuritsyn), and writers and poets, in turn, come out with critical articles and notes (Vik. Erofeev, S. Gandlevsky, T. Tolstaya, V. Shubinsky).
Thus, literary criticism is an important element of the modern literary process, without which it is impossible to form a complete, complete picture of the development of Russian literature of the late 20th - early 21st centuries.
Main literature
Contemporary Russian literature (1990s - beginning of XXI c.) / S.I. Timina, V.E. Vasiliev, O.V. Voronina et al. St. Petersburg, 2005.
Russian literature of the 20th century in the mirror of criticism: Reader / Comp. S.I. Timina, M.A. Chernyak, N.N. Kyakshto. M., St. Petersburg, 2003.
additional literature
Ivanova N. Overcoming postmodernism // Znamya. 1998. No. 4.
Nemzer A. A wonderful decade: about Russian prose of the 90s // New world. 2000. № 1.
Criticism: last call: conference hall // Banner. 1999. No. 12.
Dubin B. Literary culture today // Banner. 2002. No. 12.
Seminar lesson plans
Seminar lesson No. 1.
The problem of periodization of Russian literature. Patterns of development of modern literature
1. The concept of stadiality by M. Epstein. Cycles and phases of development of Russian literature. The criteria underlying this concept.
2. At what stage of development, according to M. Epstein, is the literature of the 1980s - 1990s?
3. Advantages and disadvantages of M. Epstein’s concept of stadiality. Possible ways to clarify and adjust it.
4. The essence of the theory of regularities and anti-regularities D.S. Likhacheva.
5. What works and writers of Russian literature of the 20th century confirm the correctness of D.S.’s judgments? Likhachev on the development of Russian literature?
Exercise:
Compile abstracts of the articles “After the Future. On the new consciousness in literature" by M. Epstein and "Regularities and anti-regularities in literature" by D.S. Likhachev, based on the proposed seminar lesson plan.
Literature
1. Epstein M. After the Future. On the new consciousness in literature // Znamya. 1991. No. 1. P. 217-230.
2. Likhachev D.S. Regularities and anti-regularities in literature // Russian literature. 1986. No. 3. P. 27-29.
3. Likhachev D.S. The structure of literature: towards posing the question // Russian literature. 1986. No. 3. P. 29-30.
4. Leiderman N., Lipovetsky M. Modern Russian literature: 1950-1990s. In 2 volumes. T. 2 1968-1990. M., 2007.
5. Nefagina G.L. Russian prose of the late 20th century. M., 2005.
6. Modern Russian literature (1990s - beginning of the 21st century) / S.I. Timina, V.E. Vasiliev, O.V. Voronina et al. St. Petersburg, 2005.
Seminar lesson No. 2.
Literary criticism
Literary criticism- region literary creativity the border between art (fiction) and the science of literature (literary criticism).
Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of literature from the point of view of modernity (including pressing problems of social and spiritual life); identifies and approves the creative principles of literary trends; has an active influence on the literary process, as well as directly on the formation of public consciousness; relies on the theory and history of literature, philosophy, aesthetics. It is often journalistic, political and topical in nature, intertwined with journalism. Closely connected with related sciences - history, political science, linguistics, textual criticism, bibliography.
Story
Already distinguished in antiquity in Greece and Rome, also in ancient india and China as a special professional occupation. But for a long time has only “applied” meaning. Its task is to give a general assessment of the work, to encourage or condemn the author, and to recommend the book to other readers.
Then, after a long break, it again emerged as a special type of literature and as an independent profession in Europe, from the 17th century to the first half of the 19th century (T. Carlyle, C. Sainte-Beuve, I. Taine, F. Brunetier, M. Arnold, G. Brandes).
History of Russian literary criticism
Until the 18th century
Elements of literary criticism appear already in written monuments of the 11th century. Actually, as soon as someone expresses their opinion about a work, we are dealing with elements of literary criticism.
Works containing such elements include
- The word of a certain good old man about reading books (included in the Izbornik of 1076, sometimes mistakenly called the Izbornik of Svyatoslav);
- A Word on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarion, where there is a consideration of the Bible as a literary text;
- The word about Igor’s Regiment, where at the beginning the intention is stated to sing in new words, and not in the usual “boyanov” - an element of discussion with “boyan”, a representative of the previous one literary tradition;
- Lives of a number of saints who were the authors of significant texts;
- Letters from Andrei Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible, where Kurbsky reproaches the Terrible for caring too much about the beauty of the word, about the weaving of words.
Significant names of this period are Maxim the Greek, Simeon of Polotsk, Avvakum Petrov (literary works), Melety Smotritsky.
XVIII century
For the first time in Russian literature, the word “critic” was used by Antioch Cantemir in 1739 in the satire “Education”. Also in French - critique. In Russian writing it will come into frequent use in the mid-19th century.
Literary criticism begins to develop with the advent of literary magazines. The first such magazine in Russia was “Monthly Works Serving for Benefit and Entertainment” (1755). The first Russian author to turn to a review is considered to be N.M. Karamzin, who preferred the genre of monographic reviews.
Characteristic features of literary polemics of the 18th century:
- linguistic-stylistic approach to literary works (the main attention is paid to errors of language, mainly the first half of the century, especially characteristic of the speeches of Lomonosov and Sumarokov);
- normative principle (characteristic of the dominant classicism);
- taste principle (put forward at the very end of the century by sentimentalists).
19th century
The historical-critical process occurs mainly in the relevant sections of literary magazines and other periodicals, and is therefore closely related to the journalism of this period. In the first half of the century, criticism was dominated by such genres as remark, response, note, and later the problem article and review became the main ones. The reviews of A. S. Pushkin are of great interest - these are short, elegantly and literaryly written, polemical works that testify to the rapid development of Russian literature. In the second half, the genre of a critical article or a series of articles, approaching a critical monograph, predominates.
Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, along with “annual reviews” and major problem articles, also wrote reviews. In Otechestvennye Zapiski, Belinsky for several years ran the column “Russian Theater in St. Petersburg,” where he regularly gave reports on new performances.
Sections of criticism of the first half of the 19th century are formed on the basis of literary movements (classicism, sentimentalism, romanticism). In criticism of the second half of the century literary characteristics complemented by socio-political ones. A special section includes literary criticism, which is distinguished by great attention to the problems of artistic mastery.
On turn of the 19th century- Industry and culture are actively developing in the 20th century. Compared to the mid-19th century, censorship has weakened significantly and the level of literacy has increased. Thanks to this, many magazines, newspapers, and new books are published, and their circulation increases. Literary criticism is also flourishing. Among the critics a large number of writers and poets - Annensky, Merezhkovsky, Chukovsky. With the advent of silent films, film criticism was born. Before the 1917 revolution, several magazines with film reviews were published.
XX century
A new cultural surge occurs in the mid-1920s. The civil war has ended, and the young state has the opportunity to engage in culture. These years saw the heyday of the Soviet avant-garde. Malevich, Mayakovsky, Rodchenko, Lissitzky create. Science is also developing. The largest tradition of Soviet literary criticism of the first half of the 20th century. - formal school - is born precisely in line with strict science. Its main representatives are considered to be Eikhenbaum, Tynyanov and Shklovsky.
Insisting on the autonomy of literature, the idea of independence of its development from the development of society, rejecting the traditional functions of criticism - didactic, moral, socio-political - the formalists went against Marxist materialism. This led to the end of avant-garde formalism during the years of Stalinism, when the country began to turn into a totalitarian state.
In the subsequent years 1928–1934. the principles of socialist realism - the official style of Soviet art - are formulated. Criticism becomes a punitive tool. In 1940, the Literary Critic magazine was closed, and the criticism section of the Writers' Union was dissolved. Now criticism had to be directed and controlled directly by the party. Columns and criticism sections appear in all newspapers and magazines.
Famous Russian literary critics of the past
| | | next lecture ==> | |
Introduction
Ideas about the essence of literary and artistic criticism in modern theoretical concepts (B. I. Bursov, V. I. Kuleshov, V. V. Kozhinov, A. S. Kurilov, G. N. Pospelov, V. E. Khalizev, Yu. I. Surovtsev, A. G. Bocharov, V. P. Muromsky). Scientific, journalistic and artistic aspects in criticism, the possibility of their different relationships. The evaluative side of criticism, focused on the current literary process with its current tasks.
Modern relationship between criticism and literary disciplines. Classification of literary studies and criticism according to the criteria of methodology and technique, according to the volume and subject of research, according to its goals, aspects and genres.
The need to study the history of criticism to understand the conditions of existence of literature and its development.
Literary criticism as an expression of the self-awareness of society and literature in their evolution. Understanding by criticism of Russian literature after 1917, direct impact at her.
The subject of study in the course is the social and literary platforms of writers' associations and critics, their formulation of methodological and theoretical-critical problems, the principles of evaluating works of literature; the work of the most brilliant or indicative authors of their time; genres, composition and style critical works, as well as facts of the history of literary criticism, depending on the degree of influence of academic literary criticism on current literary criticism in a given historical period, on their more or less active interaction.
The fundamental difference between the situation in life and literature after 1917 and the situation turn of XIX-XX centuries. Criticism as component literary process, depending on social conditions to a greater extent than literature.
The problem of periodization of literary criticism in Russia after 1917. Chronological boundaries of the major stages of its existence: from 1917 to the mid-50s. - a time of gradual strengthening and consolidation of totalitarian social attitudes, nationalization of all spheres of life, including literature and criticism; from the second half of the 50s to the second half of the 80s - a time of gradual contradictory, with retreats, elimination of totalitarian consciousness, its all-round crisis; from the second half of the 80s - the time of the collapse of totalitarian socialism, an acute struggle between supporters of different paths of development of Russia, the search for the place of literature and literary criticism in the new social situation and the beginning of their existence completely independent of state institutions.
Identification of periods that differed significantly from each other within large historical stages. Time civil war- a split in both society and literature, a division of critics according to their attitude towards the revolution: into those who accepted it, those who did not accept it, and those who were emphatically apolitical. Multiple reductions in publication opportunities. First half of the 20s. - relative balance of opposing trends in criticism, relatively wide contacts of Russian writers with Russian literary abroad (the phenomenon of Russian Berlin). Second half of the 20s - early 30s. - forced formation of the monistic concept Soviet literature and corresponding criticism, ousting independent-minded authors, including those of Marxist orientation. 30s - consolidation of totalitarian attitudes while the best critics and some magazines try to save their face; maximum weakening of criticism during mass repressions against the intelligentsia. The years of the Great Patriotic War are a relative, partial emancipation of literary thought with the practical impossibility of restoring the former potential of criticism. Second half of the 40s - early 50s. - the extreme decline of literature and criticism, the all-encompassing dogmatization and mythologization of public consciousness, only partially shaken in 1954.
Second half of the 50s. - the time of the first, quickly stopped rise of public consciousness, its manifestations in literature and criticism, the time of the beginning of the gradual overcoming by many writers of a number of totalitarian attitudes. 60s - the years of the emergence of trends in literary criticism, the active resistance of not only individual writers to outdated dogmas, a noticeable increase in the professionalism of criticism and especially literary criticism. 70s - first half of 80s. - social stagnation, suppression of dissent and at the same time a significant increase in the level of literature, which received more cautious and balanced criticism than before. 1986-1987 - the beginning of “glasnost”, the revival of the newly permitted “anti-Stalinism”; 1988-1989 - the removal of basic censorship restrictions, a more complex differentiation of public consciousness, the beginning of its “deleninization”, the consolidation of a wide pluralism of opinions and the reflection of this process in criticism, the “return” of the Russian diaspora; after 1991 - a time of social reforms - a weakening of polemics in literary criticism (as opposed to politics), its attempts to find its specific subject and its reader without the previous ideological “struggle” for it.
The course involves studying not only the best in the history of criticism, but also the most characteristic, which had an impact (including a very negative one) on the literary process or became its adequate manifestation. Whenever possible, the degree of accessibility of different publications to students is taken into account.
Literary criticism from 1917 to the beginning of the 30s.
