A literary critic in Russia is more than a critic. Controversy with Vladimir Novikov

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 overall assessment works, to encourage or condemn the author, to recommend the book to other readers.

Then, after a long break, it again develops like special kind 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 XI century. Actually, as soon as someone expresses his 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 erroneously called the Izbornik of Svyatoslav);
A Word on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarion, where there is a consideration of the Bible as literary text;
A word about Igor’s Campaign, where at the beginning the intention is stated to sing in new words, and not as 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 “On Education.” Also in French - critique. In Russian writing it will come into frequent use in the middle of the 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). First Russian author N. M. Karamzin, who preferred the genre of monographic reviews, is considered to have turned to the review.

Character traits 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, 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. Present big interest reviews by A. S. Pushkin are short, elegantly and literary, polemical works that testify to rapid development 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 first half of the 19th century centuries 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 with mid-19th century, censorship is significantly weakened, and the level of literacy increases. Thanks to this, many magazines, newspapers, and new books are being published, and their circulation is increasing. 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. Ended Civil War, and the young state gets 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. principles are formulated socialist realism- the official style of Soviet art. 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 was 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

Belinsky, Vissarion Grigorievich (-)
Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov (according to other sources -)
Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (-)
Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov ( -)
Nikolay Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (-)
Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky (-)
Govorukho - Otrok, Yuri Nikolaevich (-)

Genres of Literary Criticism

a critical article about a particular work,
review, problematic article,
critical monograph on the modern literary process.

Schools of literary criticism

Chicago School, also known as "neo-Aristotelian".
Yale School of Deconstructionist Criticism.

Notes

Literature

Krupchanov L. M. History of Russian literary XIX critics century: Proc. allowance. - M.: "Higher School", 2005.
History of Russian literary criticism: Soviet and post-Soviet eras / Ed. E. Dobrenko and G. Tikhanova. M.: New Literary Review, 2011

Links

// Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional ones). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Literary criticism” is in other dictionaries:

Region literary creativity on the verge of 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 modern times (including pressing problems... ... Big encyclopedic Dictionary

Engaged in assessment individual works literature. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Pavlenkov F., 1907 ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

literary criticism- (from the Greek kritike the art of evaluating, judging) the area of literary creativity on the verge of art and the science of literature (literary criticism). Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of art from the point of view of the interests of modern... ... Terminological dictionary-thesaurus in literary studies

The field of literary creativity on the verge of 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... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Evaluation and interpretation work of art, identification and approval creative principles one or another literary movement; one of the types of literary creativity. L.K. is based on the general methodology of the science of literature (see... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Literary criticism occupies one of the central positions in the modern literary process, largely determining the development of domestic literature and traditionally being a 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 continuity 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 further development 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: "ABOUT 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 the most 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 and gives a competent analysis artistic value literary text, therefore, its assessments, recommendations, and reflective attitude towards what is read are not only assumed, but also expected, not only by the readership, but also by 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. Aware of his dependence on critical assessment, 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 phenomenon(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 isolation in artistic creativity: many of the 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 № 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- the field of literary creativity on 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 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

It stands out already in antiquity in Greece and Rome, also in ancient India and China as a special professional occupation. But for a long time it 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 erroneously 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 Campaign, 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 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.

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 are complemented by socio-political ones. A special section includes literary criticism, which is distinguished by great attention to the problems of artistic mastery.

At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, industry and culture were actively developing. 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 are 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.

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 Russians literary critics of the past

	\|	next lecture ==>

Vladimir Novikov's "Freedom begins with literature", dedicated to the deplorable state of modern literary criticism. The author of the note does not want to bury criticism ahead of time and proposes to give it back a new breath, freshness and audacity of thought: “...what to do in the territory where I lived my professional life, V cultural space, which shrinks like pebbled leather, I answer. Read modern Russian literature- and write about it. Passionately, interestedly, not afraid to cross the line between literary texts and the bleeding text of our lives. Going beyond the flags."

