Creation of the Union of Soviet Writers who. Fateh Vergasov

SOVIET LITERARY CRITICISM1930 - MID-1950S

Features of the new literary era.- Creation of Soyfor Soviet writers. Party resolution “On theconstruction of literary and artistic organizations." The first congress of Soviet writers. The role of M. Gorky in literarylife of the 1930s.-Party literary criticismka.- Writer's literary criticism: A.A. Fadeev,A. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Platonov.- Literary-Cree typologytic speeches.-A. P. Selivanovsky. D. P. Mirsky.- Literary criticism in the light of party decisions.- V.V. Ermilov.-The crisis of literary criticism.

The diversity of literary life in the 1920s, the pluralism of ideological and aesthetic attitudes, and the activities of numerous schools and movements turn out to be their opposite in new social and literary circumstances. If in the 1920s the literary situation was shaped and determined by literary criticism, then, starting from 1929, literary life, like life in the country as a whole, took place in the tight grip of Stalinist ideology.

With the rooting and bitterness of totalitarianism, literature constantly found itself in the area of ​​close attention of the party leadership. Such prominent figures of Bolshevism as Trotsky, Lunacharsky, Bukharin acted as literary critics, but their literary critical assessments in the 1920s were not the only possible ones, as would happen in the 1930s-50s with Stalin’s literary judgments.

The creation and implementation of the concept of socialist realism, which led to the unification of our culture, was carried out simultaneously with other campaigns that were designed to commemorate the gains of socialism.

Already at the end of the 1920s, the search began for a term capable of designating that big and unified thing that was supposed to become common to

all Soviet writers a creative platform. It is still unknown who was the first to propose the concept of “socialist realism,” which is so unconvincing in its word combination and so successful in its longevity. However, it was this term and the ideas embedded in it that determined long years fate of Russian literature, giving literary critics the right to either extend it to all works that grew on Soviet soil, right up to M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita,” or to reject writers who failed to fit into the strict canons of socialist realism.

M. Gorky, who returned from emigration at the insistence of Stalin, managed to fulfill social function, entrusted to him by the leader, and together with a whole group of developers, among whom the Rappovites occupied a predominant place, he helped to think through to the smallest detail the process of “reunification” of Soviet writers who were members of different groups and associations. This is how the plan for creating the Union of Soviet Writers was conceived and implemented. It should be emphasized that the Union was created not in spite of, but in accordance with the aspirations of many, many Soviet writers. Most of the literary groups were close to self-dissolution; there was a wave of studies by E. Zamyatin, B. Pilnyak, M. Bulgakov, and the most prominent literary critics of the era - A. Voronsky and V. Polonsky - were removed from their editorial posts. Rapp publications (in 1931 another magazine, “RAPP,” appeared) stream articles with the following titles: “Not everything is leftist that screams,” “Homeless,” “Bouquet of Rat Love,” “ Class enemy in literature". Naturally, the writers assessed this situation as a manifestation of lack of freedom and sought to get rid of the violent tutelage of the RAPP. It is enough to read the feuilleton by I. Ilf and E. Petrov “Give him the italics” (1932) to imagine why many Soviet writers were enthusiastic about the idea of ​​the Union.

On April 23, 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations.” This decree dissolved all existing organizations and created the Union of Soviet Writers. Among the writers, the attitude towards the resolution was the most enthusiastic; the future members of the Union did not yet realize that instead of RAPP, a literary organization of unprecedented power and unheard-of leveling possibilities was coming. The Congress of Soviet Writers was supposed to take place very soon, but according to family circumstances Gorky this event was postponed.

The first congress of Soviet writers opened on August 17, 1934 and lasted two weeks. The congress was held as a great all-Union holiday, the main character of which was M. Gorky. Presidio table-298

Ma towered against the backdrop of a huge Gorky portrait, M. Gorky opened the congress, made a report at it “On Socialist Realism,” spoke with brief summaries, and concluded the work of the congress.