Special conditions for the existence of literary criticism in the post-October period. The process of “nationalization” of literature and attempts to transform criticism into a way of organizing literary “business.” The gradual nature of this process, its acceleration by the end of the 20s. The clash of the intentions of the authorities with an extremely numerous and motley composition of participants in critical battles - people with different levels of aesthetic culture and a multi-colored spectrum of both moral orientations (from traditional readiness to serve society to a passionate desire for power) and socio-political (from rejection of revolution to romantic illusions at her expense). Influence on the development of literary criticism in the 20s. such a fact as the existence of literary associations and groups. Their characteristics.
Speeches by V. I. Lenin, L. D. Trotsky, G. E. Zinoviev, L. B. Kamenev, N. I. Bukharin, and other Bolshevik leaders on issues of literature and cultural policy. The influence of Trotsky’s book “Literature and Revolution” (1923) on ideas about post-revolutionary literature and on the terminology of criticism. Introduction of such concepts as “proletarian writer”, “ peasant writer", "companion". They are widely distributed, including in the party press and official documents. Using these concepts for the purposes of group struggle. The influence of methodological guidelines of vulgar sociologism in a broad sense both on the interpretation of concepts and on the attitude towards the creative capabilities of the writer. The “elaborative” tone of “Napostovsky” and Rappovsky criticism (B. Volin, L. Sosnovsky, G. Lelevich, L. Averbakhi, etc.).
Attempts to counteract the dictatorship of power and defend the independence of art. Opposition to the Bolshevik government, egofuturist V. R. Khovin and his independent magazine “Book Corner”. “Heretical” articles by E. I. Zamyatin (1884-1937), his condemnation of dogmatism, defense of the idea of infinity of development (the image of a revolution that does not know “ last date"), rejection of opportunism. “I'm Afraid” (1921) - a forecast about the possible degradation of Russian literature if it loses its spiritual independence. The concept of “neorealism” as an art that synthesizes the achievements of the Silver Age with the traditions of classical literature. Defense of conventional forms in art and criticism of naturalistic tendencies. Reviews of current literature. Problems of poetics in Zamyatin's articles. His forced departure from criticism. Speeches by L. N. Lunts (1901-1924) and his defense of the aesthetic intrinsic value and autonomy of art; problems of plot composition in Luntz's articles. Illness, departure to the West, early death. Defense of the aesthetic autonomy of art and the demand to bring the aesthetic analysis of form to the center of attention of researchers (B. M. Eikhenbaum, Yu. N. Tynyanov, V. B. Shklovsky). Affirmation of the artist’s spiritual freedom in the critical speeches of the members of the “Pereval” group (second half of the 1920s).
Resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of June 18, 1925 “On the party’s policy in the field of fiction” and its impact on the situation in criticism. The growth of crisis phenomena in literary life. Gradual displacement of independent criticism. Cessation of publication of a number of magazines - “Russian Contemporary”, “Russia” (“New Russia”), etc.
The critical campaign of 1929 launched by RAPP against Evg. Zamyatin, B. Pilnyak, M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, I. Kataev, Artem Vesely and others. The decline of the formal school in an atmosphere of general politicization of life. “Monument to a Scientific Error” by V. Shklovsky (1930). The trial of "The Pass" at the Communist Academy (1930). The fate of V. Pereverzev’s methodology: the defeat of his school at the turn of the 20-30s;
denial of not only “vulgar” (abstract-class) sociologism, but also the positive aspects of Pereverzev’s system (search for artistic specificity of both the form and content of a work, the desire for a holistic analysis, rejection of illustrativeness in literature and the replacement of artistry with “relevance”).
Approval of political criteria when assessing a work of art. The idea of intensifying the class struggle in literature, proclaimed by critics of RAPP, and the fate of Mayakovsky. Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (1932) and the dissolution of RAPP. Unfulfilled hopes of the writing community for the improvement of the literary atmosphere. Creation of a literary “ministry” - a single Union of Soviet Writers.
Literary criticism: the most important “centers” of critical speeches, issues, the most important representatives, genres and forms. “Syncretism” of critical thought: the combination in the activities of critics speaking at this moment of the functions of the actual critical ones with the solution of methodological, theoretical and historical-literary problems.
The role of the literary critical departments of magazines (“Krasnaya Nov”, “Lef”, “New World”, “Young Guard”, “October”, “Russian Contemporary”) and special socio-political and literary magazines (“Print and Revolution”, “On duty”, “On a literary post”) in the development of the methodology of criticism and solving the most important theoretical problems in the development of literature, in assessing the current literary process and the creativity of its individual participants. Literary portrait, problem article, review as the dominant literary genres in magazines. Examination of the current literary process in review articles. Problem-thematic perspective of analysis. Articles by A. V. Lunacharsky (“October Revolution and Literature,” 1925; “Stages of the Growth of Soviet Literature,” 1927), A. K. Voronsky (“From Modern Literary Moods,” 1922; “Prose Writers and Poets of the Forge” ", 1924), V. P. Polonsky. The first attempts at a historical and literary review of new literature for ten years of its existence (Vyach. Polonsky, A. Lezhnev).
Publishing a book of critical articles as a widespread form of holistic expression of the critic’s aesthetic position. Books by A. Voronsky, D. Gorbov, A. Lezhnev, L. Averbakh, A. Lunacharsky, V. Shklovsky and others.
Discussion as a form of development of critical thought of a given period and the possibility of its influence on the development of literature. The range of problems discussed: the problem of differentiation of the literary process and assessment of the writer’s place in modern literature; the relationship of art to reality and the question of the purpose of art.
The relationship between the rational and the irrational in the creative process, conditional and life-like forms of generalization; the problem of personality and the principles of depicting a person; the problem of the hero of time;
understanding the thematic and problematic orientation of modern literature; problems of genre and style; attempts to characterize the new method of Soviet literature. Significant contribution to the criticism of poets and prose writers.
Critical speeches of representatives of pre-October poetic schools as a link between two eras literary development. Critical prose of A. A. Blok (1880-1921). Culturological concept of history. The figurative and conceptual principle of interpretation of literary phenomena. Affirmations of the prophetic possibilities of tragic art. The problem of “benefit” and freedom of the artist.
Literary critical activity of V. Ya. Bryusov (1873-1924). Statement of the problem of a new type of culture. Interpretation of symbolism, futurism and the expected poems of proletarian poets as “yesterday, today and tomorrow of Russian poetry.” Negative attitude towards poetic formalism, towards the pure image-making of the Imagists. Forecast about the merger of all literary movements into one stream with new content and form. Abstract historicism of Bryusov's critical method.
Edition of “Letters about Russian Poetry” (1923) by N. S. Gumilyov. Their significance for the development of poetic culture in the 20s. Short reviews in the almanacs of the “Workshop of Poets”, articles by M. A. Kuzmin in the early 20s. - samples of taste and aesthetics critics.
The critical prose of O. E. Mandelstam (1891-1938) is an artistic attempt to comprehend the cataclysms of his century in the global cultural and historical context and at the same time in the aspect of philology. Declaration of the end of the “centrifugal” European novel. Thesis on revolutionary "classicism". The paradoxical nature of Mandelstam’s critical manner (book “On Poetry”, 1928).
Leading critics of the 20s and early 30s.
Educational and propaganda criticism of A. V. Lunacharsky (1875-1933). Proclamation of “proletarian culture” as the heir to world culture. Belief in the grandeur of artistic achievements of the future and recognition of the importance of classical traditions. Relative tolerance and breadth in Lunacharsky’s approach as a statesman to various trends in art. Support for realism, criticism of the most “leftist” and formalistic phenomena in literature. Articles about most prominent Soviet writers. Bringing to the fore the works of M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, M. Sholokhov. Development of problems in the theory of modern Soviet literature. The article “Lenin and Literary Studies” (1932) is the first attempt at a systematic substantiation of Leninism as a new methodology for the study of culture and party influence on it. The journalistic nature of Lunacharsky's criticism. Elements of simplified sociologism in the starting points of many articles.
A.K. Voronsky (1884-1937) - editor of the first Soviet “thick” magazine “Krasnaya Nov” (1921-1927). Theoretical and literary views of Voronsky and the position of critics of the “Pereval” group. Recognition of art as a special form of cognition and creative exploration of reality. The theory of “immediate impressions”, rejection of didactics and illustrativeness in literature. Voronsky's high aesthetic taste. Protection of the classical heritage. The critic’s preference for the work of “fellow travelers” as the most talented writers of a given time; defense of realistic principles in literature;
the concept of “new realism”, the thesis about the need for historicism. A sharp polemic with “Napostovism” and “Nalitpostovism”, the desire to protect and preserve everything artistically valuable. Literary portrait as Voronsky’s preferred genre of concrete criticism. A tribute to the prejudices of the time in assessments of some aspects of S. Yesenin’s work, Evg. Zamyatina. Voronsky's forced departure from criticism and journalism.
V. P. Polonsky (1886-1932) - editor of the critical-bibliographic publication “Print and Revolution” (1921-1929) and “New World” (1926-1931) - the most popular magazine of the second half of the 20s. Attracting talented writers to the “New World” - from different groups and “wild” (independent), dedicated them Polonsky's articles. The critic’s mechanical division of “artistry” and “ideology” between “fellow travelers” and proletarian writers, overcome in practice. Consistent striving for objectivity in ideological and aesthetic assessments. Close attention to the language and imagery of works, the analytical and systematizing gift of a critic. Polemics with the theories of “napostovstvo” and “lefs”. Thesis on "romantic realism". Article " Artistic creativity and social classes. On the theory of social order" (1929). Refutation of intuitionism in the study “Consciousness and Creativity” (1934).
A. Lezhnev (pseudonym of A. Z. Gorelik, 1893-1938) - leading theorist and critic of “The Pass”. The idea of "socialism with human face"" - the starting position for A. Lezhnev in assessing the trends of modern art as a specific way of artistic and imaginative re-creation of reality, defense of the role of intuition in the creative process, the idea of “organic” creativity. The struggle for realism against everydayism. Promotion and justification of the creative principles of “Pereval” (“new humanism”, “sincerity”, “Mozartianism”, “aesthetic culture”); their use in evaluating works of modern literature. The category of personality, in particular the personality of the transitional era, in Lezhnev’s aesthetics; the problem of creative individuality and the genre of literary portrait in Lezhnev (articles dedicated to B. Pasternak, V. Mayakovsky, L. Seifullina).
The idea of criticism as a living participant in the literary process, who “not only studies, but also builds.” The fight against opportunism, against “salierism.” Contrast with “craft”, “work”, “technique” - “creativity”, “intuition”, “inspiration”. A harsh assessment of Mayakovsky's evolution in the second half of the 20s. The work of Pasternak and its evolution in the interpretation of A. Lezhnev. “Portrait” of “leftist” art as interpreted by a critic. The category of “social order” and the problem of artist freedom. Polemics with the dehumanization of art, with rationalization and utilitarianism in the speeches of Rapp’s critics. A. Lezhnev’s rejection of vulgar sociologism, adjacent to his own aspirations to find a “sociological equivalent” of creativity. Creation of the first essay on the history of the development of post-October literature: “Literature of the revolutionary decade (1917-1927)” (together with D. Gorbov). A. Lezhnev's departure into literary criticism; literary works of the 1930s. as development
aesthetic concepts 1920s
D. A. Gorbov (1894-1967) - theorist and critic of the Pereval group, a constant opponent of LEF and RAPP. Traditions of “organic criticism” Al. Grigoriev in the works of D. Gorbov. Defense of the laws of “organic creativity” in polemics with rationalist theories of art as a theoretical justification for the possibility of its “organization.” The fight against the view of art as “second-class journalism”, “the handmaiden of politics”. Approval of the specifics of creativity
"Conventionally, a much later image-term is used, which spread after the “Prague Spring” of 1968.
sky process. The image of Galatea is a symbol of the artist’s inner freedom. Promotion of “organic creativity” as a criterion of artistry. Speeches by D. Gorbov in defense of controversial works of the 1920s: “Envy” by Y. Olesha, “The Thief” by L. Leonov, etc. Gravitation towards works that combine critical and historical-literary approaches (articles about creative path L. Leonov, M. Gorky). The first (and only) attempt in the history of Soviet criticism to consider emigrant literature as part of the general literary process of the 1920s, including a review of it in the book “Literature of the Revolutionary Decade” (“At Home and Abroad”). Gorbov’s theory of the “single stream” as an attempt to counter the idea of literary consolidation to the slogan of exacerbation of the class struggle. The critic realized early on the impossibility of continuing his literary activity.
