famous writers. Creative routine: famous writers about the daily routine

culture

This list contains the names of the greatest writers of all time from different peoples who wrote on different languages. Those who are at least somehow interested in literature are undoubtedly familiar with them from their wonderful creations.

Today I would like to remember those who have remained on the pages of history as outstanding authors of great works that have been in demand for many years, decades, centuries and even millennia.

1) Latin: Publius Virgil Maro

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Marcus Tullius Cicero, Gaius Julius Caesar, Publius Ovid Nason, Quintus Horace Flaccus

You must know Virgil from his famous epic "Aeneid", which is dedicated to the fall of Troy. Virgil is probably the most strict perfectionist in the history of literature. He wrote his poem at an astonishingly slow rate - only 3 lines a day. He did not want to do it faster, to be sure that it was impossible to write these three lines better.

IN Latin a subordinate clause, dependent or independent, can be written in any order with a few exceptions. Thus, the poet has great freedom in determining how his poetry sounds, without changing the meaning in any way. Virgil considered every option at every stage.

Virgil also wrote two more works in Latin - "Bucoliki"(38 BC) and "Georgics"(29 BC). "Georgics"- 4 partly didactic poems about agriculture, including various kinds of advice, for example, not to plant grapes next to olive trees: olive leaves are very flammable, and at the end of a dry summer they can catch fire, like everything around, due to a lightning bolt.

He also praised Aristaeus, the god of beekeeping, because honey was the only source of sugar for the European world until sugar cane was brought to Europe from the Caribbean. Bees were deified, and Virgil explained how to acquire a hive if the farmer does not have one: kill a deer, a wild boar or a bear, rip open their belly and leave them in the forest, praying to the god Aristaeus. In a week he will send a beehive to the carcass of the animal.

Virgil wrote that he would like his poem "Aeneid" burned after his death, as it remained unfinished. However, the emperor of Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, refused to do so, thanks to which the poem has survived to this day.

2) Ancient Greek: Homer

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Apostle Paul, Euripides, Aristophanes

Homer, perhaps, can be called greatest writer of all times and peoples, but not much is known about him. He was probably a blind man who told stories written down 400 years later. Or in fact, a whole group of writers worked on the poems, who added something about the Trojan War and the Odyssey.

Anyway, "Iliad" And "Odyssey" were written in ancient Greek, a dialect that came to be called Homeric in contrast to the Attic that followed later and which replaced it. "Iliad" describes the last 10 years of the struggle of the Greeks with the Trojans outside the walls of Troy. Achilles is the main character. He is furious that King Agamemnon treats him and his trophies as his own property. Achilles refused to participate in the war, which had already lasted 10 years and in which the Greeks lost thousands of their soldiers in the struggle for Troy.

But after persuasion, Achilles allowed his friend (and possibly lover) Patroclus, who did not want to wait any longer, to join the war. However, Patroclus was defeated and killed by Hector, the leader of the Trojan army. Achilles rushed into battle and forced the Trojan battalions to flee. Without outside help, he killed many enemies, fought with the god of the river Scamander. Achilles ultimately killed Hector, and the poem ends with funeral ceremonies.

"Odyssey"- an unsurpassed adventure masterpiece about the 10-year wanderings of Odysseus, who tried to return home after graduation Trojan War along with their people. The details of the fall of Troy are mentioned very briefly. When Odysseus ventured to the Land of the Dead, where he found Achilles among others.

These are just two works of Homer that have survived and have come down to us, however, whether there were others is not exactly known. However, these works underlie all European literature. The poems are written in dactylic hexameter. Many poems have been written in memory of Homer in the Western tradition.

3) French: Victor Hugo

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: René Descartes, Voltaire, Alexandre Dumas, Molière, François Rabelais, Marcel Proust, Charles Baudelaire

The French have always been fans of long novels, the longest of which is the cycle "In Search of Lost Time" Marcel Proust. However, Victor Hugo is perhaps the most famous author French prose and one of the greatest poets of the 19th century.

His most famous works are "Notre Dame Cathedral"(1831) and "Les Misérables"(1862). The first work even formed the basis of the famous cartoon "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" studios Walt Disney Pictures However, in Hugo's real novel, everything ended far from being so fabulous.

The hunchback Quasimodo was hopelessly in love with the gypsy Esmeralda, who treated him well. However, Frollo, an evil priest, had his eye on the beauty. Frollo followed her and saw how she almost turned out to be the mistress of Captain Phoebus. As revenge, Frollo handed over the gypsy to justice, accusing the captain of the murder, whom he actually killed himself.

After being tortured, Esmeralda confessed that she allegedly committed a crime and was supposed to be hanged, but at the last moment she was saved by Quasimodo. In the end, Esmeralda was executed anyway, Frollo was thrown from the cathedral, and Quasimodo starved to death, hugging the corpse of his beloved.

"Les Misérables" also not a particularly cheerful novel, at least one of the main characters - Cosette - survives, despite the fact that she had to suffer almost all her life, like all the heroes of the novel. This classic story fanatical following the law, but practically no one can help those who really need help most.

4) Spanish: Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Jorge Luis Borges

The main work of Cervantes, of course, is the famous novel "The Cunning Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha". He also wrote collections of short stories, romantic novel "Galatea", novel "Persiles and Sihismunda" and some other works.

Don Quixote is a rather hilarious character, even today, whose real name is Alonso Quejana. He had read so much about the warrior knights and their honest ladies that he began to consider himself a knight, traveling through countryside and getting into all sorts of adventures, forcing everyone who meets him on the way to remember him for his recklessness. He befriends an ordinary farmer, Sancho Panza, who is trying to bring Don Quixote back to reality.

It is known that Don Quixote tried to fight with windmills, saved people who usually did not need his help, and was beaten many times. The second part of the book was published 10 years after the first and is the first work modern literature. The characters all know about the story of Don Quixote, which is told in the first part.

Now everyone he meets is trying to ridicule him and Panso, testing their faith in the spirit of chivalry. He eventually returns to reality when he loses a fight with the Knight of the White Moon, poisons himself at home, falls ill and dies, leaving all the money to his niece on the condition that she does not marry a man who reads reckless tales of chivalry.

5) Dutch: Jost van den Vondel

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Peter Hooft, Jakob Kats

Vondel is the most eminent writer Holland, who lived in the 17th century. He was a poet and playwright and was representative of the "Golden Age" of Dutch literature. His most famous play is "Geisbrecht of Amsterdam", a historical drama that was performed on New Year's Day at the Amsterdam City Theater between 1438 and 1968.

The play is about Geisbrecht IV, who, according to the play, invaded Amsterdam in 1303 to restore the honor of the family and return the titled nobility. He founded something like the title of baron in these places. Vondel's historical sources were incorrect. In fact, the invasion was carried out by the son of Geisbrecht, Jan, who turned out to be a real hero, overthrowing the tyranny that reigned in Amsterdam. Today, Geisbrecht is a national hero because of this writer's mistake.