The festive atmosphere that reigned at the congress was reinforced by numerous speeches by writers whose names, until relatively recently, evoked an unambiguously negative assessment. I. Ehrenburg and V. Shklovsky, K. Chukovsky and L. Leonov, L. Seifullina and S. Kirsanov gave bright speeches. B. Pasternak expressed general feelings: “For twelve days I, from the table of the presidium, together with my comrades, had a silent conversation with all of you. We exchanged glances and tears of emotion, explained ourselves with signs and exchanged flowers. For twelve days we were united by the overwhelming happiness of the fact that this lofty poetic language is born of itself in conversation with our modernity” 1 .

The pathos of delight was interrupted when it came to literary criticism. Writers complained that critics have a red and black board and writers’ reputations often depend on critical self-will: “One cannot allow a literary analysis of an author’s work to immediately influence his social position” (I. Ehrenburg). It was about the complete and hopeless absence of serious criticism, about the Rappian habits that remained in criticism. And the satirist Mich. Koltsov proposed a fun project: “to introduce a form for members of the Writers’ Union<...>Writers will wear uniforms, and they will be divided into genres. Approximately: red edging is for prose, blue is for poetry, and black is for critics. And introduce icons: for prose - an inkwell, for poetry - a lyre, and for critics - a small baton. A critic is walking down the street with four clubs in his buttonhole, and all the writers on the street stand in front.”

Gorky's report and co-reports on world literature, drama, prose, and children's literature were of a stating nature. The turning point in the officially solemn course of the congress came after the report of N. Bukharin, who spoke of the need to reconsider literary reputations, in connection with which Pasternak was named as the leader of the new poetic era. Bukharin's report was unexpected and therefore explosive. During the discussion of the report, the congress participants demonstrated both a difference in views on the history and future of Soviet literature, and a difference in temperament. Sharp polemical speeches replaced each other, general calm and a feeling of belonging to a single union for a time

"The First Congress of Soviet Writers: Transcript. M., 1934. P. 548.

I disappeared. But the excitement in the hall quickly passed, since everyone understood what a significant and solemn finale the congress was approaching.

The final words spoken at the congress and belonging to Gorky determined the literary life of the country for several decades: “How do I see the victory of Bolshevism at the writers’ congress? The fact that those of them who were considered non-party, “hesitant”, admitted - with sincerity, the completeness of which I do not dare to doubt - recognized Bolshevism as the only, militant, guiding idea in creativity, in painting with words.

On September 2, 1934, the First Plenum of the Board of the Union of Soviet Writers, elected at the All-Union Congress, took place. M. Gorky became the Chairman of the Board of the Union. Until the death of the writer in 1936, literary life in the country took place under the sign of M. Gorky, who did exceptionally much to root proletarian ideology in literature and to increase the authority of Soviet literature in the world. Even before his final move to Moscow, M. Gorky became the initiator of the publication and editor of the magazine “Our Achievements”, the yearbooks “Year XVI”, “Year XVII”, etc. (a year from the beginning of the revolution), large-scale publications “History of Factories and Plants” , “History of the Civil War” - with the involvement of a large number of authors who were not related to the writing profession.

M. Gorky also publishes the magazine “Literary Studies,” designed to provide basic consultations for emerging writers. Since M. Gorky attached great importance to children’s literature, in parallel with the already existing children’s magazines “Hedgehog”, “Chizh”, “Murzilka”, “Pioneer”, “Friendly Guys”, “Koster”, the magazine “Children’s Literature” was also published, where literary critical articles are published, discussions arise about the books of A. Gaidar, L. Panteleev, B. Zhitkov, S. Marshak, K. Chukovsky.

Having realized himself as the organizer and inspirer of a new literary policy, M. Gorky actively participates in the literary critical process. At the end of the 1920s, Gorky’s articles were devoted to the study of his own writing experience: “Workers’ Correspondents of Pravda,” “Reader’s Notes,” “On How I Learned to Write,” etc. In the 1930s, M. Gorky reflected on the specifics of literary work ( “On literature”, “On literature and other things”, “On prose”, “On language”, “On plays”), the newly discovered artistic method of proletarian literature (“On the artistic method of Soviet literature”, “On the Writers’ Union”, “On preparations for the congress”) and, finally, emphasizes the connection between cultural construction and the ferocity of the class struggle (“Who are you with, masters of culture?”, “About jokes and something else”). 300