Criticism of the 20s in her interpretations of the creativity of the most “prominent” participants in the literary process and her influence on their creative appearance and destinies.
Criticism of the 20s in her attempts to assess the main trends in literary development. The impact of criticism on the literary process.
Literary criticism of the 30s
The role of criticism in the 30s. in establishing new forms of relations between literature and power, in developing normative criteria for evaluating a work, in creating a “no alternative” model of literature.
Literary-critical departments of magazines and their lack of any bright expressed face. The emergence of special literary critical publications: “Literary Newspaper” (since 1929), “Literature and Marxism” (1928-1931), “Book and Proletarian Revolution” (1932-1940), “Literary Study” (1930-1941) , “Literary Critic” (1933-1940) and its appendix - “Literary Review” (1936-1941).
Change of persons acting in the arena of literary and artistic criticism.
Critical discussion as a transition from the situation of the 20s and early 30s. a form of development of critical thought that has become a form of its strangulation. The emergence of a new form of discussion - “discussion” with a predetermined solution.
Discussion about “Westerners” and “Soilers” and the problem of “realism and formalism in literature.” Speeches by V. Shklovsky, Sun. Vishnevsky and others. Disputes around the figures of Dos Passos, Joyce and Proust and their influence on modern literature. “Westernism” and the problems of modernism and “formalism”. The position of M. Gorky (“About prose”, “About a point and a hummock”) and the “passer” I. Kataev (“Art on the threshold of socialism”). An attempt by A. Lunacharsky to counter the danger of simplification and leveling of art that arose in the process of fighting “formalism” (“Thoughts on the Master”, 1933). The role of discussion in creative experiments in literature and the creation of aesthetic “monophony” (Evg. Zamyatin).
Discussion 1933-1934 about trends in Soviet literature. A. Fadeev’s denial of the possibility of the existence of different creative directions in it. Defense of the principle of diversity of directions in the speeches of V. Kirshon. Approval in the course of the development of the literary process of the idea of the unity of Soviet literature.
The clash of “innovators” (Vs. Vishnevsky, N. Pogodin) and “conservatives” (V. Kirshon, A. Afinogenov) among playwrights. The contrast between psychological and journalistic interpretations of modernity and its influence on the fate of psychological drama.
Discussion about the principles of generalization in literature. A new wave of a uniquely understood rapprochement with reality during the years of the first five-year plan, an abundance of documentary forms, in particular essays, and an attempt to generalize this path of mastering reality subsequently the theory of "literature" fact." Artificial repression of conventional forms.
1934 discussion about historical novel and the beginning of the “rehabilitation” of historical themes in literature.
Discussion 1932-1934 about the language of fiction. Position of F. Panferov and A. Serafimovich (“About the writers “licked” and “unlicked””, “Response to M. Gorky”). Protest against naturalistic and artificially stylized tendencies in the field of artistic speech in the speeches of M. Gorky (“ Open letter A. S. Serafimovich,” “About Language”) and A. Tolstoy (“Is Muzhik Strength Necessary?”). Negative result of good intentions: leveling of artistic speech in literature, starting from the second half of the 30s.
The significance of the First Congress of Soviet Writers (1934) for literary criticism. Issues of artistic creativity in the report of M. Gorky. Utopian hopes of the congress participants for the flourishing of literature, underestimation of its previous period.
The variety of forms of critical and journalistic activity of M. Gorky and his role in the formation and development of literary and artistic criticism. The writer's speeches against formalistic and crudely sociological approaches in criticism. The fight against “groupism” and its influence on the assessment of a particular creative phenomenon. Gorky about the essence of socialist realism, which relates mainly to the future, and about its continuous connection with the classical heritage, about historicism, about romance in Soviet literature, about the truth of reality and fiction. Gorky assessments of the creativity of S. Yesenin, M. Prishvin, L. Leonov, Vs. Ivanov, F. Gladkov and others. Unfair condemnation of A. Bely, B. Pilnyak, and a significant part of pre-revolutionary writers. Too generous advances to literary youth and Gorky’s not fully disclosed understanding of the crisis of Soviet literature in the last two years of his life.
Criticism and its development in the post-congress period. New names. “Specialization” among representatives of aesthetic thought: redistribution of forces in favor of theory and history of literature, impoverishment of literary critical departments of “thick” magazines.
The resumption of the discussion about “formalism” in literature in 1936 in the form of categorical studies of many writers and artists and their “repentance”. Doubts about the legitimacy of the existence of different artistic forms and styles; an attempt to establish a view of Soviet art as the art of everyday verisimilitude; the final displacement of conventional forms of image. A side productive tendency in the interpretation of formalism is the thesis about formalism as the subordination of life to “formulas” that simplify it and open the way varnishing and conflict-free(I. Kataev “Art socialist people").
Confirmation of normativism tendencies in criticism, their influence on the evaluation of works that touch on the deep contradictions of reality. The predominance of critical pathos when discussing the works of I. Ehrenburg (“The Second Day”), L. Leonov (“Skutarevsky” and “The Road to the Ocean”), M. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”), A. Platonov. Deformation of ideas about artistic truth, the role of the tragic, the right to depict private life. Appeared in the late 30s. concepts of conflict-freeness in literature.
The role of the magazine “Literary Critic” (1933-1940) in understanding the literary life of our time. Critics of the magazine: V. Aleksandrov, Yu. Yuzovsky, K. Zelinsky, A. Gurvich, V. Goffenschefer, E. Usievich and others. The structure of the magazine, its direction (the fight against vulgar sociologism, the proclamation of the principle of “concrete criticism” based on the specifics work of art) and internal inconsistency in the implementation of the proclaimed guidelines (“accusatory” tone, peremptory verdicts). Criticism of illustrativeness, declarativeness and schematism in literary works. Actual recognition on the pages of the magazine of the crisis state of Soviet literature. Controversy surrounding the magazine, exaggeration of the mistakes it made (speeches by V. Ermilov, M. Serebryansky, V. Kirpotin), interpretation of the merits of the “Literary Critic” (honest, professional analyzes) as unacceptable deviations from ideological purity, accusations against the “group” Lu-kacha - Lifshits (active authors of the journal, its theorists). An article in the Literary Gazette dated August 10, 1939 and an editorial in the Krasnaya Nov magazine under the same title - “On the harmful views of the Literary Critic” (1940) - and the closure of the magazine.
A.P. Platonov (1899-1951) - the largest writer-critic of the 30s, who declared in his articles about the benefits of socialism, the greatness of Lenin (but not Stalin) and at the same time was consistently guided by universal moral, and not sociological criteria for evaluating any literary material, the work of any writers from Pushkin to N. Ostrovsky. Preference for the affirmative principle in literature of the 19th century. critical. The paradoxical convergence of distant spheres of literature and life in Platonov’s articles. A natural combination for him of thoughts about the people and thoughts about creative personality, actively creating both spiritual and material values.
Attempts to criticize the 30s. summarize the experience of the development of post-revolutionary literature. A. Selivanovsky’s book “Essays on the History of Russian Soviet Poetry” (1936), V. Pertsov’s articles “People of the Two Five-Year Plans” (1935), “Personality and the New Discipline” (1936), etc. Calls to create a history of Soviet literature, a history of the literatures of the republics included in the USSR. The unfinished experience of creating a chronicle of Soviet literature over twenty years in “Literary Criticism” (1937).
Criticism of the 30s and the creation of a normative system for evaluating a work of art (the model of the work in the context of the model of literature of socialist realism).
Criticism of the 30s in assessing the creativity of the most prominent participants in the literary process. Formation of a “clip” of “classics” of Soviet literature.
Criticism of the 30s in the interpretation of the literary process. Her responsibility for the distortions and deformations of literary development:
tendency to simplify art; development of ideas about the affirmative nature of socialist realism and support for “varnished” works, opposition to artistic truth; fear of complex, ambiguous characters.
The death of many literary critics as a result of mass repressions.
Criticism of the 40s-first half of the 50s
The years of the Patriotic War and the first post-war decade (1946-1955) were an exceptionally unfavorable time for literary and artistic criticism. The weakening of criticism in the 40s, the reduction in its personnel as a result of development campaigns and repressions in the second half of the 30s, conscription into the army and losses in the war. The absence of a serious, living methodological search, the dominance of Stalinist dogmas, which was overcome until the death of Stalin (1953) only in some writers’ speeches general and individual examples of “concrete” criticism. Self-aggrandizement of official society and literature, opposition of everything Russian and Soviet (“socialist”) to everything foreign (“bourgeois”).
The weakening of the publishing base of criticism with the beginning of the war, the closure of a number of magazines. Lack of deep analytical and generalizing works. Coming to the forefront of journalistic literary criticism. Simplification of approach and interpretation in criticism, designed for the largest audience, aimed at achieving immediate propaganda results. Objective-historical explainability of this situation during the war.
Opinions about the relationship between criticism proper, journalism and literary criticism, a unanimous demand from them to be relevant and topical (article by A. Surkov “To Comrade Critics”, 1942; speech by A. Fadeev “Tasks of Art Criticism in Our Days”, 1942; editorial article of the newspaper “Literature and art" dated June 18, 1942. "Inspire to victory by all means of art"; article by B. Eikhenbaum "Let's talk about our craft", 1943), general recognition of the great shortcomings of criticism without an objective explanation of their reasons (articles "Literature and Art": " Higher level of artistic skill", "O art criticism", 1943).
The main motives of literary criticism during the Great Patriotic War are patriotism, heroism, moral fortitude heroes of literature as the embodiment of the main thing in the Soviet man and the original features of the Russian national character. Transformation of these qualities into the main criteria for evaluating literary works. Positive results of the change in sociological criteria of the 20-30s. national-patriotic: vital-practical - strengthening the cohesion of society in the face of enormous danger, establishing an optimistic attitude in it - and ethical-aesthetic - actual recognition on the verge of life and death of universal human values (home, family, loyalty, friendship, selflessness, memory, simple , purely personal feelings, responsibility to comrades, compatriots, to the entire people); the motive of shame from retreat and defeat, severe suffering and experiences; problems of artistic truth and humanism raised by A. Surkov, A. Fadeev, L. Leonov, M. Sholokhov.
Attempts by the leadership of the Writers' Union to comprehend the literature of the war years as a whole. Articles, speeches, reports, reports by A. Fadeev, A. Surkov, N. Tikhonov 1942-1944; articles by L. Timofeev “Soviet Literature and War” (1942), L. Leonov “Voice of the Motherland” (1943). “Creative-critical meeting” on literature about the Patriotic War (1943).
Extension of the principle of classifying works of the war period by theme. Articles by A. Fadeev “Patriotic War and Soviet Literature”, V. Kozhevnikov “ main topic”, editorials of “Literature and Art” - “The Theme of Art”, “Literary Newspaper” - “Maritime Theme in Literature”, “Heroics of Labor”, discussion “The Image of the Soviet Officer in Fiction of 1944”, etc.; a statement of the poor coverage of the home front theme in literature, contained in the speeches of A. Fadeev, A. Surkov, N. Tikhonov, and participants in the discussion about the book by M. Shaginyan “The Theme of Military Life” (1944). Reviews of national literatures, magazines, front-line press in the newspaper “Literature and Art” (1943-1944). Support for a number of weak works due to the relevance of the topic. Some expansion of the subject of criticism: articles by V. Yan “The Problem of the Historical Novel”, S. Marshak “On Our Satire”, S. Mikhalkov “A Book for Children. Review of children's literature on the topic of war."
Works that gave rise to greatest interest and the widest press: “Front” by A. Korneychuk, “Russian People”, “Days and Nights”, poems by K. Simonov, “Invasion” by L. Leonov, “Volokolamsk Highway” by A. Beck, “The People are Immortal” by V. Grossman , “Zoya” M. Aliger. Emphasizing the successes of poetry and journalism (A. Tolstoy, I. Ehrenburg, etc.). Recognition of the patriotic lyrics of A. Akhmatova, the war stories of A. Platonov. Article by K. Fedin about the performance based on the play by M. Bulgakov “ Last days(Pushkin)" (1943).
