Russian literary criticism of the 20th century. History of Russian literary criticism of the twentieth century

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

History of Russian literary criticism of the twentieth century

TOPIC 1. General characteristics of the course “IRLK of the 20th century”

Increased attention to the problems of the theory and history of LC is one of the characteristic features of modern literature. process. This is explained by the role that literature plays at the present stage, and the importance assigned to criticism in the fate of literature and the cultural and historical life of society as a whole. The specificity of LC lies in the fact that a critic must simultaneously combine a scientist, politician, artist, ethics, and aesthetics.

LK is an independent genre that comprehends the current moment in literature. This is one of the types of lit. creativity, evaluation and interpretation of art. works and life phenomena reflected in it. LK strives to understand and explain the art. work.

Criticism (with Greek language- judgment) has always corresponded to the phenomena that it judges, therefore it is a creation of reality, it is a mirror of social life. LK either comes close to literature (the critic, as it were, recreates what the artist has written anew, rethinking it in accordance with what is given by the author and comparing it with reality; criticism serves as a means of understanding life and influencing it), then with science (when it is argued that criticism is characterized by historicism , theoretical thoroughness, general aesthetic criteria).

LC studies current literature and must see in it both the roots of the past and the shoots of the future. The critic not only interprets art. works, but also corrects the hindrances of creativity and directs the artist’s attention to one side or another, depending on historical conditions. It helps the reader understand the artist’s collected experience. The artist creates a work, and the critic includes this work in the literary system, where it acquires its modern meaning and begins to play its social role.

Criticism is intended for both the reader and the writer. A. Lunacharsky noted: “Striving to become a useful teacher of a writer, a critic must also be a teacher of the reader.” In order for a critic to have the right to criticize a writer, it is necessary that he be more talented than him, know the history and life of the country better than the writer knows, and be intellectually superior to the writer.

The goals of LC are twofold. On the one hand, the critic is called upon to help readers correctly understand and appreciate the works he examines;

on the other hand, the responsibility of the critic is to promote the further creative growth of the writers themselves. Pointing out positive and negative sides one or another lit. works, the critic helps writers consolidate what is valuable and overcome what is erroneous.

Criticism inevitably arises and exists wherever there is literature. In the interrelationship of “thin. literature - lit. “criticism” is always primary literature, since it is literature that considers, comprehends, and analyzes it. criticism. Lit. the critic is a pioneer. He is one of the first to seek to determine the value parameters of the text.

Types of lit. criticism: professional, writer, reader.

Professional LC is the science of discovering the beauties and shortcomings of works of literature. PLC is unthinkable outside the atmosphere of lit. disputes and polemical discussions. Traditional genres PLC - critical articles, reviews, reviews, essays, bibliographic notes, annotations.

Writer's LC implies literary-critical and critical-journalistic performances of writers. The literary-critical position of the writer is expressed in notes, diary-like reflections, epistolary confessions, and judgments about modern literature.

Reader's LK - various reasoned reactions to modern art. literature belonging to people not professionally associated with literature. business. CHLK is imbued with the spirit of confession. Each reader is his own critic, for he thinks and judges what he reads. The most common genre of CLKs are letters addressed to writers and professional critics. CHLK is reflections on modern literature. life.

LC actively participates in the implementation of the main functions of the press - propaganda, agitation, and organization.

The propaganda function is carried out primarily through the publication of problematic articles that pose promising questions and, through this analysis, contribute to the education of readers, the rise of their culture, and the ability to independently understand the phenomena of art.

The propaganda function is aimed at forming value guidelines of public consciousness, thanks to the assessment and analysis of specific facts of the current literary art. life.

The organizational function is most clearly revealed in the fact that journalistically identifying and outlining certain trends in the arts. process, LC thereby organizes their development, helps to unite and concentrate creative forces around them.

Literature is impossible without criticism. The march of literature is always accompanied by critical thought. A writer who gives a new book to millions of readers tremblingly awaits fame or infamy. It is the critic who leads him to glory or throws him into ignominy. The critic contributes to the success or failure of a new work, the creation or collapse of literature. authorities, lit. glory.