M. Gorky enthusiastically follows the new things that open up to him in the Soviet country.

Absolutely confident that during the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal the socialist “reforging” of yesterday’s thieves and bandits is taking place, M. Gorky organized a numerous landing of writers, who, under the editorship of a humanist writer, created a huge tome - a book about the White Sea-Baltic Canal, in which the work of the valiant employees of the GPU (Main Political Directorate, later known as the NKVD, MGB, KGB), re-educating the “canal army men” was glorified. M. Gorky probably had no idea about the force with which the machine to suppress dissent was being spun up in the Soviet country. The Gorky Museum (in Moscow) contains the only newspaper issues published for Gorky, in which materials about the political processes that were in full swing in the country were replaced with neutral journalistic reports about the latest successes in industry. Meanwhile, the full support that M. Gorky provided to Stalin was connected not only with the fact that M. Gorky was protected from real life in Moscow and in the country. The fact is that M. Gorky believed in the need for radical improvement of man.

M. Gorky more than once spoke and wrote that he did not feel pity for suffering, and it seemed to him that the state erected in Russia would be able to raise people who were not burdened with complexes of sympathy and spiritual toil. M. Gorky publicly repented that in 1918-21 he helped the intelligentsia not to die of hunger. He liked to feel like a Soviet man, involved in great and unprecedented achievements. That is why he found pompous words when characterizing Stalin and considering him a “powerful figure.” Probably, not everything in the words and actions of Stalin and his associates suited Gorky, but in the epistolary and journalistic confessions that have reached us, negative assessments of the activities of the party and government structures are not presented.

So, after the unification of writers into a single Union, after rallying them around a common aesthetic methodology, a literary era began, in which writers were well aware that they must obey a certain program of creative and human behavior.

Rigid frames writer's life were regulated by vouchers to the House of Creativity, apartments in prestigious writers' houses, extraordinary publications in major publications and publishing houses, literary awards, career advancement in writers' organizations and - most importantly - trust, trust

parties and governments. Not entering the Union or leaving it, being expelled from the Writers' Union meant losing the right to publish one's works. The literary and literary hierarchy was erected on the model of the party-government hierarchy. Literary theorists and literary critics knew what socialist realism was, and they created a huge number of works on this topic. When they asked Stalin what the essence of socialist realism was, he replied: “Write the truth, this will be socialist realism.” Such laconic and categorical formulations distinguished Stalin’s most famous literary critical judgments: “This thing is stronger than Goethe’s Faust (love conquers death)” - about Gorky’s fairy tale “The Girl and Death”, “Mayakovsky was and remains the best, most talented poet of our Soviet era" Stalin met with writers more than once, giving guidance and evaluating new literature; he filled his speech with quotes and images from world classics. Stalin, in the role of literary critic and critic, assumes the functions of the literary court of last resort. Since the 1930s, the process of canonization of Lenin’s literary ideas has also been outlined.

♦ * ♦

For twenty years, from the early 1930s to the early 1950s, Soviet literary criticism was represented primarily by reports and speeches, party resolutions and decrees. Literary criticism had the opportunity to realize its creative potential in the intervals from one party resolution to another and therefore can rightly be called partyliterary criticism. Its essence and methodology were forged in speeches, speeches, articles and official documents, the authors of which were I. Stalin, A. Zhdanov, literary functionaries A. Shcherbakov, D. Polikarpov, A. Andreev and others. The main features of such literary criticism are rigid certainty and the indisputable unambiguity of judgments, genre and stylistic monotony, rejection of the “other” point of view - in other words, ideological and aesthetic monologism.

Even writers' literary criticism, usually marked by the features of a bright individuality, presents in these years examples of speeches and performances that correspond to the general spirit of the times. AlecSandr Aleksandrovich Fadeev(1901-1956), who worked in 1939-1944 as secretary of the Presidium of the Union of Soviet Writers, and since

1946 to 1953 general secretary Union, he devoted his literary critical speeches, as a rule, to the connections between literature and Soviet reality: “Literature and life”, “Learn from life”, “Go straight into life - love life!” “The study of life is the key to success.” This monotony of titles was dictated by the needs of the Stalin era: it was necessary to write and talk about the social role of literature. Declarativity was considered a necessary attribute of journalistic literary criticism.