Intensification of professional criticism in 1944-1945. Increase in the number of problematic articles and discussions. The dominance of small genres of criticism throughout the war, the impossibility of creating large literary critical monographs. Literary critical articles in mass newspapers: “Pravda”, “Izvestia”, “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, “Krasnaya Zvezda”, military publications.
Questions of the past and present of Russian literature in the speeches of writers and critics. Report by A. N. Tolstoy “A Quarter of a Century of Soviet Literature” (1942) with an attempt to determine the specific features of Soviet multinational literature as a fundamentally new artistic phenomenon, with a periodization of its development over 25 years. Characteristics in the report of the experience of Soviet literature. a statement of its close connection with the life of the people, the emergence of a new hero. Article by P. Pavlenko “Ten Years” (1944) for the anniversary of the First Congress of Writers - a definition of the positive contribution of the 30-40s. into literature and its unrealized potential. Articles of 1943 in the newspaper “Literature and Art”: editorial - “On Russian national pride”, V. Ermilov “On the traditions of national pride in Russian literature” and “The image of the Motherland in the work of Soviet poets” - with a positive characterization as V. Mayakovsky , N. Tikhonov, A. Tvardovsky, and S. Yesenin - changing some estimates based on the previous “single-flow” methodology.
High marks in criticism of the period of the Patriotic War of the artistic heritage, especially the work of Russian writers of the 19th century, including F. M. Dostoevsky, A. F. Pisemsky, N. S. Leskov.
Literary critics and literary scholars who spoke in the criticism of this time: V. Alexandrov, N. Vengrov, A. Gurvich, V. Ermilov, E. Knipovich, V. Pertsov, L. Polyak, L. Timofeev, V. Shcherbina and others. Absence undisputed leaders of the literary process from among professional critics.
Condemnation of the works of some writers (L. Kassil, K. Paustovsky, V. Kaverin, B. Lavrenev) for being artificial or “beautiful” in their depiction of war. The return of elaborative techniques to criticism since the end of 1943, Stalin’s behind-the-scenes intervention in the fate of a number of works and their authors. Campaign against M. Zoshchenko regarding the psychological story “Before Sunrise”, accusing him of “self-digging” and lack of civic feelings. Defamation of the unpublished works of A. Dovzhenko (“Victory”, “Ukraine on Fire”), who dared to talk about the real reasons for the defeats of the Red Army. Condemnation of the anti-totalitarian play-fairy tale “Dragon” by E. Schwartz, the truthful memoirs of K. Fedin about the “Sera-Pion brothers” - “Gorky among us” (1944), some poems, including O. Berggolts and V. Inber - for “ pessimism" and "admiration of suffering."
Activation of literary thought on the wave of moral upsurge after the Victory, interest in it among the wider literary community. Speeches in the Literary Gazette in the fall of 1945 by G. A. Gukovsky, B. M. Eikhenbaum, B. S. Meilakh, A. I. Beletsky with calls to develop a system of literary theory and create a history of Russian literature in its positive content. Real successes in the theory and history of literature. Propaganda by V. O. Pertsov and V. N. Orlov (1945-1946) of the poetry of Yesenin and Blok as achievements of modern culture. Critical support for young poets who participated in the Great Patriotic War, interest in the work of V. Panova, recognition of the importance of the previously underrated “Vasily Terkin” by A. Tvardovsky.
Complication political situation and a sharp increase in the ideological, primarily revealing nature of criticism during the outbreak of the Cold War, after the respite of the first year of peace. The dependence of the fate of writers on the personal tastes, predilections and suspiciousness of the Kremlin dictator. Resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1946-1952. on issues of literature, art and publishing, report by A. A. Zhdanov on the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” (1946). The demagogic slogans of these documents and their pogrom nature.
The return of crude sociologism, which actually led official criticism to the proclamation of ideas of both social and national superiority of the USSR and Russia over other countries and peoples. Condemnation of the “hobby” of writers and artists for historical themes, a call to reflect modernity. Explanation of real and imaginary shortcomings and omissions in the literature by exclusively subjective reasons.
A sharp increase in dogmatism in criticism, a purely political criterion of “lack of ideas” (excommunication from literature of M. Zoshchenko and A. Akhmatova, reproaches against B. Pasternak, I. Selvinsky, etc.). A new wave of “elaborations”, a departure from some positive assessments of the war period and the first post-war months, a continuation of the campaign against previously criticized writers. Instructive criticism in the party press of the first version of Fadeev’s “Young Guard”;
reworking the novel under her pressure. The critics’ sweet idealization of existing reality, their smoothing over of the tragedy and contradictions of life. Rejection of truthful, profound works: V. Ermilov’s article “The Slanderous Story of A. Platonov” in the “Literary Gazette” dated January 4, 1947 about the story “Ivanov’s Family”, criticism of M. Isakovsky accusing him of pessimism for the poem “Enemies burned their home. ..”, suppression of A. Tvardovsky’s poem “House by the Road”, etc.
The complete unpredictability of this or that ostracism from a literary and often even political point of view. Loud condemnation of such different works as E. Kazakevich’s story “Two in the Steppe”, the stories of Yu. Yanovsky, V. Kataev’s serial novel “For the Power of the Soviets!”, V. Grossman’s comedy “If you believe the Pythagoreans” and his novel “For a Just Cause” ”, the poem by V. Sosyura “Love Ukraine” and the cycle of poems by K. Simonov “With you and without you” (A. Tarasenkov accused Simonov of crude eroticism for the line “Men are weaned from women’s caresses”). A wary attitude towards V. Nekrasov’s story “In the Trenches of Stalingrad,” which opens a new trend in military prose; an exceptional fact of criticism of the story after the Stalin Prize was awarded for it (1946). Exaltation of weak, varnished, ahistorical works, often awarded Stalin Prizes.
The campaign against “cosmopolitanism” and “bourgeois nationalism”, in particular against the “anti-patriotic group” of theater critics at the turn of the 40s and 50s.
The displacement from literature and art not only of many historical themes, but also of the Great Patriotic War (until the mid-50s) due to the propaganda of “majestic” modernity. Schematization of the current literary process, the use of the same cliches when characterizing modern prose writers and poets, a “list” approach to them. The opportunistic position of many critics, the reluctance to speak out about a work before its official assessment, the rapid change in assessments to the opposite. The outflow of a large part of critics into literary criticism.
Establishing the idea of “two streams” in the history of Russian literature. Modernization of the consciousness of classic writers, “pulling up” them to Decembrists and especially revolutionary democrats, interpreted in many works also schematically and ahistorically, that is, the transformation of literary science into a bad kind of criticism. The dominance in literary criticism of the genre of descriptive monographs without analysis of the worldview of writers, the explanation of the work of Gorky and other artists as illustrating political ideas. Unscientific, sharply negative assessments of the legacy of A. N. Veselovsky and a number of works of modern philologists: V. M. Zhirmunsky, V. Ya. Propp and others. A decline in the level of literary criticism with inevitable corresponding consequences for criticism.
A purely scholastic discussion in the press of the second half of the 40s and early 50s, including the party, methodological and theoretical problems of criticism and literary criticism: the belonging of art to the superstructure, the method of socialist realism, its essence and time of emergence, typical. The normativity of most works of this kind. 1948 debate on drama theory. Criticism of the “no-conflict theory”, its contradictions. Three interpretations of conflict-freeness: precise, literal, rejecting primitive varnished works; classification as conflict-free works on topics of a personal and universal nature; the requirement for an indispensable demonstration of the victorious struggle of the “new, advanced” against the backward, with “rotten people”, which maintained an atmosphere of suspicion and intolerance in society.
Declarations coming from above in the early 50s. about the need for Soviet satire. Statements in criticism about the “ideal hero”, “holiday” literature and other statements of official optimism
of a logical nature; correspondence to them in existing ideas about modern “romanticism”.
Attempts to comprehend and rethink the literary process in 1952-1954, before the Second Congress of Soviet Writers. Critical recognition of “Russian Forest” by L. Leonov, works by V. Ovechkin and V. Tendryakov about the village. Condemning the bulk of modern literature, V. Pomerantsev’s article “On Sincerity in Literature” (1953), rejected by critics and most writers as “Perevalsky” and anti-Party. An ironic exposure of all the glossy literature about the village in the fundamental article by F. Abramov “People collective farm village in post-war prose" (1954) and its rejection at that time.
The first, “soft” removal of A. Tvardovsky from the post of editor-in-chief of “New World” for the publication of non-standard, sharp articles by V. Pomerantsev, F. Abramov, M. Lifshits and M. Shcheglov (1954). The negative and wary attitude of critics towards “The Thaw” by I. Ehrenburg and “The Seasons” by V. Panova, other manifestations of inertia of thought.
Discussions about the self-expression of the poet as worthy of making his inner world an object of art, about the so-called “Tvardovsky school” (“village school”), which was considered to claim dominance in poetry. Collection of articles “Conversation before the Congress” (1954), including articles by representatives of the disputing, opposite sides.
Summing up the results of the 20-year development of Soviet literature and some concern about its current state in the report of A. Surkov at the Second Congress of Writers of the USSR. Special report on criticism and literary criticism (B. Rurikov). A series of bold speeches at the Second Congress, their anti-varnishing and anti-working orientation. Recognition of the great shortcomings of criticism and the need to jointly answer for them. Retention of some unfair provisions and assessments, including regarding the “Pass”.
The tragically contradictory role of A. Fadeev, the head of the Writers' Union until 1953: sincere sympathy for the best poets and writers and the implementation of Stalinist-Zhdanov guidelines in literature. Articles and reports by K. Simonov - both pogrom and official, and defending writers and poets who were attacked, challenging the most odious dogmas. The merit of A. Fadeev and K. Simonov is to remove the most opportunistic and unprincipled of the leading critics of the 40s from active literary critical activity. - V. Ermilova (1950).
Other critics of the 40s - the first half of the 50s: A. Tarasenkov, A. Makarov, T. Trifonova, T. Motyleva, A. Belik, B. Platonov, G. Brovman, G. Lenoble, B. Kostelyanets, E. Surkov, V. Ozerov, B. Solovyov, L. Skorino, B. Rurikov, V. Smirnova, B. Runin.
Literary and critical creativity of M. A. Shcheglov (1925-1956) - articles 1953-1956. A subtle analysis of works, which at that time created the impression of heightened aesthetic criticism. The depth of theoretical-critical considerations by M. Shcheglov. The features of his historicism, the unity of ethical and aesthetic approaches, anticipating the methodology of the “New World” criticism of the 60s. The thematic and genre diversity of Shcheglov’s articles, the revival of the essayistic principle in criticism (“Ships of Alexander Green”, 1956), lively, uninhibited style.
Criticism of the second half of the 50s-60s
N. S. Khrushchev’s closed report on Stalin’s “cult of personality” at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the huge public resonance of this event. Continued throughout the second half of the 50s and 60s. a contradictory, with ups and downs, process of struggle between supporters of democratization, the emancipation of human consciousness and the guardians of totalitarian foundations and dogmas. This process takes place mainly within the framework of communist ideology. Focusing the attention of the literary community on the big problems of the socio-political and spiritual life of the people and at the same time sharply increasing attention to human individuality. The continuation of the partially weakened confrontation with the West and its influence on the attitude towards a number of new phenomena in literature and criticism, and the confrontation between various social and literary trends.
Increasing manifestations of innovative, unconventional thinking in relation to the past in 1956 - early 1957. Deepening and expanding resistance to the one-sided and ceremonial depiction of life in literature. Articles by A. Kron in the collection “Literary Moscow” (1956), B. Nazarov and O. Gridneva in “ Questions of Philosophy" (1956. No. 5) against the bureaucratic management of literature. “Literary Notes” by the editor-in-chief of “New World” (1956. No. 12) K. Simonov and the first printed polemic in them with articles in the party press of the late 40s. about A. Fadeev’s “Young Guard” and about the “anti-patriotic group” of theater critics; Simonov’s “safety net” article “On Socialist Realism” (New World. 1957. No. 3). Anti-dogmatic, critical attitude in the articles and oral speeches of V. Tendryakov, V. Cardin, A. Karaganov, I. Erenburg, V. Ketlinskaya, V. Kaverin, T. Trifonova, L. Chukovskaya, M. Aliger and others. Counteraction to them side G. Nikolaeva, Sun. Kochetov, N. Gribachev, D. Eremin, K. Zelinsky, M. Alekseev and others.