TOPIC 2. Genres of literary criticism

The division of critical genres into groups is carried out primarily according to the object of study: work - author - process. In accordance with this, we can talk about three supporting genres - review, creative portrait, article.

The analysis and evaluation of a work is carried out by a review (from Latin - consideration, examination). Any completed work is subject to review, but a review of works of literature has special qualities. In reviewing works, a huge place is occupied by descriptions and presentation of the essence of discoveries and inventions.

A review is a review, critical analysis and evaluation of thin. or scientific work. A review can be close to an abstract, but extensive articles are also possible, where the author puts forward a number of social, scientific, and aesthetic problems. The aesthetic fundamental principle of reviewer activity is the correct reading of a work from the point of view of how holistic it is, unified in its content and form. The art of a reviewer is not only to read the work accurately and with inspiration, to grasp the author’s intention, but also to independently interpret the complex set of all elements of the work, their connection and meaning. The reviewer's task is to give an objective assessment of the work.

The individuality of the artist and his creative image are expressed in the main genre - the creative portrait, in the monographic portrait description of the artist. writer's activities. In the system of varieties of this genre, the widest range is possible - from a focus primarily on creative problems to information about creative plans and biographical facts. In a creative portrait there may be a predominant interest in the facts of the artist’s biography, his art. the world, to the connection of biography and creativity with reality.

Genres of creative portrait: biographical portrait, critical-biographical essay, essay of creativity.

The task of a critical article is to reveal, analyze, and evaluate the essential aspects of literary art. process., interpret, generalize, evaluate facts, events, phenomena. At the center of a critical article is always a topical, moral, aesthetic problem. Scientificity is an indispensable property of an article.

There are a number of types of article genre. Their distinction is based on two features: function and style intonation.

The theoretical article is devoted to ideological and theoretical issues of literature. Its function is to raise theoretical questions. Style is the language of scientific speech. An anniversary article is associated with a significant date and is functionally focused on presenting the artist’s positive contribution to culture. The essay is distinguished by a greater revelation of the personal lyrical principle, the author's desire for stylistic and compositional grace. The function of an essay is to find in the reader a logical and emotional response to any vital issues raised in them.

Polemical article. The means of speech in this type of article are subject to polemics; irony and rhetorical questions are usually widely used. The general tone of a polemical article is almost always elevated. The creative concern of a true critic-polemicist is to write in such a way that it is not “boring”, but at the same time convey to the reader a convincing analysis of those phenomena that provoke the critic to debate.

TOPIC 3. Analysis of the work

The beginning of the work of the critic - analysis of art. works. This is the most important part of critical work, since without a deep, thorough, creative analysis of the work, subsequent theoretical generalizations, observations, and conclusions are impossible. The critic’s thinking process can be divided into 4 phases:

1. Perception of thinness. works.

The process of analysis begins not after the work has been perceived in full, but already during familiarization with it, when the most important impressions are deposited in the mind, hypotheses arise that require final verification.

2. Reflect on what you read. The critic thinks:

1) what the work (topic) is about,

2) what is it the main idea(idea),

3) what are his heroes (types, characters),

4) how they are related to each other (plot),

5) in what time sequence the events are composed by the author (composition),

6) as the heroes speak (language),

Reflections on the “components” are covered by a single thought of the critic: in the name of what the author addresses the reader with his work, what new and significant he was able to tell them and how much he spiritually enriched his contemporaries.

3. The critic internally builds the framework of his article.

4. Writing an article, review.

Some practical techniques critical skill.

First of all, a critical work must have internal compositional unity, an internal logic of the movement of thought. And this logic is revealed from the very first line. The critic, like the writer, faces the problem of beginning. The critic's task is to start in an interesting and exciting way. The beginning of an article can immediately form the author’s main idea, it can contain a general thought or description, it can represent a quotation from a work that is noteworthy for its content or the artist’s stylistic manner.

Thus, the beginning of an article or review is unique for each critic. The first phrases captivate, introducing you to the essence of the matter.