Actively engaged literary criticism and returned from emigration Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy(1882-1945). Having defended the principle of apolitical art in previous years, Tolstoy began to actively speak and write about the partisanship of literature. His articles are devoted to the innovative role of Soviet literature and the establishment of the principle of socialist realism.

A different type of literary critical reflection is presented in the works Andrey Platonovich Platonov (Klimentov)(1899-1951). It still remains a mystery why such a subtle artist, an outstanding writer of the 20th century, the author of “The Pit” and “Chevengur”, presented a whole series of examples of literary critical articles in which Pushkin is interpreted as “our comrade”, in the meaningless rhetoric of Soviet prose The features of artistic romance differ, and the work of Gogol and Dostoevsky is interpreted as “bourgeois” and “backward.” V. Perkhin believes that the specificity of Platonov the critic lies in his secret writing - part of the Russian secret speech and opposition to censorship conditions 1. The true literary-critical abilities of the writer can be judged by his deep interpretation of A. Akhmatova’s poetry.

This is probably just one explanation. The other, obviously, lies in the peculiarities of Plato’s writing in general. The original tongue-tiedness of the heroes of Plato's prose, filtered through the author's irony and creating an explosive mixture of a dangerous literary game, could not but influence Plato's critical prose. One more thing should be remembered: Platonov resorted to literary criticism during the years of “non-publication”, and his “reflections of the reader” become critical assessments of one of the many proletarian readers who have become familiar with great literature. And Platonov constantly emphasizes the fact that he is one of many, “a man from the masses,” conducting literary reviews as if on behalf of one of his literary heroes.

"See about this: Perkhin V. Russian literary criticism of the 1930s: Criticism and public consciousness of the era. St. Petersburg, 1997.

The focus of literary criticism has often been literary criticism itself. At one of the plenums of the Board of the Writers' Union in 1935, the famous representative of this profession, I. M. Bespalov, spoke about criticism. In this and subsequent reports on similar topics one can find the same structural components, the same clichés and formulas. The reports on the state and tasks of Soviet literary criticism clearly identify the following key problems: the question of criticism is more relevant than ever; literary criticism is an integral part of socialist culture; it is necessary to fight against the remnants of capitalism in people's minds; it is necessary to rally around the party and avoid groupism; literature still lags behind life, and criticism behind literature; literary criticism should emphasize the partisanship and classism of literature.

A remarkable chronicler of literary life, V. Kaverin gives a fragment of the shorthand report “Dispute on Criticism”. The meeting took place at the House of Writers named after. Mayakovsky in March 1939. Eternal competitors - writers from Moscow and Leningrad - gathered here to discuss the “critical section of Soviet literature” (K. Fedin). And again - general phrases about the high purpose of criticism, about courage and imagination in literary critical work.

While maintaining the general concept of speeches and articles devoted to the tasks of Soviet literary criticism, the authors made allowances for time. Thus, in the 1930s they wrote about such an essential quality of literary criticism as revolutionary vigilance.

In literary criticism of the 1930-40s, the most notable were the speeches of I. Bespalov, I. Troysky, B. Usievich, D. Lukach, N. Lesyuchevsky, A. Tarasenkov, L. Skorino, V. Ermilov, Z. Kedrina, B .Brainina, I.Altman, V.Hoffenschefer, M.Lifshits, E. Mustangova. Their articles and reviews determined actual condition literary life.

Literary criticism of the Stalin era in its summary form was an inexpressive ideological appendage to great literature, although interesting findings and accurate judgments could be discerned against the general bleak background.