The inconsistency of the relative democratization of society after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and its reflection in literary life. Preservation of many attitudes of the previous cultural policy, total party leadership of literature. Suspicious attitude towards everything that aroused interest in the West. Massive sharp criticism of the novel by V. Dudintsev “Not by Bread Alone”, the stories by A. Yashin “Levers” and D. Granin “ Own opinion”, S. Kirsanov’s poem “Seven Days of the Week”, published in the magazine “New World”, collection “Literary Moscow” (book 2). Incriminating writers with an independent position of striving for “critical realism.” Suppression of the first wave of attempts to democratize literary life with the help of the party press, including articles in the magazine “Communist” (1957. No. 3, 10) “The Party and Issues of the Development of Soviet Literature and Art” and “For the Leninist Principles of Literature and Art.” N. S. Khrushchev’s personal participation in the struggle “against the revisionists who tried to attack the party line” (speech at the Third Congress of USSR Writers, 1959). Official explanations of questions about typification, about Lenin’s understanding of culture, about party membership and freedom of creativity, talent and worldview, national characteristics of art in the magazine “Communist” in 1955-1957. The limitations of criticism of the historical past in the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee of June 30, 1956 “On overcoming the cult of personality and its consequences” and articles in the party press.
Events of opposite nature and significance in the cultural life of the late 50s: the resolution “On correcting errors in the evaluation of the operas “The Great Friendship”, “Bogdan Khmelnitsky” and “With All the Heart””, the return of A. Tvardovsky to the “New World” (1958), the election of the “liberal”-minded K. Fedin as the first secretary of the board of the Union of Writers of the USSR (1959) and the excommunication of B. Pasternak from literature with numerous and noisy exposures of him as a “traitor” in speeches by people who had not read the novel “Doctor Zhivago” ( 1958), the decree “On the book “New about Mayakovsky,” which prevents a truly scientific study of the poet’s life and work (1959), the arrest of V. Grossman’s novel “Life and Fate” (1960), etc. The emergence of new magazines and almanacs. “Youth” and the restored “Young Guard”, edited by V. Kataev and A. Makarov. The publication since 1957 of the literary-critical and literary body - “Questions of Literature”, a declaration against labeling and elaboration in its first issue. Establishment of the Writers' Union of the RSFSR. Raising the question of criticism, of reviewing literary novelties in the report of L. Sobolev at his first congress (1959). Recognition of the continuing “lag” of criticism and discussion about it in the magazine “October”; article by K. Zelinsky “The Paradox of Criticism” (1959-1960). Discussion about the state of criticism in the newspaper “Literary Russia” (January 1964).
Literature of the mid and late 50s in the mirror of criticism: general or widespread official approval of “The Fate of Man” and the second book of “Virgin Soil Upturned” by M. Sholokhov, A. Tvardovsky’s poem “Beyond the Distance”, G. Nikolaeva’s novels “The Battle on the Way” ", Sun. Kochetov’s “The Ershov Brothers”, V. Kozhevnikov’s “Towards the Dawn”, A. Chakovsky’s story “A Year of Life”; condemnation of the “Sentimental Novel” by V. Panova, the story “An Inch of Earth” by G. Baklanov, the plays by A. Volodin “Five Evenings” and L. Zorin’s “Guests” for what seemed to be an excessively intimate tone or insufficient citizenship and optimism. Opposite statements about V. Nekrasov’s story “In My Hometown.”
The development of scientific aesthetic thought and the gradual strengthening of aesthetic requirements in literary criticism. Criticism and theory:
publication in the general press of materials from the scientific discussion “Problems of Realism in World Literature”, which marked the beginning of a concrete historical approach to the concepts of “method” and “realism”
(1957); generally routine ideas about socialist realism (works by B. Bursov, V. Ozerov, etc.).
Unity and diversity of multinational Soviet literature in discussions of the second half of the 50s and early 60s. Book by G. Lomidze “Unity and Diversity” (1957). The formula “unity in diversity”, proposed by L. Novichenko in the report “On the diversity of artistic forms in the literature of socialist realism” (1959). The speculative use by a number of critics of the thesis of diversity in polemics with V. Nekrasov’s article “Words “great” into “simple”” (The Art of Cinema. 1959. No. 5-6), directed against pathos in art. Numerous objections to the classification of literature of the 19th-20th centuries from the point of view of the scale of depiction of facts and events (Sarnov B. “Globe” and “two-layout map” // Literary newspaper. 1959. July 9).
Updating issues of the history of Soviet literature in criticism of the second half of the 50s. Emphasized opposition of historicism to dogmatism. Rethinking traditions. Restoration in the history of literature and inclusion of previously forbidden names in the current literary process. Their opposition to official authorities and the reaction to this in a “liberal-conservative” spirit: articles by A. Metchenko “Historicism and Dogma” (1956), A. Makarov “Conversation about”
(1958) - warnings against “hobbies” that slowed down the development of the history of literature of the 20th century, but prevented a possible purely negative reaction from the officialdom. More complete and profound assimilation by society of the spiritual and aesthetic experience of Russian classics, the inclusion of F. M. Dostoevsky among its full representatives. Reconsidering the attitude towards the scientific heritage of A. N. Veselovsky. Introducing readers to foreign literature XX century, the breakthrough of the “Iron Curtain” and the influence of this fact on the consciousness of the younger generation. Positive judgments in criticism about foreign literature of the 20th century.
Reissue in the 50s and 60s. works by A. Lunacharsky, A. Voronsky, V. Polonsky, I. Bespalov, A. Selivanovsky. The first studies of the history of Soviet criticism.
Heterogeneity of the spiritual life of society and cultural policy in the 60s. Their relative liberalization in the first half of the decade and the reduction of the consequences of the “thaw” in the second. The preservation in the literary process of the trends generated by the criticism of the “cult of personality” until 1970, thanks mainly to the position of the “New World”, edited by A. Tvardovsky. An increasing tendency to think on a large historical scale in connection with utopian hopes for a quick social (communist) and scientific and technological transformation of everything peace. Discussion of the late 50s. “What is modernity?” (collection of the same name, 1960). The appearance of the definition of “sixties” in the article Art. Rasadina “Sixties. Books about a young contemporary" (Youth. 1960. No. 12). Disputes about generations of Soviet writers, primarily about the “fourth generation” (definition by A. Makarov and F. Kuznetsov) - “young prose” and poetry. Fears of older critics regarding the gap and opposition between generations, excessive, in their opinion, passion for modernism and the “Silver Age” of Russian literature, orientation towards Western literature. N. S. Khrushchev’s support for criticism of the “boys”. The special position of A. N. Makarov: real help to talented youth, close to the general reader (works “A Strict Life”, “In Five Years”, “Viktor Astafiev”, etc.), and objections to uncritical faith in what is “written”, ignorance of life , hasty unambiguous conclusions (internal review of the book by L. Anninsky “The Nut Kernel”). The influx of large young replenishment into criticism: I. Zolotussky, F. Kuznetsov, A. Marchenko, D. Nikolaev, St. Rassadin, V. Kozhinov, A. Urban, O. Mikhailov and others. Publication in 1962 of a collection of articles by young critics “Towards the Future.”
Polarization of literary critical forces after a new, more decisive criticism of Stalin’s personality cult at the XXII Congress of the CPSU (1961). “New World” is the most consistent literary organ in pursuing this line. Particular attention of readers to the critical section of the magazine. Authors of the department: V. Lakshin, I. Vinogradov, V. Kardin, St. Rassadin, Yu-Burtin, I. Dedkov, F. Svetov, N. Ilyina and others;
senior “new world residents”: A. Dementyev, I. Sats, A. Kondratovich. Opening of the work of A. Solzhenitsyn by the magazine; the acceptance of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by official criticism caused by opportunistic considerations (an article by V. Ermilov in Pravda, combining Solzhenitsyn’s story and the illustrative and propaganda story by V. Kozhevnikov “Meet Baluev”); the subsequent increase in claims against Solzhenitsyn, V. Lakshin’s polemics with the “enemies” of “Ivan Denisovich”. Nomination by the New World of the works of A. Solzhenitsyn and S. Zalygin (“On the Irtysh”) for the Lenin Prize; the failure of this attempt by the nomenklatura with the assistance of L. I. Brezhnev. Criticism of other stories by Solzhenitsyn. Discussions in the Writers' Union behind closed doors of his unpublished major works.
Other works that were not accepted by official criticism in the 60s: stories and travel essays by V. Nekrasov, memoirs of I. Ehrenburg, “Star Ticket” by V. Aksenov, “Be healthy, schoolboy!” B. Okudzhava and the collection “Tarussa Pages”, “Alive” by B. Mozhaev, “Seven in One House” by V. Semin, war stories by V. Bykov, etc. The 1963 campaign against E. Yevtushenko. Caustic criticism in the “New World” of many illustrative, declarative, normative works in prose and poetry; Along with this, a principled, sometimes meticulous analysis of the shortcomings of even authors who are objectively close to the journal. The predominance of caustic and critical reviews in the New World. Constant polemics with official criticism, especially with the authors of the magazine “October” (editor-in-chief Vs. Kochetov), who are more conservative and loyal to Stalinist dogmas, but also more direct than the country’s ideological leaders. The pose of impartiality in the Pravda article of January 27, 1967, “When one is behind the times,” allegedly directed equally against the “New World” and “October.”
Increasing the professionalism and objectivity of literary criticism in general. Happy literary fate of Ch. Aitmatov (Lenin Prize 1963). The attention of criticism, although not only with positive assessments, to the beginners V. Belov, V. Rasputin. General recognition of works previously considered debatable (the works of V. Panova).
Mature works of A. N. Makarov (1912-1967). The critic’s path from a brochure about S. Babaevsky’s varnish novels (1951), not without opportunistic “Conversation on the occasion,” to detailed and objective research of the 60s. His main interests: poetry, military prose, creativity of the young. The “centrist” position of the critic, speaking from the point of view of a multimillion-dollar readership. Weighted, detailed assessments. A manner of thoughtful, leisurely conversation with the reader. Commitment to analytical commentary retelling of literary texts, attention to detail and words. The discovery of new names of writers, interest in their future destinies - The genre of internal review in Makarov’s legacy The influence of the critic’s advice on the authors of works. Some of Makarov's dogmatic judgments are a tribute to the prevailing historical and literary ideas.
The transformation of the “New World” into a body of legal opposition after the change of the country’s political leadership (1964) and the departure of new leaders from the line of the XX-XXII Party Congresses. Confirmation of loyalty to the previous course in the article by A. Tvardovsky “On the occasion of the anniversary” (1965. No. 1). Controversy about M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”, which had modern overtones. Article by I. Vinogradov (1968) about the old story by V. Nekrasov “In the Trenches of Stalingrad”, designed to protect artistic principles modern military (“lieutenant”) prose. Appeals of the New World to the opinions of readers, commentary on their letters by V. Lakshin. Clashes around the works of A. Solzhenitsyn “Matrenin’s Dvor” and V. Semin “Seven in One House”. The main problems of discussions between magazines of opposite directions: “truth of the century” and “truth of fact”, “trench truth”;
a modern hero is a “simple man” or a “hero with a wormhole” (accusations addressed to the “New Worlders” of “deheroization” of Soviet literature, of rejection of a socially active position); citizenship slogan. The close interweaving of the ethical and aesthetic in the articles of the New World. Their lively, free style is not stylized as colloquial or vernacular.
Appearance in literary circles illegal opposition to the regime. The first fact of prosecution for literary works- “case” of A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel (1966). The reactions of many cultural figures to him are diametrically opposed. Creation by A. Sinyavsky at the conclusion of the essay “Walking with Pushkin.”
Spread of dissidence. Disappeared since the late 60s. from criticism and literary history of the names of exiled and emigrated writers.