Vondel also wrote another masterpiece, an epic poem called "John the Baptist"(1662) about the life of John. This work is the national epic of the Netherlands. Vondel is also the author of the play "Lucifer"(1654), which examines the soul of a biblical character, as well as his character and motives in order to answer the question of why he did what he did. This play inspired the Englishman John Milton to write 13 years later "Paradise Lost".

6) Portuguese: Luis de Camões

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: José Maria Esa de Queiroz, Fernando António Nugueira Pessoa

Camões is considered the greatest poet of Portugal. His most famous work is "Lusiades"(1572). The Lusiades were the people who inhabited the Roman region of Lusitania, on the site of which modern Portugal is located. The name comes from the name Lusa (Lusus), he was a friend of the god of wine Bacchus, he is considered the progenitor of the Portuguese people. "Lusiades"- an epic poem consisting of 10 songs.

The poem tells of all the famous Portuguese sea voyages to discover, conquer and colonize new countries and cultures. She is somewhat similar to "Odyssey" Homer, Camões praises Homer and Virgil many times. The work begins with a description of the journey of Vasco da Gama.

This historical poem, which recreates many battles, the Revolution of 1383-85, the discovery of da Gama, trade with the city of Calcutta, India. The Louisiads were always watched by the Greek gods, although da Gama, being a Catholic, prayed to his own god. At the end, the poem mentions Magellan and speaks of the glorious future of Portuguese navigation.

7) German: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Friedrich von Schiller, Arthur Schopenhauer, Heinrich Heine, Franz Kafka

Speaking of German music, one cannot fail to mention Bach, in the same way German literature would not be so complete without Goethe. Many great writers wrote about him or used his ideas in shaping their style. Goethe wrote four novels, a great many poems and documentaries, scientific essays.

Undoubtedly, his most famous work is the book "Suffering young Werther" (1774). Goethe founded the German Romantic movement. Beethoven's 5th symphony completely coincides in mood with Goethe's "Werther".

Novel "The Sorrows of Young Werther" talks about the unsatisfied romanticism of the protagonist, which leads to his suicide. The story is told in the form of letters and made the epistolary novel popular for at least the next century and a half.

However, the masterpiece of Goethe's pen is still a poem "Faust" which consists of 2 parts. The first part was published in 1808, the second in 1832, the year of the writer's death. The legend of Faust existed long before Goethe, but Goethe's dramatic story remained the most famous history about this hero.

Faust is a scientist whose incredible knowledge and wisdom pleased God. God sends Mephistopheles or the Devil to check on Faust. The story of a deal with the devil has often been brought up in literature, but the most famous is perhaps the story of Goethe's Faust. Faust signs an agreement with the Devil, promising his soul in exchange for the Devil to do whatever Faust wishes on Earth.

He becomes young again and falls in love with the girl Gretchen. Gretchen takes a potion from Faust to help her mother's insomnia, but the potion poisons her. This drives Gretchen crazy, she drowns her newborn baby, signing her death warrant. Faust and Mephistopheles break into the prison to rescue her, but Gretchen refuses to go with them. Faust and Mephistopheles go into hiding, and God grants forgiveness to Gretchen while she awaits her execution.

The second part is incredibly difficult to read, as the reader needs to be well versed in Greek mythology. This is a kind of continuation of the story that began in the first part. Faust, with the help of Mephistopheles, becomes incredibly strong and corrupt until the very end of the story. He remembers the pleasure of being a good man and immediately dies. Mephistopheles comes for his soul, but the angels take it for themselves, they stand up for the soul of Faust, who is reborn and ascends to Heaven.

8) Russian: Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Today, Pushkin is remembered as the father of native Russian literature, in contrast to that Russian literature, which had a clear tinge of Western influence. First of all, Pushkin was a poet, but he wrote in all genres. Drama is considered his masterpiece. "Boris Godunov"(1831) and a poem "Eugene Onegin"(1825-32).

The first work is a play, the second is a novel in poetic form. "Onegin" written exclusively in sonnets, and Pushkin invented a new form of sonnet, which distinguishes his work from the sonnets of Petrarch, Shakespeare and Edmund Spenser.

The main character of the poem - Eugene Onegin - is the model on which all Russian literary heroes are based. Onegin is treated as a person who does not meet any standards accepted in society. He wanders, plays gambling, fights in duels, he is called a sociopath, although not cruel or evil. This person, rather, does not care about the values ​​and rules that are accepted in society.

Many of Pushkin's poems formed the basis of ballets and operas. They are very difficult to translate into any other language, mostly because poetry simply cannot sound the same in another language. This is what distinguishes poetry from prose. Languages ​​often do not match in the possibilities of words. The Inuit language of the Eskimos is known to have 45 different words for snow.

Nevertheless, "Onegin" translated into many languages. Vladimir Nabokov translated the poem into English, but instead of one volume, he got as many as 4. Nabokov retained all the definitions and descriptive details, but completely ignored the music of poetry.

All this is due to the fact that Pushkin had an incredibly unique writing style that allowed him to touch on all aspects of the Russian language, even inventing new syntactic and grammatical forms and words, establishing many rules that are used by almost all Russian writers even today.

9) Italian: Dante Alighieri

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: none

Name Durante in Latin means "hardy" or "eternal". It was Dante who helped streamline the various Italian dialects of his time into modern Italian. The dialect of Tuscany, where Dante was born in Florence, is the standard for all Italians thanks to "Divine Comedy"(1321), a masterpiece by Dante Alighieri and one of greatest works world literature of all times.

At the time this work was written, the Italian regions each had their own dialect, which were quite different from each other. Today, when you want to learn Italian as a foreign language, you will almost always start with the Florentine version of Tuscany because of its significance in literature.

Dante travels to Hell and Purgatory to learn about the punishments that sinners are serving. There are different punishments for different crimes. Those who are accused of lust are forever driven by the wind, despite their fatigue, because in life the wind of voluptuousness drove them.

Those whom Dante considers heretics are guilty of splitting the church into several branches, among them also the prophet Muhammad. They are sentenced to a split from the neck to the groin, and the punishment is carried out by the devil with a sword. In such a ripped state, they walk in a circle.

IN "Comedy" there are also descriptions of Paradise, which are also unforgettable. Dante uses Ptolemy's concept of paradise that Heaven is made up of 9 concentric spheres, each of which brings the author and Beatrice, his lover and guide, closer to God at the very top.

After meeting with various famous personalities from the Bible, Dante finds himself face to face with the Lord God, depicted as three beautiful circles of light, merging into one, from which Jesus, the incarnation of God on Earth, emerges.