Alexey Pavlovich Selivanovsky(1900-1938) began literary critical activity in the 1920s. He was one of the leaders of RAPP, collaborated in the magazines “At the Literary Post” and “October”. In the 1930s, Selivanovsky published the books “Essays on the History of Russian Soviet Poetry” (1936) and “In Literary Battles” (1936), and was published in the magazine “Literary Critic”. Like other former Rappovites, Selivanovsky emphasized: “We

straightened and straightened by the party" 1 . His most famous works are “The Thirst for a New Man” (about the “Destruction” of A. Fadeev), “Cunning and Love of Zand” (about Y. Olesha), “The Laughter of Ilf and Petrov,” as well as articles about D. Bedny, N. Tikhonov, I. Selvinsky, V. Lugovsky. These and other works were written from the standpoint of socialist partisanship; the literary text is considered in them in the context of vulgar sociological rapprochement with reality. So, for example, the critic calls on the creators of Ostap Bender to strengthen the features of a class enemy in him, and Selivanovsky sees the pathos of Soviet literature in “the artistic affirmation of the system of socialist relations on earth.” At the same time, Selivanovsky’s literary critical works reflect trends that are not characteristic of the era: this concerns articles about poetry.

Selivanovsky’s assessments here run counter to generally accepted ones. He tries to understand the rhythm and phonetic new formations of Khlebnikov, strives to understand the essence of Acmeism (while naming the name of Gumilyov), wading through the terminological ligature of the era (“the poetry of late bourgeois classicism”, “imperialist poetry”, “poetry of political generalizations”), the critic expands the poetic field due to names seemingly hopelessly lost by the era of the 1930s. Selivanovsky was repressed. Rehabilitated posthumously.

The Soviet period of activity of the former emigrant writer also deserves attention. Dmitry Petrovich Mirsky (Svyatopol-ka)(1890-1939). IN Soviet Russia In the 1930s, Mirsky published a number of articles and prefaces devoted to foreign literature. He also owns articles about M. Sholokhov, N. Zabolotsky, E. Bagritsky, P. Vasiliev. Mirsky's articles and books stood out noticeably against the general literary critical background: he was uninhibited in his judgments and often allowed himself assessments that did not coincide with those of official criticism. Thus, Mirsky was convinced of the unity of Russian literature of the post-revolutionary period 2. Despite the fact that the creative individuality of the critic absorbed a variety of currents and tendencies, the element of vulgar sociological reading of texts was quite strong in Mirsky’s works. Mirsky was repressed. Rehabilitated posthumously.

Intervention and control by party bodies led, as a rule, to a deterioration in the literary and social situation. WITH

Selivanovsky A. In literary battles. M., 1959. P. 452. 2 See about this: Perkhin V. Dmitry Svyatopolk-Mirsky // Russian literary criticism of the 1930s: Criticism and public consciousness of the era. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 205-228.

In 1933, the monthly magazine “Literary Critic” began to be published in the country, edited by P. F. Yudin, and subsequently by M. M. Rosental. Of course, this magazine was a publication of its era, although it did not always correspond to the name. And yet, to a large extent, he filled the gaps of literary critical thought, since operational criticism - reviews, reviews, discussion articles - coexisted here with more or less serious historical, literary and theoretical literary works. As a result, by the party decree of December 2, 1940 “On Literary Criticism and Bibliography,” the publication of the only journal of its kind was discontinued.

The decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of August 14, 1946 “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” turned out to be even more sad in its consequences. This document, the discussion of the topic that preceded its appearance at the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and especially the report of A. Zhdanov at a meeting of writers in Leningrad not only stopped the publication of the Leningrad magazine, but also contained shameless, offensive statements addressed to A. Akhmatova and M. Zoshchenko. After the publication of the Resolution, both Akhmatova and Zoshchenko were essentially excommunicated from the literary publishing process; they could only print literary translations.

This was party literary criticism in its original, clearly unilinear expression. Party decisions were made regarding the play “Umka - the Polar Bear” by I. Selvinsky (1937) and the play “House” by V. Kataev (1940), about the play “Blizzard” by L. Leonov (1940), etc. Fadeev A.A.” (1940), about the magazine “October” (1943) and the magazine “Znamya” (1944). Vigilant party control over literature replaced literary criticism. Proof of this is a relatively recently published collection of documents testifying to the rampant party censorship 1 .