More recently, in his “Open Lecture”, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Ivanov stated that in modern literature there is an unspoken ban on topicality. By “topicality” Ivanov did not mean political engagement, but a reflection acute problems modernity. The most interesting works are now appearing in historical novels, science fiction and fantasy, which is also a kind of departure from discussing the problems of the current day. Novikov speaks of similar processes in literary criticism: “Now you read in the press responses to the novels and stories of Lyudmila Ulitskaya and Tatyana Tolstoy, Vladimir Sorokin and Viktor Pelevin, Dmitry Bykov and Alexander Terekhov, Zakhar Prilepin and Sergei Shargunov and you see: only the "the quality of the text", but a bold social reading of the author's "message", an open journalistic dialogue between a critic and a prose writer - there is no such thing. "The quality of the text" is certainly important, but we, critics, so often hit the mark here! Every year, for example, we write with a sour expression that A new book Pelevin is worse than the previous ones. Well, as much as possible! Isn’t it better to reflect, following the writer, on the topic of the total zombification of the population of our country, on the dominance of the “power security officers” who have ousted the “liberal” security officers from the political field?”

Novikov also writes that “without a social-journalistic nerve, literary criticism loses the reader, becomes uncompetitive in the media in relation to materials about theater, cinema, music and fine arts. It is not for nothing that large review problem articles have almost disappeared even from the pages of thick journals. And for electronic media, there are, in general, three “information occasions”: the receipt of a prize by a writer, the anniversary of the writer and his death. The release of a book is not an event.<...>Yes, criticism has no economic basis, orders and fees have disappeared. But I believe that new criticism can also grow “from below,” from online readership. It is necessary, first of all, to restore the review business, which existed in Russia for two centuries, and is still represented today in the press of developed countries. It is abnormal and monstrous that the vast majority of new poetry and prose do not receive any response from us! And this is in the context of new information technologies."

Finally, Novikov raises the painful question of the loss of the influence of literary journalism on public sentiment: “What about us ourselves? Are our presentations and round tables too formal and boring? On what literary platform can a bold word be heard today? We do not have a culture of political opposition, and all sorts of coordinating councils fail with quiet disgrace. But since the time of Radishchev, we have had literature and literary journalism as the real opposition. In 1988, I turned on the TV one day, and on Channel One news the announcer said that an article about the intelligentsia had been published in the May issue of Znamya and bureaucracy in life and literature. Today this would seem like a fantasy. Because the corrupt bureaucracy, alas, defeated the intelligentsia. Sometimes you get the feeling that it is simply forbidden to talk about modern writers and their new books."

I will also try to speak on this topic, especially since on October 22, within the framework of the 14th Forum of Young Writers in Moscow, round table on the topic "Literary Today. Workshop of Contemporary Criticism", at which I was announced as a participant in the discussion. Novikov’s diagnosis is generally correct, but literary criticism cannot be considered in isolation from the general literary process, and the ban on topicality, as already written above, applies to modern literature as a whole. Indeed, being a critic today is neither fashionable nor profitable. The most talented critics today - these are not critics at all in the exact sense words, but people who have achieved success in completely different fields (most often in philology and literary criticism) and who occasionally, for some reason, write critical articles and reviews of books and films. As a profession, literary criticism has long ceased to exist, and as an additional activity and hobby, literary criticism still has little chance of survival.

At the same time, we can talk about a crisis of literary institutions that are trying to preserve old forms, from which the remnants of living life are rapidly flowing out. Many people write now, as before, but this stream of publications does not reach mass reader, because no one will read long texts about third-tier writers, written in poor language and avoiding any sensitive topics. The authority of a literary critic in Russian society today is close to zero. Thick literary magazines will very soon die out in the form in which they exist now: without a full-fledged Internet version and an active reader community, without a constant influx of fresh blood and careful preservation of a pool of talented authors who would be associated with a specific publication, without a clear direction and touching upon provocative topics, without the charismatic and bright editors who are the locomotive of the magazine, while maintaining a strict dependence on financial support from the state and the fear of losing this support.