Dante is also the author of other smaller poems and essays. One of the works - "About folk eloquence" speaks of the importance Italian as conversational. He also wrote a poem "New life" with passages in prose in which he defends noble love. No other writer was as fluent in the language as Dante was in Italian.

10) English: William Shakespeare

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: John Milton, Samuel Beckett, Geoffrey Chaucer, Virginia Woolf, Charles Dickens

Voltaire called Shakespeare "that drunken fool", and his works "that huge dunghill". Nevertheless, the influence of Shakespeare on literature is undeniable, and not only English, but also the literature of most other languages ​​of the world. Shakespeare is one of the most translated writers today. complete collection works have been translated into 70 languages, and various plays and poems have been translated into more than 200.

About 60 percent of all popular expressions, quotes and idioms in English come from King James Bible (English translation Bible), 30 percent from Shakespeare.

According to the rules of Shakespearean time, tragedies at the end demanded the death of at least one main character, but in an ideal tragedy everyone dies: "Hamlet" (1599-1602), "King Lear" (1660), "Othello" (1603), "Romeo and Juliet" (1597).

In contrast to tragedy, there is comedy, in which someone is sure to marry at the end, and in the ideal comedy, all the characters marry and get married: "A dream in a summer night" (1596), "Much ado about nothing" (1599), "Twelfth Night" (1601), "The Merry Wives of Windsor" (1602).

Shakespeare masterfully exacerbated the tension between the characters in an excellent combination with the plot. He knew how, like no one else, organically describe human nature. The real genius of Shakespeare can be called skepticism, which pervades all his works, sonnets, plays and poems. He, as expected, praises the highest moral principles of mankind, but these principles are always expressed in the conditions of an ideal world.

It is impossible to deny the fact that the nature of the approaching or imminent changes in the life of human civilization was the first to be felt by those who were ahead of their time - famous writers.

Writers - liaison between the future and the present

Among the endless multitude of writers of every era are those authors who, in addition to the merits of artistic prose, which are universally recognized, generously give humanity a new vision. It was they who, much more convincingly than scientists, formulated new concepts and ideas and, as a result, created the intellectual and emotional argumentation of the future. They managed to see his challenge in the everyday and everyday, expose unsightly problems, point to ongoing conflicts, helping to realize the coming threats and give new hopes.

Great writers of world literature

This list is not perfect. It contains individual famous writers who can be safely called the greatest writers of all times and peoples.

Pleiad of geniuses of poetry and prose

The 19th century was so rich in talent that it managed to give birth to an outstanding galaxy of prose and poetry geniuses. The most famous writers are N. M. Karamzin, A. S. Griboyedov, A. S. Pushkin, K. F. Ryleev, M. Yu. Lermontov, N. A. Nekrasov, N. V. Gogol, A. A. Fet, I. S. Turgenev, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, G. Chernyshevsky, A. P. Chekhov, F. M. Dostoevsky.

Writers who had a significant impact on English literature

The famous created a great many outstanding works, in which they laid a powerful message, so they have retained their relevance in our days.

• Thomas More, and translator. Author of many translations from ancient Greek and poems, as well as 280 Latin epigrams.
• Jonathan Swift, a brave publicist and brilliant satirist, poet, is known to the general public as the creator of Gulliver's Travels.
• founding father of romantic "sensual" literature in Great Britain. With his three whale novels, he undoubtedly formed a stable foundation for his imperishable world fame.
• the founder of the English realistic novel, a prolific, profound playwright.
• Walter Scott, all-round personality, warrior, writer, poet, advocacy and history specialist, founder of the historical novel of the 19th century.

Writers who changed the world

After the horrors of the Second World War, it seemed to everyone that henceforth the world would rest on clear, simple and reasonable principles for everyone. social relations, global politics relied on the modernization of progress and positive trends, faith in education, science. However, from the beginning of the 70s, the idealistic world began to inexorably collapse, and people came to know a different reality. famous writers and the poets, who determined the mindset of the new generation, bore the brunt of the dramatic changes that had come.

Soul and mind of modernity

Below is a list of those writers who determined the soul and mind of our time.

• Marquez (lawyer). Major works: "The General in His Labyrinth", "Nobody Writes to the Colonel", "One Hundred Years of Solitude", "Born Leaves" and many others.
• Alexander Solzhenitsyn (teacher of physics and mathematics, famous Russian writer). Major works: Cancer Ward, Red Wheel, In the First Circle and the more than provocative Gulag Archipelago. Famous writers often fell into disgrace to the ruling system.
• Toni Morrison (editor). Main works: "Favorite", "Resin Scarecrow", "Jazz", "Love", "Paradise".
• Salman Rushdie (philologist). Main works: "Shame", "Rage", "Midnight's Children", "Shalimar the Clown", "Satanic Verses".
• Milan Kundera (director) Main works: "Ignorance", "Immortality", "Slowness", "Funny Loves" and others.
• Orhan Pamuk (architect). Main works: "Istanbul", "White Fortress", "Other Colors", "New Life", "Snow", "Black Book".
• Michel Houellebecq (environmental engineer). Major works: Platform, Elementary Particles, The Possibility of an Island, Lanzarote.
• JK Rowling (translator). 7 Harry Potter novels.

• Umberto Eco (philologist). Major works: "Baudolino", "The Name of the Rose", "The Island of the Eve", "Foucault's Pendulum".
• Carlos Castaneda (anthropologist). Major works: "The Gift of the Eagle", "The Power of Silence", "Special Reality", "Tales of Power", "Inner Fire", "The Wheel of Time", "The Second Circle of Power" and others. The category "famous writers" would be deprived without mentioning this outstanding person.

Now the current generation sees everything clearly, marvels at the delusions, laughs at the foolishness of its ancestors, it is not in vain that this chronicle is scribbled with heavenly fire, that every letter screams in it, that a piercing finger is directed from everywhere at him, at him, at the current generation; but the current generation laughs and arrogantly, proudly begins a series of new delusions, which will also be laughed at by descendants later. "Dead Souls"

In the hearts of the simple, the feeling of the beauty and grandeur of nature is stronger, more alive a hundred times than in us, enthusiastic storytellers in words and on paper."Hero of our time"

Everywhere there is sound, and everywhere there is light,
And all the worlds have one beginning,
And there is nothing in nature
No matter how love breathes.

But others are not an example for me,
And my charter is simple and strict.
My verse is a pioneer boy
Lightly dressed, barefoot.
1926

"At the bottom"

"Whirlwind Rus'"

Mikhail Andreevich Osorgin (Ilyin) (1878 - 1942)
How strange /.../ How many cheerful and cheerful books there are, how many brilliant and witty philosophical truths - but there is nothing more comforting than Ecclesiastes.

"Poetry of the Word"

WHY IS THE WRITER WRITING?