Literary polemics seemed inappropriate under these conditions. However, the rudiments of literary discussions remained. Thus, for example, between 1935 and 1940 there were discussions about formalism and vulgar sociologism. In fact, these turned out to be echoes of the disputes of the 1920s, and the main characters - supporters of the formal school and representatives of sociological literary criticism - were given another, this time the last, battle. Considering that 90% of writers who joined the Union of Soviet Writers in 1934, by 1937-1938. was repressed, it can be understood that the discussions of the late 1930s were organized from above and proceeded

Literary Front: History of Political Censorship: 1932-1946. M., 1994.306

extremely sluggish. If in the 1920s a “guilty” critic could lose the trust of his party comrades, then in the 1930s he lost his life. On this occasion, the character of Bulgakov’s novel Azazello told Margarita: “It’s one thing to hit Latunsky’s critic on the glass with a hammer, and quite another thing to hit him in the heart.”

After the end of the publication of “Quiet Flows the Don” by M. Sholokhov, literary criticism suddenly perked up, and responses appeared in which Sholokhov was reproached for the incorrect completion of the epic, for the fact that the writer had shredded the image of Melekhov. There were short discussions about historical novels, about the prose of N. Ostrovsky and D. Furmanov.

During the Great Patriotic War, the attention of the party and government to literary criticism was weakened, and it did not produce its own bright shoots. Another effort to “improve the quality” of literary criticism was made in 1947, when A. A. Fadeev spoke and wrote about its state and tasks. To the general reasoning, Fadeev added the idea that socialist realism may well include romantic elements. Fadeev supported Vladimir Vladimirovich Ermilov(1904-1965), the author of a phrase remembered by contemporaries, in which N. Chernyshevsky’s formula was only “slightly” altered: “beautiful is our life".

Writing with striking brightness and heightened expressiveness, V. Ermilov, a literary scholar and literary critic, began his performances back in the 1920s and became notorious in the 1930s and 1940s. Ermilov has always remained one of the most prominent odious figures in Soviet literary life. He was an indispensable active participant in all literary and party discussions of different decades. A long-liver of Soviet literary criticism, V. Ermilov passed big way and in journalism. In 1926-29, he edited Rapp’s magazine “Young Guard”, in 1932-38 he headed the editorial office of “Krasnaya Novi”, in 1946-50, “Literary Gazette” was published under his leadership. Despite the fact that Ermilov was part of the Rapp leadership, he easily abandoned the ideological aspirations of this organization and in the 1930s focused on monographic studies of the works of M. Koltsov, M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky. IN different years from opportunistic and dogmatic positions, he spoke sharply about the prose of I. Ilf and Evg. Petrov, K. Paustovsky, about the poetry of A. Tvardovsky and L. Martynov, about the dramaturgy of V. Grossman.

In ] 936, in the book “Gorky’s Dream,” written immediately after the writer’s death, Ermilov proved the absolute connection between M. Gorky’s work and the ideas of victorious socialism. At the end of the book, the critic analyzed in detail the merits of the Stalinist Constitution, which became, as Ermilov put it, a kind of apotheosis of Gorky’s ideas.

In the 1940s, Ermilov was the author of a number of articles in which the idea of ​​the party responsibility of the writer and critic was strictly declared 1. According to Ermilov, the literature of socialist realism can be considered the most democratic literature in the world. The suspicious “trends” that appeared in the works of Zoshchenko and Akhmatova are, of course, “deeply hostile to Soviet democracy.”

Ermilov tirelessly fought against “political irresponsibility” and “decadence,” against “mystical perversion of reality” and “pessimism,” against “rotten scholasticism” and “theorists” “preaching Tolstoy’s self-improvement.” He was one of the creators of tendentious and rattling literary-critical phraseology, diligently replicated in the 1930s-50s. Just by the titles of Ermilov’s works, one can easily imagine what prohibitive pathos they were permeated with: “Against Menshevism in Literary Criticism”, “Against Reactionary Ideas in the Works of F. M. Dostoevsky”, “On a False Understanding of Traditions”, “Harmful Play”, “The slanderous story of A. Platonov,” etc. Ermilov proclaimed literary works as a weapon necessary to defend “genuine partisanship” in art.