The beginning, the exposition is only one of the elements of the compositional structure of a critical speech. The compositional components of an article can include detailed reasoning during the analysis process and a relatively large number of quotations from the text.

The most important form of embodiment of critical individuality is the style of presentation. The critic strives by the very everyday style to maintain a confidential level of communication with the reader.

TOPIC 4. Literary criticism of the 1920s - early 1930s

This period of criticism is characterized by an intense search for ways to do better. images of reality. These searches drew into their orbit different ideological and aesthetic convictions and art. experience of writers, determined the problems and severity of criticism and ended with the approval of the social method in Soviet literature. realism.

The LC of the 20s is a multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon. In the 20s, there was no consensus on what LC should be, how it relates to thin. literature and what its purposes are. The difficulties in the development of LC are explained by the complexity of the circumstances of the development of literature in the first years of the revolution. Group biases often led to the refusal of analysis, to the expression of only emotional impressions, when objectivity and provability were lost in the heat of controversy.

The high quality, thoroughness, and effectiveness of LC are becoming an object of concern for literary scholars; in the 20s they tried to raise the authority of LC. When they wrote about the purpose of LC in the 20s, they identified several aspects on which it should conduct its research:

1. ideological orientation of art. works,

2. degree and quality of thin. embodiment of the writer's idea,

3. the nature of the impact on the reader.

The vector of criticism in the 20s was aimed at both writers and readers. The critic most often found himself in the role of a mediator, an observer in the polemical dialogue between the writer and the reader. The critic took upon himself the development of a model of the writer’s literary behavior, methods of his contact with the reader, and writing techniques. At the same time, the critic suggested to the reader what his rights were in the new social literature. situation, what can be demanded from the writer. The critic was the one who demonstrated knowledge of everything.

Number of lit. It is difficult to even take into account the groupings of the first years of the revolution. Many of them appeared and disappeared with extraordinary speed, leaving no trace behind. In Moscow alone in 1920 there were more than 30 litas. groups. The largest lit. The groups of those years that cultivated predominantly poetic genres were futurists, imagists, and proletkultists.

Futurists (from Latin - future) united around such poets as V. Mayakovsky, I. Severyanin, V. Khlebnikov. These were artists with a complex worldview. In their collections “The Rye Word” and “A Slap in the Face of Public Taste,” the futurists declared themselves adherents of a new art in literature; they asserted themselves as transformers of art.

The futurists wanted to rebuild Russian literature, destroy syntax and grammar for the sake of freedom of the inventor, and create an “abstruse” language.

Futurists denied all previous experience and called for admiring the word, regardless of its meaning. They opposed the mass character and accessibility of literary works. For the futurists, there was no art as a special form of reflection of reality.

By the beginning of the 20s, the group of futurists broke up, but as its continuation in 1922, the group “LEF” arose (from the name of the magazine “Left Front”, which was published by V. Mayakovsky). They denied everything. genres, only the essay, report, and slogan were recognized. They declared human feelings, the ideals of goodness, love, happiness - weaknesses; the criteria of beauty became strength, energy, speed.

Prominent theorist and lit. Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky (1893-1984) became a critic of LEF. Shklovsky's literary critical works were dedicated to A. Akhmatova, E. Zamyatin, A. Tolstoy, K. Fedin, L. Leonov, M. Zoshchenko. Reviewing what he read, Shklovsky sought to identify the specifics of art. a technique that ensures the writer’s creative discoveries.

A group of imagists (Shershenevich, S. Yesenin, R. Ivnev) declared themselves adherents of the new reality, although they could not comprehend its features. Imagists sought to replace the word with an image. They expel the verb, free themselves from grammar, against prepositions. They tried to deprive poetry of its vital content, ideological orientation. The theme and content are not the main thing in a work, the Imagists believed.

Shershenevich: “We are happy, we have no philosophy. We do not build logic of thoughts. The logic of certainty is strongest.” The image was understood by the Imagists as a certain component of lit. product - a term that can be repeatedly replaced by others. S. Yesenin, convinced of the futility of the basic principles of the Imagists, left this group, which soon ceased to exist.