What kind of freedom and what kind of going beyond the flags can we talk about regarding publications that exist on grants from the Ministry of Culture or Federal agency on printing and mass communications, when we know about the tyranny of officials who overnight deprive of funding a variety of cultural and scientific projects for the slightest criticism of the official position of the authorities. Yes, and trouble does not come alone - problems with renting premises, various tax audits, persecution by Orthodox activists and “patriotic” titushki may follow, if only the command is given to deal with the too freedom-loving magazine. The fact that censorship has not fully reached literary magazines only means that these magazines have not yet given any reason to attack them: they are so unpopular and inexpressive that there is no danger in terms of broadcasting a different opinion on modern issues for the current political regime is simply not represented. The old editors live out their lives quietly and peacefully, attending literary meetings initiated by the authorities with the participation of the descendants of classic writers in search of new money and honors, publishing boring issues formed according to the principle of taste, and complaining about the lack of funding and reader attention.

I am sure that the desire to cling to old brands at any cost, without filling them with new quality, is fundamentally false. Other things need to be donated to a museum as soon as their historical value begins to significantly exceed their modern functionality. A literary magazine appears to be a generational project; it, like the theater, lives as long as its founder is alive and as long as the team with which he is associated works in it. Then profanation arises, an artificial prolongation of the existence of a magazine mummy in a literary mausoleum.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that when they talk about the crisis of literary criticism, they mean precisely criticism in thick books. literary magazines. But modern publicists have no serious reason to strive to be published in magazines with scanty circulations, which no one reads, for which they do not pay royalties, and which, moreover, do not have a full-fledged version on the Internet. It is much more tempting to participate in a talk show on television (for those who want to become famous or earn money) or, at worst, writing a column in a conventional Forbes or in some glossy publication. For people with a different motivation, who do not need to show themselves, but rather to resolve the issue, narrow professional communities are sufficient, in which an interesting life, rich in rich ideas, flows quietly and unnoticed. And yet, criticism, like the writer, vitally needs mass readership, and therefore the future of literary criticism lies with the Internet. There are already many interesting bloggers who are read by tens of thousands of people every day. It is difficult to imagine that the author of a popular Internet page, spoiled by public attention, would want to publish in a publication that no one reads and which, moreover, carefully hides from the light, allowing access to his materials only for money.

We must understand that we now live in an era of total collapse of authority. All familiar and previously respected abbreviations have today undergone significant transformations and, as a rule, not for the better. Who is seriously talking about the Writers' Union today? The Russian Orthodox Church is associated only with obscurantism and total pressure on a person’s personal freedom. Even the Russian Academy of Sciences no longer exists in its former form, but there is a faceless and terrifying FANO. We live in an era of solitary masters who will find new and new formats for their self-expression, including in literary criticism. By the way, the magazine format is optimal here and, of course, new magazines and websites dedicated to literature and politics should appear. However, in the current Russian conditions, they apparently need to be created abroad so that there is no risk of their premature destruction by state censorship.

Vladimir Novikov, speaking about freedom, made a reference to the times of Radishchev, but did not recall what price Radishchev and his (Novikov’s) namesake, the famous freemason and book publisher Nikolai Novikov, paid for their love of freedom. Dostoevsky said that in order to write well, you need to suffer a lot. Are modern critics ready for suffering, public defamation, state-sanctioned persecution, criminal cases for insulting someone’s feelings and real prison sentences? Freedom of expression is now expensive and sometimes requires significant payment. You cannot be a critic, castigating the vices of modernity and exposing the ulcers of society, and at the same time bathe in universal love, receiving awards from the state. That's why few people want to be a critic. But there are more than enough people who want to write complimentary reviews of the books of their colleagues and friends and abusive reviews of those with whom they have separated in life. The high title of critic, it seems to me, still needs to be earned, but for this you need to be more than just an author writing criticism - you need to be a talented person and a concerned citizen who has not only a good education and manners, but I also thirst to engage in education every day, disinterestedly and enthusiastically, solely for the sake of highest ideals. Do we have many of these? critics?

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 the 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 direction 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) was concluded not only detailed review literary works other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion artistic principles and ideas, but also a 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 shake souls with its faithful depiction.” The works of the outstanding poet show the passion of poetic thought, which touches on all the most pressing problems modern society, 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, on the contrary, 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 him the most decisive work author, 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 “ 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. Main character Oblomov is compared with others " extra people of his time" Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him a "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 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 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 broke out over the question of who should be considered the main character 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.