Everyone here has their own reasons. For one, art is an escape from reality, for another it is a way to cope with it. But you can go into hermitage, into madness, into death; win with weapons in hand. Why do writers write, realizing their flight or their victories in this way? Because behind the different goals of the authors there is a deeper and closer choice, one for all.

Let's try to clarify the essence of the choice. It is clear that by itself it forces the writer to become engaged. Any side of our perception is accompanied by the consciousness that the reality of the human can be "exposed". This means that through it we learn that "there is" a concrete person, or, in other words, the being of things is expressed through a person. Only our presence in the world multiplies the relationship, only we maintain the connection between this tree and this piece of sky; thanks to us, this star, which died millions of years ago, and this crescent of the moon, and this black river, manifest their unity, uniting in a landscape. The speed of our car or plane unites vast earthly spaces. Through each of our Actions, the world reveals to us a renewed face. We realize that being is transmitted through us, but we also know that we are not its creators. It is enough to turn away from the landscape, as he, left without a witness, will drown in hopeless darkness. It will drown - it is unlikely that you will be able to find a madman who is ready to believe that he will disappear altogether. It is we who will disappear, and the earth will remain in a state of lethargy, until the consciousness of another person awakens it. This is how our inner certainty that we are debunkers is joined by the certainty that we have no essence in relation to the exposed object.

But our need to feel first in relation to the world is one of the main motives artistic creativity. If I leave on canvas or in literary work the image of the sea or the field, which I have exposed, uniting them with each other, ordering, endowing the variety of things with the unity of the spirit, it will seem that I have produced them. I begin to consider myself more important than my work. But the created object eludes me: I cannot expose and create at the same time. The object becomes secondary to the creative act. Even if this object is perceived by other people as complete, it always seems incomplete to us. We can change the line, some shade, the word. The work is never imposed on the author from outside. One student of the artist asked the teacher: "When should I understand that the picture is completed?" “When will you be able to look at her with surprise, asking yourself: “And I did this?”.

In other words, never. Because it would mean looking at your work with someone else's eyes and exposing what he himself created. The more importance we attach to the creative act, the less we realize the significance of our creation. We create pottery or joinery according to ready-made recipes, using old customs, the notorious "Man" of Heidegger works with our hands. In this case, the fruit of our labor may be perceived by us as alien enough to remain an object for us. But if we ourselves come up with the rules of production, its measures and criteria, if our creative impulse comes from the depths of the heart, then we see only ourselves in our creation. It is we ourselves who came up with the laws by which we judge him, we see in him our own history, our love, our joy. Even just looking at him, without touching him anymore, we do not receive this joy, this love from him, but, on the contrary, we give them to him. The result obtained on canvas or paper will never be objective in our eyes. We know all too well how it's all done. This method will be a personal find of the creator. It is ourselves, our inspiration, our ingenuity. If we again try to perceive our creation, we again create it, mentally repeat the operations through which we brought it into being. Every aspect of it is a result for us.

We see that in the process of perception, the object is important, and the subject is secondary; the latter waits for its realization in creativity and receives it. Now the object becomes secondary.

Nowhere is this dialectic more evident than in literary work. The literary object is a kind of spinning top that exists only while spinning. For it to appear, a specific act called reading is necessary, and the top spins as long as the reading lasts. Without reading, there are only black marks on paper. A writer cannot read what he has written, a shoemaker can put on shoes he has made if they fit him, an architect can live in a house he has built. The reader anticipates, expects. He predicts the end of the phrase, the beginning of the next, the next page, they must confirm or refute his assumptions. The process of reading consists of many hypotheses, fantasies and awakenings, bright hopes and bitter disappointments. The reader jumps ahead of the line into a future that partly collapses, partly solidifies as it approaches the book's finale, receding from page to page like the moving horizon of a literary landscape.

There is no objectivity without expectation, without future, without uncertainty. Thus, literary creativity presupposes a special kind of imaginary reading which renders true reading impossible. As the words appear under the pen of the author, he, of course, sees them, but he sees them differently than the reader. He knows them even before he writes: his eyes are not intended to wake the sleeping words that are waiting to be read, but to track the correct writing of signs. In fact, this is a purely technical task, and the eye notices only minor errors of the writer.

The writer does not predict the future and does not conjecture - he is plotting. Often he is looking for himself, waiting for inspiration. However, to expect from oneself is not at all what to expect from others - if he doubts, he knows that there is no future yet, that it has only to be created on his own. If he doesn't yet know what will happen to his hero, then he either hasn't thought about it yet, or hasn't made up his mind yet. The future for the author is a blank slate, while for the reader it is two hundred pages of text that separate him from the final book.

Everywhere the writer encounters his knowledge, his will, his intentions, in short, himself. He comes into contact only with his subjectivity, the object he created is inaccessible to him, he created it for others. When he rereads his book, the deed is already done, the phrase will never be a thing in his eyes from beginning to end. The author comes close to the edge of the subjective, but does not cross it. He evaluates the effect of a single nuance, this or that saying, a well-used participial turnover, but they will impress others. He can anticipate this impression, but not survive it.

Proust did not discover that Charles was a homosexual, he decided to make him so before he began writing his multi-volume novel. If a work ever acquires an imaginary objectivity for the author, time is to blame. The author is no longer able to feel his offspring and, of course, would not be able to write it today. So it was with Rousseau when he re-read the Social Contract in his old age.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the writer writes for himself. Here he would have suffered a complete fiasco: transferring his feelings to paper, he best case would have achieved their boring extension. The creative act is only one of the moments in the course of creating a work. If the author existed on a desert island, he could write to his heart's content, his creation as an object would never see the light of day. In the end, he would have to put down his pen or fall into despair. The process of writing implies the process of reading, they form a dialectical unity. These two interconnected acts require both the author and the reader. Only their joint Effort will make that extremely concrete and at the same time imaginary object appear, which is the creation of the human spirit. Art can only exist for others and through others.

Indeed, reading appears to be a synthesis of perception and creativity; it simultaneously posits the essentiality of both subject and object. The object is essential because it has the property of transcendence, offers its own unique and inimitable structures, it must be perceived. However, the subject is also essential: it must not only expose the work (in other words, make it so that it is an object), but produce it (so that it is in the absolute sense of the word). The reader gets the feeling that he simultaneously exposes and creates: he exposes by creating, creates with the help of exposure. Indeed, reading is far from being just a mechanical operation, the effect of printed characters on the reader, like the effect of light on photographic film. If he is not focused, tired, dull, superficial, then most of the connections will go unnoticed, he will not be able to "cover" the object (in the sense in which they say that he "covers" the flame). The reader will extract from the darkness the words, as if appearing by chance. At best, he will discern some synthetic form behind them, a partial function of which will be each successive one: he will find a "theme", "plot", "idea". Initially, the meaning is not contained in the words, on the contrary, it is the meaning that makes it possible to understand the meaning of any word. A literary object is never given in a language, although it is realized only through it, on the contrary: in essence it is mute and negates the sounding word.