Attempts by Soviet criticism to combine the class approach to life and literature with the universal approach, understood as spiritual and moral (F. Kuznetsov). The spread of the criterion of “spirituality” by the beginning of the 70s.
The position of the magazine “Young Guard” since the mid-60s. (editor-in-chief A. Nikonov) - a clear preference for stable national spiritual values over class and social ones. Anticipation of this position in earlier criticism (D. Starikov’s article “From Reflections at the Spring,” 1963), literary criticism (M. Gus’s book “Ideas and Images of Dostoevsky,” 1963; criticism of it in the manuscript by A. Makarov), journalism (“Dialogue "V. Soloukhin, 1964; dispute with him by B. Mozhaev and A. Borshchagovsky). Discussion about "grass" and "asphalt". Speeches by V. Kozhinov, M. Lobanov against “pop” poetry. Activation of the methodology of neo-soil people in the “Young Guard”:
scientifically vulnerable, insufficiently historical, but truly debatable and original articles by M. Lobanov and V. Chalmaev of the late 60s. Criticism of them from official positions during the discussion about nationality. Paradoxical, connected with the difficult situation of the “New World”, its participation in this campaign along with “October” is the article by A. Dementyev “On Traditions and Nationality” (1969. No. 4). A. Solzhenitsyn’s opinion on the 1969 debate (“A calf butted an oak tree”). The use of the literary and political officialdom of the facts of this discussion: the pre-bearing “letter of the 11” in Ogonyok against the New World, the study of A. Dementyev, as well as the critics of the Young Guard, V. Ivanov in Kommunist (1970 No. 17). Dispersal of the editorial board of “New World” and Tvardovsky’s departure from it (1970).
Criticism and literary criticism of the 60s. Outstanding achievements of literary criticism in comparison with criticism: the works of M. M. Bakhtin, D. S. Likhachev, V. M. Zhirmunsky, N. I. Konrad, Yu. M. Lotman, S. G. Bocharov and others. The influence of literary criticism on criticism, authors working in both science and criticism. Wide recognition of scientific and artistic historicism. Attempts to pose large theoretical problems in articles addressed to a wide range of readers, in particular, the problem of the existence of varieties of literature with incomparable requirements for the depth and seriousness of works (I. Rodnyanskaya “On fiction and “strict” art”, 1962; V. Kozhinov “ Poetry is light and serious", 1965). Discussion about language modern works, directed mainly against jargon in “young prose”. Criticism of V. Turbin’s demonstratively original and unconventional book “Comrade Time and Comrade Art” (1961) due to the author’s positive opinion about non-realistic forms and the thesis about the non-modernity of psychologism.
Interpretation of traditions as continuity through the heads of “fathers” - from “grandfathers” to “grandsons” (A. Voznesensky). Constant wariness towards modernism and its traditions in the works of A. Metchenko and other critics. Defending realism (without “definition”) in the “New World”. Accusations by opponents of the magazine of writers close to it of naturalism. Heated discussion in the late 60s. the concept of “socialist romanticism” proposed by A. Ovcharenko. Statement of the uniqueness of the method of Soviet literature in the works of Yu. Barabash, B. Byalik and others. The proposals of L. Egorova, G. Pospelov and M. Khrapchenko, which remained without consequences, to recognize some pluralism of the methods of Soviet literature in its historical development.
Criticism of the 70s-first half of the 80s
Increased regulation in the field of literature: a ban on certain topics, especially from Soviet history, canonization of official ideas about it, whipping up a ceremonial tone in propaganda and criticism of the second half of the 60-70s. Almost complete disappearance in the 70s. negative reviews, standardization of this genre. Inattention of many press organs to literary criticism.
Increasing the educational level of society and the rapid development of humanitarian interests along with stagnation in social psychology. "Book boom" A general increase in artistic quality in the literature of the 70s and early 80s, which took on the healthy impulse of the 60s. The dominance of moral issues in serious literature and criticism, their desire for philosophy in the 70-80s. as a consequence of the unrealization of many socio-political potentials. An objective need for strengthening interpretive activity, for significant changes in the state of criticism and the inability to fully satisfy this need in an atmosphere of stagnation.
Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism” (1972) and organizational measures for its implementation: increasing the stable “space” for critical articles in specialized and mass magazines and newspapers, publishing “Literary Review” and “In the World of Books”, many collections of articles, using technical media to promote literature, creating conditions for preparation professional critics at the Writers' Union and the Literary Institute, holding meetings and seminars on literary criticism, including the course “History of Russian Soviet Criticism” in university curricula, scientific research in this area (in parallel with the systematic study of the history of Russian literary criticism due to the increased “self-awareness” of science ), new series dedicated to criticism in publishing houses, much wider reviewing and annotation of critical works, awarding prizes for them (on an ideological basis). Resolution “On work with creative youth” (1976). The publication of the magazine “Literary Studies”, resumed in 1978, is the only organ that constantly criticizes the works of beginning authors simultaneously with their publication. Ignoring the creativity of young people by “venerable” critics and, as a counterbalance, holding seminars for young critics and publishing collections “Young about the Young.” Exaggerated hopes for the discovery of new names. Disputes about the “generation of forty-year-olds” in the early 80s. (V. Bondarenko, Vl. Gusev - - on the one hand, I. Dedkov - on the other).
The appearance of literary critical monographs about the majority famous writers. Insufficient attention of critics to the works of A. Vampilov, V. Shukshin, Yu. Trifonov, compensated mainly after their deaths. V. Kozhinov’s popularization of the poetry of N. Rubtsov, A. Prasolov and other representatives of “quiet lyricism” (“term” by L. Lavlinsky). The calm and benevolent attitude of criticism towards the work of writers and poets that have previously raised doubts and fears has become familiar: the works of V. Semin, the new stories of V. Bykov and “lieutenant” prose in general; awarding high prizes for works of military and “village” prose; mutual steps towards each other by the authorities and representatives of “loud”, “pop” poetry; partial official recognition since 1981 of the work of V. Vysotsky. Relatively moderate relapses of reinsurance criticism with the appearance of “The White Steamer” by Ch. Aitmatov (1970), novels by S. Zalygin “South American Option” (1973), Y. Bondarev “The Shore” (1975), F. Abramov “Home” (1978), V. Rasputin’s story “Farewell to Matera” (1976), an unnoticed reissue of V. Dudintsev’s novel “Not by Bread Alone.” At the same time, the almost complete suppression of the dissident literary movement, a slander campaign against A. Solzhenitsyn and his expulsion from the country (1974).
Assess the overall level of the current literature. An abundance of articles devoted to the literary results of the 70s. A. Bocharov's thesis about the “fatigue” of “village” and military prose. Forecasts for the future of literature (Yu. Andreev, Yu. Kuzmenko, participants in the 1977 discussion about poetry). Critical recognition in the early 80s. complex, potentially very controversial new works for the ideologized monistic consciousness: novels by Ch. Aitmatov, S. Zalygin, etc.
The main discussions in criticism of the 70s - 80s: about synthesis in literature, about the world literary process of the 20th century, about “village prose” (the harshest judgment about it in A. Prokhanov’s speech), about the state and prospects of poetry , about new phenomena in drama and poetry of the 80s, about nationality and mass character, etc. The artificiality and tortured nature of many discussions, the lack of genuine dialogue in them, and often a principled dispute, the closure of sections not as a result of solving problems, but depending on the natural “exhalation” of the discussion. Lack of coordination between critics and uneven review of literary products.
Associated with propaganda and counter-propaganda is a sharp increase in attention to methodology within the framework of ideological monism. The actual separation of literary criticism and literary criticism methodology as an independent discipline from the original syncretism with literary theory. Close interest in the theory of criticism. A purposeful struggle against “bourgeois methodology,” the idea of which extended to almost all Western criticism and literary criticism. Getting to know literary thought socialist countries based on the models of “secretary” criticism.
Problem-thematic preferences of critics of the 70-80s:
primary attention to methodology, general and theoretical problems for some; the desire to combine these problems with more detailed analysis from others; concentration on the analysis of works of one or another literary type among others. Critics, even those close in interests and areas, have different methodological thoroughness and depth of analysis.
Methodological orientations of the 70s - the first half of the 80s. The official line of the leadership of the Writers' Union is acceptance of the current situation as a whole, methodological “empiricism”. Consideration in one row of genuine artists and illustrative writers, sometimes preference for the latter (V. Ozerov, A. Ovcharenko, I. Kozlov, V. Chalmaev, etc.). A more consistent preference for talented writers and poets in the works of E. Sidorov, I. Zolotussky, L. Anninsky, Al. Mikhailova and others. The actual statement of social stagnation as dynamic development, the theory of displacement of problems of “daily bread” by problems of “spiritual bread” in the articles and books of F. Kuznetsov.
Attempts to explain the specifics of modern literature on a global scale of time and culture (A. Metchenko. V. Kovsky, Yu. Andreev). A combination of methodological “empiricism” with greater dissatisfaction with what has been achieved in the literature (A. Bocharov, G. Belaya, V. Piskunov); echoes of the traditions of “New World” criticism of the 60s. with her exactingness (I. Dedkov, A. Turkov, A. Latynina, N. Ivanova). The significant silence of some former “New Worlders”, the inability for them to directly express their views on the material of modern literature. Implicit for readers is the coming to Christianity of I. Vinogradov, F. Svetov. The generally Christian position of I. Zolotussky, veiled under “spirituality”, and his intransigence towards pretentious dullness. Subjective-associative, “artistic-journalistic” and “artistic-scientific” techniques in criticism (L. Anninsky, G. Gachev, V. Turbin).
The transition of the official-dogmatic attitudes of Kochetov’s “October” to the “Young Guard” magazines under the leadership of An. Ivanov and “Ogonyok”, edited by A. Sofronov. The combination of these attitudes with the tendencies of the “peasant” people. Direct support for illustrativeness and declarativeness (B. Leonov, G. Gots, A. Baigushev);
non-analytical, emotional and journalistic assessments of poets close in their worldview (Yu. Prokushev, P. Vykhodtsev, etc.). Critical department of “Our Contemporary”, the successor of A. Nikonov’s “Young Guard”, the most controversial magazine of the 70-80s. His sharply polemical defense of peasant or national nationality, rejection of the provisions on “two cultures” in each national culture. Consistent protection and promotion of the values of Russian national culture
and passion. Mutual biased attacks from critics with almost complete absence negative reviews of literary works, praising artistically useless books, including those written by literary “officials.”
Continuation of the development of literary criticism, closely related to journalism (S. Zalygin, V. Shukshin, Y. Trifonov, Y. Bondarev, etc.). Shocking “revelations” of authorities in the speeches of Yu. Kuznetsov, Art. Kunyaeva. Appeals to reader opinions, publication of letters and collections of letters from readers. Meetings of writers and critics with enterprise teams and other reading populations as a means of literally bringing literature closer to life.
Requirements for the ideological activation of criticism on the eve of the collapse of the communist regime, in the context of the complicated political situation at the turn of the 70-80s. Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On further improvement of ideological, political and educational work” (1979), disturbing notes in the materials of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU concerning art and literature (1981). Attempts to achieve the effectiveness of ideological work and CPSU documents devoid of practical significance in the first half of the 80s. Calls to strengthen the “offensive” nature of communist ideology, including in literary criticism.
Statements in party documents, party press and literary criticism about deviations from Marxist-Leninist methodology, about “nahistorical”, non-class tendencies in literature and criticism, about elements of God-seeking, idealization of patriarchy, allegedly incorrect interpretation of certain periods of Russian and Soviet history and literary phenomena, as well as critical classics, about the need to overcome the “infantility” and “worldview illegibility” characteristic of a number of writers. An undifferentiated approach to subjective, methodologically helpless articles and original, extraordinary, civically courageous speeches. Combination of strong and weaknesses in works that caused critical campaigns: posing the most important problem of the national uniqueness of the history and culture of Russia - and smoothing out real-life social contradictions, a categorical assessment of European peoples in V. Kozhinov’s article “And every language in it will call me...” (1981), condemnation of the revolutionary split of the people, forced collectivization - and distrust of everything coming from the West, ahistorical comparison of disparate events and facts in M. Lobanov’s article “Liberation” (1982), etc.