Ermilov enthusiastically supported A. Zhdanov’s idea, expressed by him at the First Congress of Writers, that socialist realism should be a method not only of Soviet literature, but also of Soviet criticism. Ermilov also played a role in the fight against “cosmopolitanism” - in a ruthless state action in the late 1940s. He announced the names of “cosmopolitan” writers who allowed themselves to discern in Russian literature the artistic influences of world classics.

In the 1950-60s, Ermilov focused on historical and literary research, most of which he devoted to A. Chekho-

Cm.: Ermilov V. The most democratic literature in the world: Articles 1946-1947. M., 1947.

woo. Meanwhile, Ermilov attached considerable importance to literary critical work. After the 20th Party Congress, in accordance with new trends, the critic began to write more freely, more uninhibited, he approached the artistic text and began to pay attention to its poetic structure. 1 However, Ermilov remained true to himself and introduced endless references to party documents into the corpus of his articles, trusting primarily in a timely expressed political idea, and not in a literary and artistic discovery. In the 1960s, Ermilov the critic lost his former influence, and his articles were perceived as ordinary phenomena of a stormy literary process, which attracted the attention of readers with completely different names and artistic ideas.

Yermilov was forever “introduced” into the history of literature by V. Mayakovsky, who mentioned the critic with an unkind word in his suicide letter, and before that, wrote one of the slogans for the play “Bathhouse”:

do not evaporate

swarm of bureaucrats. Not even enough baths

and no soap for you. And also

bureaucrats

the pen of critics helps -

like Ermilov...

In 1949, the country began a “fight against cosmopolitanism.” Another wave of harsh studies took place in the sections of the Writers' Union. Writers, of necessity, repented, and literary critics focused on the latest “positive” facts, manifested in demonstratively official, reptilian literature. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Soviet literary criticism was dying. She was forced to “adopt” the conflict-free theory, known for its demagogic frankness. Criticism, like literature, avoided sharp corners, joyfully, with sugary glee, welcoming the appearance of literary works, the very name of which was intended to inspire pride and optimism. Writers painfully agreed to redo what they had written. Class-

"See, for example: Ermilov V. Connection of times: On the traditions of Soviet literature. M., 1964.

A great example of tragic lack of will is A. Fadeev’s reworking of the novel “The Young Guard.” Literary critics were hostile to honest literature - books that went against the general mood. Negative reviews appeared about the poems of A. Tvardovsky, the novels by V. Grossman “For a Just Cause” and V. Nekrasov “In the Trenches of Stalingrad,” and the novels and stories of V. Panova. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Soviet literary criticism was experiencing a severe crisis.

“...a voluntary public creative organization uniting professional writers of the Soviet Union, participating with their creativity in the struggle for the construction of communism, for social progress, for peace and friendship between peoples” [Charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR, see “Information Bulletin of the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union of the USSR ", 1971, No. 7(55), p. 9]. Before the creation of the USSR joint venture, the Sov. writers were members of various literary organizations: RAPP, LEF, “Pereval” , The Union of Peasant Writers and others. On April 23, 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decided “... to unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction, into a single union of Soviet writers with the communist faction in it” (“On the Party and Soviet press". Collection of documents, 1954, p. 431). 1st All-Union Congress of Sov. writers (August 1934) adopted the charter of the USSR SP, in which he defined socialist realism (See Socialist realism) as the main method of the Soviet Union. literature and literary criticism. At all stages of the history of the Sov. countries, the USSR SP under the leadership of the CPSU took an active part in the struggle for the creation of a new society. During the Great Patriotic War, hundreds of writers voluntarily went to the front and fought in the ranks of the Soviets. Army and Navy, worked as war correspondents for divisional, army, front-line and naval newspapers; 962 writers were awarded military orders and medals, 417 died a brave death.