One hundred thousand words packed into the lines of a book can be read one after the other without the slightest meaning coming out of them. After all, meaning is not an arithmetic sum of words, but their organic unity. The reader must immediately and almost without a guide climb to the height of silence. He must keep on it the words and phrases he himself called to a new life. Would you say that such a procedure would deserve to be called more of a secondary invention or a rediscovery? First, such a fiction would be as new and original as the original one. Secondly, and this is the main thing: if the object did not exist before, it is impossible to speak of either secondary fiction or rediscovery. If the silence I mean is indeed the author's purpose, then he himself is not aware of it. His silence is full of subjectivity and precedes speech. It is this absence of words, the undifferentiated silence caused by inspiration that is very soon realized in the text, and not the silence of the reader at all, that should be considered as the object. Within this object itself there are defaults: what the author does not talk about. With such specific intentions, meaning cannot be retained outside the object that arises in the process of reading; but it is these intentions that give the object weight and specific appearance.

It is not enough to say that they are not expressed, they cannot be expressed in principle. That is why they cannot be recognized when reading - they are everywhere and nowhere. All the virtues of "Great Moln", the "Babylonism" of "Armans", the authenticity and realism of Kafkaesque mythology - all this is not given in finished form, the reader must come up with it, over and over again going beyond the boundaries of the text. Of course, the author plays the role of a guide, but he only leads the reader, milestones on this road are separated by emptiness, you need to connect them, you need to go beyond them.

Reading can be called creativity under the guidance of the author. On the one hand, the object of literature has no other substance than the reader's subjectivity. Raskolnikov's expectation is my own expectation, which I endow him with; without the reader's impatience, only boring letters on paper would remain. His hatred for the investigator is my hatred, born of printed pages, and the investigator himself could not exist without it. acute feeling which I feed to him through Raskolnikov. Hatred gives him both soul and flesh.

On the other hand, words are a kind of trap, serving to arouse feelings and reflect them back in our direction. Each word is a road to transcendence, it shapes our feelings, supplies them with labels, attributes them to a literary hero who undertakes to experience them for us and has no other substance than foreign, borrowed passions. The word gives the characters goals, perspectives, horizon.

Everything for him has been done for the reader, and everything remains to be done by him himself. The book exists at the level of reading abilities: while a person is reading, he is creating, it seems to him that he could go further, create something deeper. For this reason, the book seems to him inexhaustible, endowed with the density of a thing. Before us is the production of properties, standing out from our subjectivity, they solidify before our eyes into material, dense objects. This process somehow reminds us of the "rational intuition", which Kant in his philosophy endowed the Divine mind with.

If creativity is destined to find completion only in the process of reading, if the artist is forced to entrust the completion of what he has begun to another, if he can become the main thing in his work only through the reader's consciousness, then every book is a call. To write means to appeal to the reader, who must translate into the realm of objective existence the revelation made through language. If you ask the question, what exactly is the writer calling for, the answer will be simple. We do not see in the book sufficient grounds for the appearance of an aesthetic object, there is only a desire to create it. These grounds are also lacking in the mind of the author. Subjectivity, from which he cannot get out, does not provide the prerequisites for the transition to objectivity. That is why the birth of a work of art is a fundamentally new event and cannot be explained on the basis of previous material.

Reading is a guided creativity, an absolute beginning. It is carried out at the good will of the reader as a manifestation of his freedom in pure form. Thus, the writer appeals to the freedom of the reader, who should become a co-author of his work. It may be objected to me that any tool of labor is addressed to this freedom, and in this respect the work of art does not need to be singled out. A tool of labor is an objectified sketch of the action it performs. But it remains at the level of a hypothetical imperative: I can use a hammer to knock down a box or annoy a neighbor. “The hammer itself does not appeal to my freedom, does not put me in front of it. It just wants to serve it, replacing my free creativity with the standard methods of handling the tool.

The book does not serve my freedom - it presupposes it. It is impossible to appeal to the freedom of a person by forcing, seducing or begging. The only way to find freedom is to first recognize it, then trust it, and finally demand that it act in its own name, that is, in the name of your trust in it. The book differs from a tool of labor - it is not a means to an end, it itself is offered as an end for the free will of the reader. The concept of "expediency without a goal" developed by Kant cannot be applied to a work of art. It presupposes that the aesthetic object is only the appearance of a goal. It only cares about a free and orderly fantasy. It misses the fact that the viewer's and reader's imagination has not only an ordering, but also a creative function; it does not deal with games, it is called upon to complete the object, even if it is beyond the limiting lines drawn by the artist's hand.

Like other faculties of the human spirit, the imagination is not able to enjoy itself, it is always directed to the outside world, always participates in creative process. Expediency without a goal could exist if there were an obvious organization in the object, indicating a certain, even if unknown to us, intention. Having defined the aesthetically beautiful in this way, it is possible - and this is precisely the goal of Kant - to bring beauty in art and nature to a common denominator. After all, a flower, for example, has such symmetry, such a harmony of colors, such perfect contours, that it is immediately tempting to find some goal towards which all its properties are directed, to see in their synthesis only a means to achieve this goal. But this is where a mistake awaits us: natural beauty is incomparable with beauty in art. A work of art has no purpose, in this we share the point of view of Kant. It doesn't, precisely because it is the goal itself. The Kantian formula ignores the appeal that comes from every picture, statue, book. Kant believes that the work exists first of all as a fact, and then it is perceived. In fact, it exists only when it is seen - at first it is only a pure call, only a demand to exist. It is not a tool capable of existing only for an indefinite purpose.

The work appears as a task that needs to be solved, and this immediately rises to the level of an ultimatum imperative. It is in your power to leave this book lying on the table. But if you open it, you take responsibility for it. For freedom is felt not in a free subjective action, but in a creative act called forth by an imperative. This is a transcendent and at the same time voluntarily accepted imperative. It is precisely such an absolute goal, taken upon itself by freedom itself, that is what we call value. A work of art can be considered a value because it is an imperative.

When in my work I call on the reader to complete the work I have begun, then, without a doubt, I consider this as pure freedom, creative power, an active position; I can never appeal to his passivity, that is, try to influence him, to arouse in him immediately such emotions as fear, desire or anger. Of course, there are authors striving precisely for this, preoccupied with the desire to evoke such emotions in the reader. This is because such emotions are predictable, manageable, and the writer has tried and tested means to evoke them. This is what writers are often accused of. So it was in antiquity with Euripides, who brought children to the stage.