Articles by Yu. Surovtsev, Yu. Lukin, F. Kuznetsov, P. Nikolaev, G. Belaya, V. Oskotsky, S. Chuprinin against certain debatable speeches - both their weak and some of their strong sides. The lack of evidence manifested in polemics on ideological grounds in a number of works (Yu. Lukin, Yu. Surovtsev), simplification and partial distortion of the positions of the other side (V. Oskotsky), idealization of the state of society in this moment and avoidance of a detailed discussion of difficult issues of Soviet history, dogmatic ideas about the nature of modern literature, misunderstanding of the specifics of art (A. Jesuitov), the revival of the principle of “two streams” in the history of literature and its transfer to modern times, vulgarization of the concept of “classism” (F. Kuznetsov , Yu. Surovtsev).
Theoretical problems raised by critics in the 70s and 80s: socialist realism and socialist literature, the limits of the “openness” of socialist realism as a method (anti-dogmatic for motives, but a naive theory constant update socialist realism and, consequently, its eternal preservation in the future, and in the present - “merging with all truthful art”), modern “romanticism”, the relationship between the universal, historical and specifically social in art, aesthetic ideal, artistic theme, modern hero and its correlation with the hero of literature of the 20-30s, conflict, plot, style, individual genres and genre varieties (historical, philosophical, political novel), national traditions and cases of their dogmatization, specifically artistic unity of multinational Soviet literature and national identity, the relationship between the experience and values of the past with the values and searches of the present, the impact of scientific and technological revolution on literature, etc. Ignoring special concepts and terms by many critics.
The appeal, sometimes forced, of literary critics to popular literary criticism (I. Vinogradov, St. Rassadin, V. Nepomnyashchy, A. Marchenko, L. Anninsky, etc.). Denial or belittlement of the critical orientation in Russian classical literature of the 19th century, persistently carried out in the articles and books of V. Kozhinov, M. Lobanov, I. Zolotussky, Y. Loschits, Y. Seleznev, M. Lyubomudrov and others. The objective need to emphasize the positive the content of the classics and tendentious interpretation of classical images with polemical overtones. Disputes around the books “ZhZL”, their support by N. Skatov, Sun. Sakharov, A. Lanshchikov and criticism by A. Dementiev, F. Kuznetsov, P. Nikolaev, V. Kuleshov, G. Berdnikov, in an editorial article in the magazine “Communist” (1979. No. 15); articles by B. Bialik, M. Khrapchenko.
Increasing the interest of critics in the creative individualities of representatives of their workshop. Creation in the 80s. their critical “portraits”.
Increased attention to the poetics of critical works. Fictionalization of their style, a tendency to create an “image of the author.” Development of the genre composition of criticism. A significantly increased number of reviews while covering only 10-12% of new book releases. Differentiation between review and micro-review (“Panorama” in “Literary Review”). Strengthening the genre of critical remark, usually polemical. Activation of a problematic article and a creative portrait. The spread of collective genres: discussion “from different points of view”, “round tables” and wide, lengthy problem (or pseudo-problem) discussions. Increased claims of author's collections of articles and reviews for monographic nature. The different nature of assessments depending on the genre of criticism: often arbitrary and almost entirely positive in reviews, more strict and balanced in reviews and problem articles, analysis of both the achievements of literature and its shortcomings in large critical genres, including collective ones. The use of “decorating” forms (dialogue, letter, diary, poetic inserts).
Criticism of the second half of the 80s - early 90s
“Perestroika” as an attempt to establish “socialism with a human face” from above. The beginning of glasnost. The first changes in cultural life, which appeared mainly since the end of 1986.
Increasing the number of publications about literature in periodicals, increasing their problem™ and severity. Creation of new public organizations of cultural figures, discussion of their role and goals.
Changes in the leadership of the Writers' Union and its local organizations, the Council for Criticism and Literary Studies, chief editors and editorial boards of a number of literary and artistic publications, the intensification of their activities, the rapid growth of circulation of many of them in the late 80s.
Approval in the press of the highly critical orientation of the first works of the period of “perestroika” - V. Rasputin, V. Astafiev, Ch. Aitmatov. Recognition of the artistic weaknesses of “hot” works by some critics and writers, ignoring them by others.
Demands to increase the criteria for evaluating literary works. Discussion of the issue of bonuses for them. General statements about the dominance of grayness. A noticeable reduction in the number of praises in honor of holders of literary “posts”. The inertia of their nameless criticism (in general terms or in the form of hints) and the appearance of the first judgments with specifically named addressees since the beginning of 1988.
A huge number of publications about V. Vysotsky in 1986-1988. The appearance of articles about A. Galich, Yu. Vizbor and other creators of the “art song”. Disputes about young poets - “meta-metaphorists”. New names of writers noticed by critics: S. Kaledin, V. Pietsukh. T. Tolstaya, E. Popov, Valery Popov and others.
Restoring the undeservedly “excluded.” from Russian and Soviet culture of names and works, some polemical extremes when commenting on them in mass publications. The most passionate discussion by criticism, including reader criticism, of the publication of works previously unknown to a wide audience. The rapid increase in public and literary attention to the “blank spots” of Soviet history since the fall of 1986. The rejection by many writers of P. Proskurin’s statements about “necrophilia” in modern literature and art. “Anti-cult” 1987. Initial differentiation of writers into the categories of “Stalinists” and “anti-Stalinists.” The noisy but short-lived success of A. Rybakov’s novel “Children of the Arbat”, support in the criticism of a number of works, primarily on a thematic principle.
Methodological positions and problems in criticism. Departure from active work in criticism of fighters for the “only true” methodology (F. Kuznetsov, Yu. Surovtsev, P. Nikolaev, etc.). The unconditional dominance of the journalistic aspect of criticism. There is great resonance with Syubov’s principles of “real” criticism, modeled on the “Novomir” articles of the 60s. (New World. 1987. No. 6). The cool attitude towards this proposal by L. Anninsky, I. Vinogradov, who spoke out for absolute, free methodological pluralism, and other critics. The comparison of the Stalin and Brezhnev periods of history, first heard in the article by Yu. Burtin “To you, from another generation...” (October 1987. No. 8), is a step towards the negation of the entire social system.
Speeches by writers: V. Astafiev, V. Belov, V. Rasputin, Y. Bondarev, S. Zalygin, Ch. Aitmatov, A. Adamovich and others. Systematic publication of letters from readers in a variety of publications.
Distribution of the genre of “polemical notes”. Mutual reproaches of writers in the press, often of a personal nature, disputes over particulars with insufficient validity of the initial positions. Calls by I. Vinogradov, A. Latynina, D. Urnov for greater conceptualization of literary critical speeches. Diametrically opposed assessments of the works of Ch. Aitmatov, A. Bitov, V. Bykov, D. Granin, A. Bek, A. Rybakov, Y. Trifonov, Y. Bondarev, the novel by V. Belov “Everything is Ahead”, the plays of M. Shatrov, creativity of a number of poets and publicists in various periodicals.
The literal revival and strengthening of the former “new world” principles (V. Lakshin, V. Cardin, B. Sarnov, S. Rassadin, N. Ivanova, T. Ivanova). More balanced, although less flashy and noticeable compared to the criticism of the “Ogonykovsky” type, the speeches of A. Bocharov, E. Sidorov, Al. Mikhailov, G. Belaya, V. Piskunov, E. Starikova. Activation of the creative activity of the “forty-year-old” critics S. Chuprinin and Vl. Novikova.
The rapprochement of the positions of the magazines “Our Contemporary” and “Young Guard”. Critics of the “Young Guard”: A. Ovcharenko, V. Bushin, A. Bai-gushev, V. Khatyushin and others. The proximity of their positions to the official guidelines of the previous period, but with an orientation towards Russian national patriotism. The desire of the most serious authors of the magazine “Our Contemporary” (V. Kozhinov, A. Lanshchikov) to understand the social causes of historical events that determined the fate of the people, and from this point of view to evaluate works about the “blank spots” of Soviet history. The bias of a number of practical conclusions, the speeches of “Young Guard”, “Our Contemporary” and “Moscow” against many works published during the period of “perestroika”. Disputes surrounding “Doctor Zhivago” by B. Pasternak, works of writers from Russian diaspora (the third wave of emigration).
Attempts by L. Lavlinsky, D. Urnov, A. Latynina to take a “centrist” position in literary and journalistic clashes. A. Latynina’s proposal to return to the ideology and politics of classical liberalism (New World. 1988. No. 8), more radical than defending “socialism with a human face,” but not understood and not appreciated in the heat of controversy. The role of the works of V. Grossman and A. Solzhenitsyn published in Russia in 1989 for overcoming society’s illusions regarding the nature of the socialist system. An objectively occurring, but not recognized by anyone, convergence of the positions of the democratic “Banner” and the patriotic “Our Contemporary” (bodies representing opposite tendencies in criticism) on such a significant issue - the attitude towards the past of a collapsing social system. Awareness by the main opposing directions at the turn of the last decades of the century of the essence of their socio-political differences:
either recognition of the exclusively unique historical path of Russia and the advantage of transpersonal values (folk in “Our Contemporary”, state in “Young Guard”) over individual-personal ones, or the democratic principle of the priority of the individual and recognition of the fundamentally single path of humanity, which Russia should follow . Overlaying the basic ideological, socio-political divergence with everyday and psychological preferences, likes and dislikes.
A decrease in criticism of the number of disputes directly about literary novelties and at the same time an increase, primarily in “October” and “Znamya”, of aesthetic and philosophical criticism itself, and not just politicized journalistic criticism.
Distrust in criticism of the turn of the 80-90s. to abstract theorizing. Emotional problem solving artistic method in criticism of the second half of the 80s.
Revision of the basic values of Russian literature of the 20th century. A harsh assessment of the path of Soviet literature in the articles of M. Chudakova, V. Vozdvizhensky, E. Dobrenko and others. Unhistorical extremes, overly emotional, definitely harsh attacks, especially in unprofessional criticism, against M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, M. Sholokhov and other previously unconditionally revered writers. A refutation of this kind of speech in the articles of V. Baranov, Ad. Mikhailova, S. Borovikova, etc. The periodic appearance of new, purely revealing articles with relatively little interest from readers in them.
Increased attention to genres of criticism. The increasing importance of the problem article genre. Selected reviews of magazine products by month. Annual literature reviews, questionnaires on the state of magazines, contemporary criticism and journalism, sociological data on the success of certain works and periodicals among readers.
Criticism after 1991
The disappearance of the traditional “literary process” for Russia in the post-Soviet period. A sharp weakening in society of interest in literature and criticism, caused by reasons of both material and intellectual-spiritual nature. The loss of literary-centrism by the public consciousness in the conditions of the liberation of humanitarian thought and the practical difficulty of its self-realization, the absence of literary and social “events” that would attract increased attention from the general reader. Fall by the second half of the 90s. 50-60 times the circulation of the magazines “New World”, “Znamya”, etc., while maintaining all the main literary and artistic publications of the Soviet era and even their archaic ideologized names. The almost complete disappearance of books by critics about modern writers, reviews in a number of magazines. The creation of new specifically literary journals (in 1992 - “New Literary Review” without any reviews of current literature), the predominance of literary criticism itself in “Questions of Literature” and “Literary Review” (created in the 70s as a purely literary -critical), other signs of the convergence of criticism and literary criticism are similar to the situation in the West.
General cultural orientation of many periodicals, distribution of lightweight popularization. Shifting the attention of the mass reader from a magazine to a newspaper. Activity in the field of criticism of some non-specialized newspapers, primarily Nezavisimaya Gazeta (since 1991), responses to the “stream” - numerous new works - without serious attempts to identify trends in the development of literature as a whole, including the actual appeal to the elite reader in uninhibited form characteristic of mass publications (A. Nemzer, A. Arkhangelsky, etc.).
Loss of a leading position by former critics of the “sixties” (except for L. Anninsky). Condemnation of the “sixties” by a number of young critics.