In 1934, the USSR Writers' Union included 2,500 writers, now (as of March 1, 1976) - 7,833, writing in 76 languages; among them 1097 are women. including 2839 prose writers, 2661 poets, 425 playwrights and film writers, 1072 critics and literary scholars, 463 translators, 253 children's writers, 104 essayists, 16 folklorists. The highest body of the USSR Writers' Union - the All-Union Congress of Writers (2nd Congress in 1954, 3rd in 1959, 4th in 1967, 5th in 1971) - elects a board that forms a secretariat, which forms a secretariat bureau to resolve everyday issues. The board of the USSR SP in 1934-36 was headed by M. Gorky, who played an outstanding role in its creation and ideological and organizational strengthening, then at different times V. P. Stavsky A. A. Fadeev, A. A. Surkov now - K. A. Fedin (Chairman of the Board, since 1971) , G. M. Markov (1st secretary, since 1971). Under the board there are councils on the literature of the union republics, on literary criticism, on essays and journalism, on drama and theater, on children's and youth literature, on literary translation, on international literary relations, etc. The structure of the Writers' Unions of the union and autonomous republics is similar; In the RSFSR and some other union republics, regional and regional writers' organizations operate. The USSR SP system publishes 15 literary newspapers in 14 languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR and 86 literary, artistic and socio-political magazines in 45 languages ​​of the USSR peoples and 5 foreign languages, including organs of the USSR SP: “Literary Newspaper”, “New World” magazines , “Banner”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Questions of Literature”, “Literary Review”, “Children’s Literature”, “Foreign Literature”, “Youth”, “Soviet Literature” (published in foreign languages), “Theater”, “ Soviet Motherland" (published in Hebrew), "Star", "Bonfire". The board of the USSR Union of Writers is in charge of the publishing house “Soviet Writer”, the Literary Institute named after. M. Gorky, Literary consultation for beginning authors, Literary Fund USSR, All-Union Bureau for Propaganda of Fiction, Central House of Writers named after. A. A. Fadeev in Moscow, etc. Directing the activities of writers to create works of a high ideological and artistic level, the USSR Writers' Union provides them with comprehensive assistance: organizing creative trips, discussions, seminars, etc., protecting the economic and legal interests of writers. The USSR SP develops and strengthens creative ties with foreign writers, represents the Soviet Union. literature in international writers' organizations. Awarded the Order of Lenin (1967).

Lit.; Gorky M., On literature, M., 1961: Fadeev A., For thirty years, M., Creative unions in the USSR. (Organizational and legal issues), M., 1970.

• - USSR - Union of Soviets Socialist Republics The state that existed in 1922–1991. in the territory modern countries: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia,...

  Russia. Linguistic and regional dictionary

• - Leningrad organization, creative society, organization of film workers in Leningrad...

  St. Petersburg (encyclopedia)

• - Sverdl. region org-tion Arose after the Civil...

  Ekaterinburg (encyclopedia)

• - ALL-RUSSIAN UNION OF WRITERS - see Unions of Writers...

  Literary encyclopedia

• - - social and creative an organization uniting composers and musicologists of the USSR who are actively involved in the development of owls. music lawsuit The main tasks of the USSR CK are to promote the creation of highly ideological...

  Music Encyclopedia

• - founded in early 1897. Its purpose is to unite Russian writers on the basis of their professional interests, to establish constant communication between them and to preserve good morals among the press...
• - see Mutual Aid Union of Russian Writers...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - a creative public organization uniting architects. Created in 1932 on the basis of the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of April 23, 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations”...
• - voluntary creative public organization of Sov. professional workers of periodicals, television, radio broadcasting, news agencies, publishing...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - a public creative organization uniting filmmakers...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - a public creative organization uniting composers and musicologists of the USSR. Created in 1932 by the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of April 23, 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations”...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - a creative public organization that unites owls. artists and art critics...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Komsomol is an amateur public organization that unites in its ranks the broad masses of advanced Soviet youth. Komsomol is an active assistant and reserve of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - a creative public organization of professional Soviet writers...

  Large encyclopedic dictionary

• - Razg. Joking. Interchange hub of the Chekhovskaya, Gorkovskaya and Pushkinskaya metro stations in Moscow. Elistratov 1994, 443...

  Large dictionary of Russian sayings

• - Union of Writers, m. own. Interchange hub of Chekhovskaya, Gorkovskaya and Pushkinskaya metro stations...

  Dictionary of Russian argot

"The Writers' Union of the USSR" in books

Joining the Writers' Union