In passion, freedom is separated: drowning in details, it forgets about its main task - the creation of an absolute goal. Now the book is nothing more than a means to arouse hatred or desire. The task of the writer is not to shock the reader, then he will be in conflict with himself. If he intends to demand, he need only offer the reader a problem to solve. So we have come to the purely demonstrative nature of a work of art as its most important feature. Some aesthetic distance is simply necessary for the reader. This is what Gauthier so stupidly confused with "art for art's sake", and the Parnassians with the detachment of the artist. We are only talking about forethought. Genet more accurately called it courtesy of the author towards the reader. But it should not be thought that the writer is referring to some kind of abstract, conceptual freedom. The aesthetic object is recreated through the senses. If it is touching, then we see it only through tears, if it is funny, then it is realized through laughter. Both of these feelings are of a special kind - their basis is freedom, they are perceived. I still do not fully believe in the story, which I voluntarily decided to consider true. This is the Passion in the Christian sense of the word. Here is freedom that put itself in a passive position in order to receive a certain transcendental result through this sacrifice. The reader becomes gullible, he plunges into gullibility, and, although it is accompanied all the time by the consciousness that he is free, in the end it envelops him like a dream. Sometimes, the author is forced to choose: "Either they believe in your story, and this is undesirable, or they don't believe it, then it's ridiculous."

But such an approach is completely wrong, because the aesthetic consciousness includes faith - according to the generally accepted agreement, according to the given oath. Faith, which is based on loyalty to myself and the author, on my constantly repeated choice. I can wake up at any moment and I know it, but I don't want it. Reading is voluntary sleep. As you can see, the feelings embedded in the very depths of this imaginary faith are simply modulations of my freedom. They do not absorb or close it, but appear before it only in the form that it chooses. I have already said that Raskolnikov would have remained only a shadow without the mixture of sympathy and disgust that I feel for him. That is what keeps him alive. But because of the inconsistency of imaginary objects, it is not his actions that evoke these feelings in me, but my indignation, my respect make his actions strong and vital.

It turns out that the object never prevails over the spiritual life of the reader. But no other external reality can cause them either. Their constant source is freedom, that is, they are caused by generosity. By generosity, I mean mental movement which has freedom as its beginning and end. It turns out that reading is a manifestation of generosity. The writer, on the other hand, demands from the reader not the manifestation of abstract freedom, but the complete surrender of his personality. He needs all her passions, prejudices, sympathies, sexual temperament, her scale of values. Personality is given generously, it is all imbued with freedom, which permeates it through and through and transforms the darkest masses of its feelings. Just as activity becomes passivity in order to create an object more successfully, so passivity becomes action. The reader is at the highest level. That is why even the most insensitive people can shed tears over stories of imaginary misfortunes. It's just that for a moment they became what they would be if they had not always hidden their freedom from themselves.

We see that the author writes to appeal to the freedom of readers. Without it, his work would not exist. But this is not enough for him, he demands that readers return to him the trust that he has shown them. The reader must recognize his creative freedom and turn to it for his part. Here another dialectical paradox of reading appears: the more we are free, the more we recognize the freedom of another. The more he expects from us, the more we expect from him.

When I am happy with a landscape, I am well aware that I did not create it. But I also know that the relationships that arose under my gaze between trees, foliage, earth, grass, without me would not exist at all. I cannot understand the reasons for the purposefulness that I see in the combination of colors, the harmony of shapes and the movements caused by the wind. But, she is, she is here, before my eyes. Finally, it is in my power to make the existent exist only if the existent already exists, but if I believe in God, I cannot allow any transition, except verbal, between the universal providence of God and specific type which I am looking at. It is impossible to believe that he created the landscape so that I would like it, or that he created me so that I would enjoy the landscape. It would mean taking a question for an answer. Is this blue consciously combined with green? How can I know? The idea of ​​the universal cannot guarantee any personal desire, especially in our case. Green color grass is explained by biological laws, specific factors, geographical conditions, and the blueness of the water is explained by the depth of the river, the structure of the soil, the speed of the current. It would be possible to consciously choose these colors only backdating. Here the meeting of two causal series, which, at first glance, seems to be an accident. Purposefulness remains problematic even at best. All the relationships proposed here are only hypotheses. No goal is perceived by us as an imperative, because no goal is revealed to us as a goal set for itself by its creator.

The beauty of nature never speaks directly to our freedom. More precisely, in the totality of foliage, forms and movements there is an apparent order, which means the illusion of a call that seems to require this freedom, but immediately subsides under our gaze. As soon as we look at this order, as the call disappears, we can combine this color with another or a third one at will, establish a connection between wood and water, tree and sky, or tree, sky and water. My freedom turns into my whim: as new connections are established, I move further and further away from the imaginary objectivity that calls to me: I dream of some motives vaguely inspired by things. The reality of nature is already only a pretext for a dream.

Sometimes I am deeply upset that this momentarily conscious order was not offered to me by anyone, which means that it cannot claim to be true. Then I fix my fantasy, transfer it to the canvas, to the pages of the book. At this moment, I turn into an intermediate link between aimless goal nature, and the views of other people. I give it to them, thanks to such a transfer, it becomes human.

Here, art can be considered an act of giving a gift, and this gift alone provides a metamorphosis. There is something similar to the transfer of the title and authority under the matronimate, when the mother herself is not the bearer of the name, but remains the obligatory intermediary between uncle and nephew. If I grab the illusion on the fly, if I give it to others, releasing it and rethinking it, they can accept the gift with complete confidence - the illusion has become intentional. The author, of course, remains on the border between the subjective and the objective and is unable to appreciate the objective order of the gift.

On the contrary, the reader becomes more and more secure. No matter how far he got, the author went even further. No matter how he relates the elements of books to each other - chapters, pages, words - he has a guarantee that they were written and arranged by the author in a certain way. He can even convince himself, like Descartes, that there is a hidden order in the arrangement of unrelated elements. The Creator was ahead of him here, too, because the most beautiful disorder is artistic effects, which nevertheless represent a kind of orderliness. The reading process contains induction, interpolation, extrapolation. The basis of all these operations lies in the author's will, just as scientific induction was once considered to be laid in the divine will.

From first to last page we are led by an unknown unobtrusive force. This does not mean that it is easy for us to decipher the intentions of the artist. I have already said that we can only guess about them, here plays big role reader experience. But our discoveries are reinforced by the firm conviction that the beauties we see in a book are never the result of a meeting alone. Randomly combined only tree, sky in nature. In the novel, everything is the other way around: the characters go somewhere, end up in such and such a prison. If they walk in this particular garden, we are dealing immediately with the coincidence of independent causal series (the hero was in a certain state of mind caused by a series of psychological or social events; but at the same time he was heading to a specific place, and the layout of the city led him to this park), and with the manifestation of deeper conditioning. After all, the park was called to life in order to correspond to a certain state of mind, to express this state through things, and to make it most vivid. And the very state of mind arose in connection with the landscape. Here the causation is only apparent, it can be called "causal causality", and the deep reality is conditioning.