Demarcation in the early 90s. traditional publications “with a direction” (“New World”, “Znamya”, “Our Contemporary”, “Izvestia”, “Continent”, New York “New Journal”, etc.) and publications with an openly relativistic position (“ Nezavisimaya Gazeta", "Moskovsky Komsomolets", "Syntax", etc.), based on a playful, extremely relaxed attitude towards any social and literary positions (article by S. Chuprinin "Firstborns of Freedom", 1992).
The split of the Writers' Union and the isolated existence of two new unions. The final abandonment of democratic publications from polemics with magazines such as “Young Guard” (which took the Stalinist positions of the first post-war years), attempts to master national issues in published articles without nationalism (articles by N. Ivanova, A. Panchenko in “Znamya” for 1992) and along with this, the affirmation of purely Western values (literature as a private matter, man and the hero of literature as a private person - “The Death of a Hero” by P. Weil). The unsuccessful experience of the “Banner” critics finding a new enemy - “national liberalism” in the person of S. Zalygin’s “New World”, the distinction between N. Ivanova and Vl. Novikov of the “magazine parties” of Sakharov (with the predominance of the idea of human rights) and Solzhenitsyn (with the predominance of the supra-personal, statist idea). Speech by N. Ivanova in “New World” in 1996 (No. 1).
Distribution of small-circulation publications such as almanacs without consistent periodicity, which are often the organs of literary circles, including those that are emphatically anti-traditionalist. A very free, “debunking” attitude towards classical Russian literature in the publications of D. Galkovsky, A. Ageev, E. Lamport, I. Solonevich and others. DeideologistZnamya. 1996. No. 3).
“Returned” criticism (Russian diaspora)
The section does not attempt to trace a coherent history of literary criticism of the Russian diaspora: the possibilities for students to study it are limited by the incompleteness and relative randomness of reprints of emigrant critical works in “perestroika” and “post-perestroika” Russia (this is especially true for criticism of recent decades). The main differences between emigrant criticism and Soviet criticism (not only ideological) and some trends in its evolution are noted, and individual her representatives.
Practical difficulties for the existence of criticism in emigration: limited funds and readership. Rare opportunities for the publication of literary critical books and even the publication of large journal articles, the predominance in criticism of the first wave of emigration of newspaper articles, generally small forms with a breadth of topics (problem articles, creative portraits in small critical forms), the desire of reviewers to go beyond the evaluation of one work (the genre of a short review article). The synthetic nature of emigrant criticism: less differentiation between criticism and literary criticism than in pre-revolutionary Russia and the USSR, as well as professional, philosophical (religious-philosophical) and artistic (writing) criticism, journalism and memoirs (a clear expression of the personal-autobiographical principle in many articles and books), turning poets into critics par excellence:
V. F. Khodasevich, G. V. Adamovich are the most famous and authoritative critics of the Russian diaspora. The absence of a distinct change of periods in the work of a number of critics, their work in this field - unlike most prominent Soviet critics - has lasted for many decades (G. Adamovich, V. Veidle, N. Otsup, F. Stepun, etc.). Lack of polemics on general methodological and theoretical-literary problems with greater political and ideological differentiation of critics than in Soviet Russia.
An interested attitude towards both emigrant and Soviet literature, a constantly arising question about the advantages and prospects of one or the other, resolved in an anti-Soviet, “pro-Soviet” or, less often, conciliatory spirit, taking into account the predominance of the artistic factor itself. The most irreconcilable positions regarding Soviet literature are those of I. A. Bunin, Anton Krainiy (Z. N. Gippius), V. Nabokov. The idea of a special mission of Russian emigration as the guardian of national culture. One of early manifestations The opposite position is the article by D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky “Russian literature after 1917” (1922). M. L. Slonim’s polemic with Anton Krainy in the article “ Living literature and dead critics" (1924), his declaration of Paris "not the capital, but the district of Russian literature", emphasizing the continuity of early post-revolutionary literature in Russia from pre-revolutionary literature ("Ten Years of Russian Literature"), the book "Portraits of Soviet Writers" (Paris, 1933) with essays on the works of S. Yesenin, V. Mayakovsky, B. Pasternak, E. Zamyatin, Vs. Ivanov, P. Romanov, A. Tolstoy, M. Zoshchenko, I. Ehrenburg, K. Fedin, B. Pilnyak, I. Babel, L. Leonov, with Pasternak preferred to the other surviving poets.
V. Khodasevich’s bitter reflections on the fate of Russian literature in general (“Bloody Food”) and in the 20th century in particular, recognition of the inevitability of the enormous and long work to restore Russian culture after ten years of Bolshevik power (article “1917-1927”), difficult the consequences of the division of national literature into two branches for both of them (“Literature in Exile”, 1933). G. Adamovich about the difference between Russian emigration and any other, about the death of Russia - the whole “mainland”; polemic with Khodasevich on the issue of specifically emigrant literature (book “Loneliness and Freedom”, 1954). Literary criticism book by Gleb Struve “Russian Literature in Exile” (New York, 1956; 2nd ed. Paris, 1984) with features of literary critical reviews; the conclusion about the significant advantage of emigrant literature over Soviet literature and the author’s hope for their future merger.
The Russian emigration transferred the definition of “Silver Age” from the poetry of the second half of the 19th century. on the literature and culture of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries (N. Otsup, D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, N. Berdyaev). Comprehension tragic destinies S. Yesenin, V. Mayakovsky, A. Bely, M. Tsvetaeva, B. Pasternak in connection with the fate of Russia and Russian literature: articles by R. Yakobson “On a generation that wasted its poets” (1931), F. Stepun “B. L. Pasternak" (1959), etc. Nikita Struve's conclusion about the end with the death of A. Akhmatova (1966) of the great Russian literature that has existed since the time of Pushkin for a century and a half.
Eurasianism and the spread of recognition of the USSR among emigrants, which gave birth in the 40s. "Soviet patriotism". The most prominent critic among the Eurasians is Prince D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. His articles are filled with sympathy for Soviet literature and the USSR. His repatriation in 1932 and his transformation into the Soviet critic D. Mirsky. Articles about poetry, participation in a discussion about the historical novel (1934). Disappointment in the prospects of Soviet literature, opposition to “The Last of the Udege” by A. Fadeev (1935) and attacks on D. Mirsky by critical officialdom. Arrest and death in the camp.
Fadeev’s novel “Destruction” made a strong impression on emigrant critics. V. Khodasevich’s support for M. Zoshchenko’s work as revealing Soviet society. Articles by M. Tsvetaeva “Epic and Lyrics of Modern Russia” (1933), “Poets with History and Poets without History” (1934). “Discovery” of A. Platonov as a writer and critic by G. Adamovich. Reviews of Soviet magazines in criticism of foreign countries, reviews of new works of Soviet writers and poets. The ardent sympathy of many emigrants for the USSR during the Second World War and I. Bunin’s high assessment of “Vasily Terkin” by A. Tvardovsky. The collapse of emigrants' hopes for atmospheric warming in the USSR in the post-war years.
Assessments of the creativity of writers and poets of Russian diaspora. I. Bunin and D. Merezhkovsky as two candidates for the Nobel Prize;
awarding the Bunin Prize in 1933. The popularity of I. Shmelev and M. Aldanov in various emigration circles. Shmelev's accusations of reactionary behavior on the part of radical writers. The exceptionally high appreciation of Shmelev’s work was given by the most characteristic representative of religious and philosophical criticism, the Orthodox orthodox I. A. Ilyin. He accuses Merezhkovsky, and in many ways all non-Orthodox humanitarian thought, of the moral preparation of Bolshevism. Research by I. Ilyin “On Darkness and Enlightenment. Book of art criticism. Bunin. Remizov. Shmelev" (Munich, 1959; M., 1991). Positive characteristics of older Russian emigrant writers by G. Adamovich with a skeptical attitude towards the authenticity of the image of “Holy Rus'” by Shmelev. Isolation of M. Tsvetaeva in exile. Critical recognition of V. Khodasevich as the first poet of the Russian diaspora, and after his death - G. Ivanov.
The isolation of most senior writers in their circle, insufficient attention to the creativity of young people, explained by initial hopes for a quick return to Russia after the collapse of the Bolsheviks and the restoration of normal continuity in life (G. Adamovich). The merits of V. Khodasevich, who, in contrast to many others, supported the work of Sirin (V. Nabokov) and - with reservations - some young poets. There is an element of subjectivity in Khodasevich’s interpretation of Sirin’s novels, seeing in them a hero-“artist.” Mostly friendly reviews from critics about the works of G. Gazdanov (with an exaggeration of the “Proustian” beginning in them) and B. Poplavsky. Controversy about “young literature”: speeches by M. Aldanov, G. Gazdanov, M. Osorgin, M. Tsetlin, Y. Terapiano;
book by V. Varshavsky “The Unnoticed Generation” (New York, 1956).
Criticism's awareness of the advantages of emigration: lack of political pressure, preservation of a prepared readership, continuity of tradition, contact with European literature (F. Stepun, G. Adamovich, V. Veidle).
Theoretical, literary and cultural issues in the articles of major critics of the Russian diaspora. V. Khodasevich about the inseparability of life and art in symbolism, about cinema as an expression of the onset of anticulture, about originality memoir literature, historical novel, artistic and philosophical literature, “stupid” poetry, etc. G. Adamovich on the need to move away from the “attributes of artistic convention,” from literariness, formal tricks (condemnation of “formism”) for the sake of spontaneity and simplicity; approval of the intimate diary form of the verse. Criticism of neoclassical trends in young poetry, proclamation of the path from Pushkin to Lermontov, to reflect the crisis state of the individual and the world. Poets of the “Parisian note” and the program of G. Adamovich; V. Veidle about the “Parisian note” and “Montparnasse sorrow.” The polemic between Adamovich and Khodasevich about “humanity” and “skill,” “sincerity” and poetic discipline.
Writer's essays: M. Osorgin, G. Gazdanov, V. Nabokov (written by D. S. Mirsky, V. Nabokov).
“What is Socialist Realism” (1957) by Abram Tertz (Andrei Sinyavsky) is the first speech by a Soviet dissident writer in the Western press during the “Thaw”. Emigration in the 60s. Arc. Belinkov, the author of books about Yu. Tynyanov and Yu. Olesha with moral claims to these writers, and his rejection of Western liberalism.
The third wave of emigration and the preservation in it of traces of the literary situation that developed in the USSR starting from the second half of the 60s. The confrontation between Westernizing and “soil” tendencies, their expression in the confrontation between the magazines “Syntax” by M. Rozanova and “Continent” by V. Maksimov. The absence of critics as such among the third wave of emigrants, a new convergence of criticism and literary criticism, often politicized.
The first statements of Soviet critics (1987) about the desirability of returning to Soviet literature some of the works “excluded” from it, created by emigrants of the third wave. Giving them a voice in No. 1 of the journal “Foreign Literature” for 1988 and subsequently the rapid elimination of boundaries between Soviet and emigrant literature. Heated debates surrounding “Walks with Pushkin” by A. Sinyavsky, and A. Solzhenitsyn’s participation in them. Works on Solzhenitsyn's work published in Russia in the late 80s - early 90s: Russians A. Latynina, P. Palamarchuk, V. Chalmaev, descendant of emigrants N. Struve, Swiss Georges Niva.
The disappearance of fundamental differences between the Russian and emigrant press after 1991. Publications of Russian critics in Western Russian-language publications and emigrants in Russian ones. The new (“Moscow”) edition of “Continent” is headed by the Orthodox liberal, former “Novomirets” from the sixties I. Vinogradov. Permanent (from the 78th issue) column “Bibliographic Service of the Continent.” Publication in Russia of a collection of articles by N. Struve “Orthodoxy and Culture” (1992).
The majority of emigrant magazines have lost their identity in the absence of the usual image of the enemy. Repetition by former “Sovietologists” in the West of what Soviet criticism went through during the years of “perestroika.” The most actively published critics-emigrants in “perestroika” and “post-perestroika” Russia: P. Weil and A. Genis, B. Groys, G. Pomerants, B. Paramonov and others. Foreigners - “Sovietologists” and Russian scholars in the Russian press : V. Strada, K. Clark, A. Flak-ser and others. Availability of emigrant publications to the Russian reader and the lack of widespread interest in them in connection with the new state of social and literary consciousness in Russia.