But if I have full confidence in the sequence of ends disguised as a sequence of causes, then this means that when I open the book, I mean: the object is born from human freedom. If I assumed that the artist painted in a fit of passion and driven by it, then my confidence would immediately evaporate. In this case, the maintenance of a sequence of causes by a sequence of ends would lead nowhere, because the latter is conditioned by psychological causality, and then the work of art would return to the chain of determinism. Of course, when I read, I fully admit that the author could be excited by him, and I assume that the first sketch of the work was born in him under the influence of passion. But the very decision to write suggests that the author has moved away from his passions, that he will set free his subordinate emotions, as I do in the process of reading. All this means that he will be in a position of generosity.

In a word, reading is a certain agreement of generosity between the author and the reader. Both trust each other, both count on each other, and make the same demands on each other as on themselves. Such trust is in itself generosity: nothing makes the author believe that the reader will use his freedom, just as nothing makes the reader believe that the author will use his. Both are completely free to choose a solution. Therefore, a dialectical movement back and forth becomes possible: when I read, I expect something; if my expectations are justified, then what I read allows me to expect even more, which means to demand from the author that he makes even greater demands on me. Conversely, the author's expectation is for me to raise my expectations even higher. It turns out that the manifestation of my freedom causes the manifestation of the freedom of another.

It does not matter what kind of art the aesthetic object belongs to: "realistic" (or pretending to be) or "formalistic". In any case, natural relationships are violated. It is only the tree in the foreground of Cezanne's painting that at first glance seems to be the product of causal connections. But here causality is just an illusion. Of course, it is present in the form of proportions while we look at the picture. But it is supported by deep conditioning: if the tree is located exactly here, it is because the rest of the picture caused the appearance in the foreground of just such a form and such colors. Thus, through extraordinary causality, our view sees conditionality as the deep structure of an object, and behind it human freedom is seen as its source and initial basis. Vermeer's realism is so frank that at first it seems to us photographic. But if we really consider the tangibility of matter in his paintings, the relief of pink brick walls, the rich blue of the honeysuckle branch, the shimmering twilight of his interiors, the slightly orange tint of the skin on the faces of his characters, reminiscent of the polished stone of a water-drinker, then the resulting pleasure suddenly brings to our consciousness that everything this is due not so much to shapes or colors as to his material imagination. Forms convey the substance and the very flesh of things. Communicating with such a reality, we are probably as close as possible to absolute creativity.

Indeed, in the very passivity of matter, we come to know the abyssal freedom of man.

As you can see, creativity is not only the creation of a painted, sculpted or written object. Just as we see things against the background of the world, so the objects represented by art stand before us against the background of the universe. In the background of Fabrizio's adventures, Italy in 1820 is visible, Austria and France, and the star-studded sky, to which the abbe Blanes is addressing, and, finally, the whole earth. If an artist paints a field or a vase of flowers, then his painting becomes a window open to the world. Along the red path running in the rye, we go much further than Van Gogh wrote in his painting. We are already moving along other rye shares, under other skies, to the very river that flows into the sea. Our path continues to infinity, to the other end of the world, in the thickness of the earth, which determines the existence of fields and finitude. So through the succession of produced or reproduced objects, the creative act wants to embrace the whole world. Each picture, each book contains the fullness of the event; each of them gives the freedom of the viewer this fullness. For this is how we see the ultimate goal of art. Absorb the whole world into yourself, showing it as it is, but you need to do this as if its source is human freedom. At the same time, the creation of the author becomes an objective reality only in the eyes of the beholder. This happens through participation in the ritual of the spectacle, especially reading.

We can now better answer the question just posed. The writer appeals to the freedom of other people, so that they, through the mutual presentation of their demands, provide a person with the fullness of being and return humanity to the universe.

But if we want to know more, we must remember that the writer, like all other artists, wants to convey to his readers a certain feeling, which is called aesthetic pleasure and which I personally would call aesthetic joy. Only this joy says that the work is completed. Therefore, we must consider this feeling in terms of our previous considerations.

This aesthetic pleasure or joy, which is denied to the creator while he creates, is available only to the aesthetic consciousness of the viewer, for ours it is the reader. This is a complex feeling, its components are interdependent and inseparable. At first it coincides with the recognition of a transcendent and absolute end, which is momentarily set aside by a series of utilitarian ends-means and means-ends. For example, an appeal or, what is the same, a value. My concrete understanding of this value necessarily occurs against the background of awareness of my freedom. And freedom is revealed to itself through a transcendent demand. This perception of freedom itself is joy. This part of the non-aesthetic consciousness contains another part. Let me remind you that reading is creativity, and my freedom reveals itself to itself not only as pure independence, but also as creative activity. This means that it is not limited by its own laws, but feels itself a part of the object. At this level, a purely aesthetic phenomenon appears, that is, such creativity in which the created object appears before its creator as an object. This is the only case when the creator enjoys the created object. This word "enjoyment", related to the concrete awareness of the readable work, indicates quite clearly that we are confronted with the deep structure of aesthetic joy. This is the pleasure derived from the consciousness of one's leadership in relation to the object that is perceived as the main one, this part of the aesthetic consciousness I would call a sense of security. It is this that endows the strongest aesthetic feelings with the highest calmness. It is the product of a strict harmony of the subjective and the objective. But, in its essence, an aesthetic object is an external world, since creativity is directed at it through imaginary worlds. Aesthetic joy is generated by the understanding that the world is a value, or a burden, offered to human freedom.

This I call an aesthetic change in human thoughts. As a rule, we see the world as the horizon of our situation, as an infinite distance separating us from ourselves, as a unity of obstacles and instruments of action. But we never perceive the world as a demand addressed to our freedom. It turns out that aesthetic joy is brought by the consciousness that I absorb into myself something that basically is not me. I transform the given into an imperative, and the fact into a value. The world is my burden, that is, the main and voluntarily taken function of my freedom. It consists in giving life to that unique and absolute object, which is the universe. Thirdly, the considered elements contain a certain contract between human freedoms. On the one hand, reading is a trusting and exacting recognition of the freedom of the writer, and on the other hand, aesthetic pleasure received in the aspect of value carries an absolute demand in relation to the other. It is a requirement that any person, to the extent of their freedom, experience the same pleasure in reading the same book. Thus, all of humanity finds itself in a state of maximum freedom, supporting the existence of a world that is both its world and the "external" world. Aesthetic joy brings conditioned consciousness. This consciousness creates an image of the world in its entirety, a world that already exists and at the same time should be, as the world is completely ours and completely alien. He is all the more ours, the more he is a stranger. And the unconditioned consciousness actually contains a harmonic set of human freedoms, since it creates an object from the trust of all and the requirements of all. To write means both to expose the world and at the same time to offer it as a burden for the generosity of the reader. This means using someone else's consciousness to achieve your leadership in the totality of being. It means wanting this leadership to be put into practice through intermediaries. On the other hand, real world reveals itself only before the action, and you can feel yourself in it only by taking a step towards it in order to change it. The world of the novelist would not have enough relief, vitality, if the reader did not discover it in the process of movement changing this world. We have often seen that the intensity of the life of a subject in a story is determined not by the number of lengthy descriptions but by the complexity of its connections with other characters. It will seem to us the more real, the more often it will be manipulated, picked up, put in place. In short, the more often the characters will subdue him on the way to their goals. Everything is exactly the same for the world of the novel, that is, for the totality of people and things. For its maximum credibility, it is necessary that exposure - creativity through which the reader discovers this world - becomes, as it were, participation in action. In other words, the more you want the world of romance, the more alive it is. The mistake of realism was that it believed that reality was open to contemplation and that it was therefore possible to create an unbiased picture of it. How can this be if perception itself is biased, if even the name of an object is already its change? How can a writer who aspires to be a leader in the created world want to be complicit in the injustices that exist in this world? However, it has to. But if he agrees to become the creator of injustices, then only on condition of their destruction. With regard to the reader, it can be said that if he creates an unjust world and maintains its existence, then he cannot escape responsibility for it. And the author uses all his art to force the reader to create what he has exposed, that is, to include him in the work. Therefore, both are responsible for the world of the novel. This happens because it is supported by the joint efforts of two freedoms and that the author has tried through the reader to merge with humanity. It is necessary that this world appear in its deepest essence, be viewed from all sides and be supported by freedom. This freedom aims at universal human freedom. If the world of the novel is not the City of ends, as it should be, let it at least become a stage on the way to that City. It must be judged and depicted not as a force hanging over us and threatening to destroy us, but from the point of view of how close it has come to this City of Goals. A work of art must always look magnanimous, no matter how evil and desperate the humanity represented in it may be. Of course, the point is not that this generosity is manifested in didactic advice and virtuous characters. It doesn't have to be intentional either. You can't create only from good feelings good book. But generosity must be the essence of the book, the fabric from which people and things are made. This does not depend on the plot - there must be an organic lightness in the work, reminding us that the work of art is not at all a natural grace, but a demand and a gift. And if this world is presented to me along with its injustices, it is not for me to dispassionately consider them. This is done so that my indignation will breathe life into them, expose and recreate all this, preserving the nature of injustices as evil-uses-to-be-destroyed. The world of the writer is exposed to its very essence only through the reader's perception of it, the reader's indignation or admiration. His generous love is a vow to imitate, and his generous indignation is a vow to change. Despite the fact that literature and morality are completely different things, behind the aesthetic imperative we always feel the moral imperative.

The writer, by the very fact that he has begun to do this, recognizes the freedom of the reader, and the reader, by the mere fact that he has begun to read, recognizes the freedom of the writer. This suggests that, from any point of view, a work of art is, in essence, an act of trust in the sphere of human freedom. Both the reader and the author acknowledge this freedom one after the other, only to demand its manifestation. Hence, a work of art can be defined as a mental representation of the world to the extent required by human freedom.

First of all, it follows from this that there is no black literature. In whatever gloomy colors the world is portrayed, it is done so that free] people experience their freedom before it. Therefore, there are only good and bad novels. A bad romance is one that flatters in order to please, while a good one is a demand and an act of trust. It is important here that the only aspect in which the artist can offer peace to the freedoms of reading, which he intended to realize all at once, is a world in which as much freedom as possible can be introduced.

It is impossible to imagine that the impulse of generosity aroused by the writer could cause injustice. Similarly, the reader will not use his freedom to read a work that accepts or simply refuses to condemn the enslavement of man by man. It is possible that a black American will write good romance. Even if there is hatred for the whites in him, then through this hatred he will only demand freedom for his race. He will invite me into a position of generosity, and when I experience seemingly pure freedom, I will not be able to bear to be reckoned with the white race of oppressors. Against the white race and myself, because I am part of it, I appeal to all freedoms to demand the liberation of the colored. But at the same time, no one can even imagine that it is possible to write a good novel in defense of anti-Semitism. After all, it cannot be expected that at the moment when I feel the inseparable connection of my freedom with the freedom of all other people, I will freely agree with the enslavement of some of them. Therefore, for any writer, essayist, pamphleteer, satirist or novelist, whether he speaks only about personal problems or denounces the social regime, for the writer as a free man, appealing to free people, there is only one single theme - freedom.

If this is so, then any attempt to enslave readers threatens the very essence of art. Fascism is able to arouse the sympathy of the blacksmith as a person, but he will not necessarily serve fascism with his craft. And the writer serves both as a person and as an artist, moreover, as a craft to a much greater extent than as a private life. I observed writers who, before the war, glorified fascism with all their hearts and turned out to be fruitless precisely when the Nazis showered them with honors. Here I mean, first of all, Drieux la Rochelle. He was sincerely mistaken and proved it. Having headed the magazine inspired by the Nazis, he immediately began to scold, scold, and blame his compatriots. There was no answer, because people were not free to do so. He was dejected because he no longer felt his readers. Despite his insistence, there was not a single sign that he was understood: no hatred, no anger - nothing. Apparently, he was confused and, losing more and more self-control, began to complain bitterly about the Germans. The articles were good, they became caustic. Finally, he began to beat his chest. Silence. No response. Only the corrupt newspapermen, whom he despised, raised their voices. He left, returned to the magazine, again turned into people - and again into the void. Finally, he fell silent, the silence of others forced him to do so. Previously, he demanded the enslavement of these people, but in his madness he thought that they would agree to this, which means that it would be free. The people were enslaved. As a person, he could congratulate himself on this, but as a writer he could not bear it. At the time, others—fortunately, most—understood that creative freedom also included civil freedom. Don't write for slaves. The art of prose can only coexist with one regime in which it makes sense: democracy. When one is in danger, the other is in danger. And then you need to protect not only with a pen. The day will come when the pen must be laid aside and the writer must take up arms. However you arrive at it, regardless of your beliefs, literature throws you into the fray. To write means simply to desire freedom in this way. As soon as you decide to do it, under duress or of your own free will, you are engaged.

Engaged in what? – you will be surprised. The answer is simple: protect freedom. Is it necessary to become a guardian of ideals, like Bend's cleric, before treason, or to defend concrete everyday freedom, becoming a participant in political and social struggle? This question is inextricably linked with another, seemingly obvious, but it is never asked to oneself: "For whom does the writer write?"