In the period between the February and October revolutions of 1917, one of the most massive literary arts was created. organizations - Proletkult, which played a decisive role in the development of literature and LC in the 20s.

Proletkult became the most massive organization in those years, the closest to revolutionary tasks. It united a large group of writers and poets who came mainly from working-class backgrounds.

In the period from 1917 to 1920, Proletkult formed its branches in almost all cities of the country, publishing about 20 litas. magazines. Among them, the magazines “Gryadushchee”, “Gorn”, “Gudki”, “Create!” became the most famous. The main proletcult ideas are presented in the magazines “Proletarskaya Kultura” and “Zori”.

Proletkult initially had serious support in the Soviet government, since the People's Commissar of Education, whose jurisdiction also included issues of art, A.V. Lunacharsky himself willingly published his writing experiences in proletkult publications.

The publications of Proletkult not only gave clear instructions on how to work, but also on what the literary and critical production of the new era should be like. Proletkult set creative and mass educational goals. The combative orientation of the poetry of proletkult poets (M. Gerasimov, V. Aleksandrovsky, V. Kirillov), the expression of the thoughts, feelings, and moods of the working class, the glorification of Russia - all this gave it the features of a new, aesthetic phenomenon. The themes of suffering and sorrow, forced labor, characteristic of pre-October labor poetry, are replaced by motifs of light and truth. Hence the images of the sun, sky, rainbow, endless ocean, acting as an allegory of the globe freed from the chains of slavery.

But for all its merits, Proletkult could not become a true exponent and organizer of revolutionary literature. One of the main reasons for this was his erroneous theoretical platform. One of the first leaders of Proletkult was Alexander Bogdanov (Malinovsky) (1873-1928) - a medical scientist, philosopher, participant in Bolshevik publications at the beginning of the century.

Proletkultists contrasted proletarian literature and culture with all that preceded it. “A working writer should not study, but create,” they believed. A serious drawback in the activities of Proletkult was caste (isolation). Setting themselves the goal of attracting and educating writers from the working class, the Proletkultists isolated them from other strata of society - the peasantry, the intelligentsia. They looked arrogantly at everyone who was “not from the machine.”

Bogdanov was removed from the activities of Proletkult, after which he completely focused on scientific work. Bogdanov organized the world's first scientific institute blood transfusions. Having become the director of the institute, Bogdanov performed a number of dangerous medical procedures on himself. experiments, one of which ended in the death of the scientist.

On December 1, 2020, the Pravda newspaper published a letter from the RCP(b) “On Proletkults,” which criticized their activities and pointed out serious mistakes made by Proletkult. The organization gradually began to lose its activity and in 1932. ceased to exist.

Proletkult is being replaced by RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers). Despite the fact that Proletkult will be dissolved only in 1932, the Proletkult members actually lose power much earlier, with the consolidation of the power of RAPP - an organization that emphasizes its ideological and aesthetic connection with Proletkult.

Rapp’s publications (“At the literary post”) demanded a tone that should determine the reader’s attitude towards the writer. Readers' appeals, written in a cheeky manner that reached the point of outright rudeness, were readily published. Writers were constantly explained that they were indebted to the reader, and the reader felt like the master of the situation in literature. The reader was confident that literature is only part of the “general proletarian cause,” and it exists and develops according to the laws of life and development of any proletarian branch. Newspapers and magazines were full of headlines: “Social. agreement between writers and schoolchildren of Donbass”, “Under the control of the masses”, “Report of writers to the masses”, “Listen, comrade writers!” All these slogan headlines introduced into the mass consciousness the idea of ​​the subordination of writers to the people, the subordination of literature. life.

Voronsky Alexander Konstantinovich (1884-1943) - writer and lit. critic, Bolshevik. In 1921, at the suggestion of Lenin, he organized and headed the first Soviet thick literary-artist. "Krasnaya Nov" magazine. Voronsky saw his mission in the consolidation of writers professing different aesthetic principles. He creates lit.-art. group “Pereval” and an almanac with this name, publishes in its publications the works of writers who are members of various creative associations.

The main criterion to which Voronsky submits when selecting lit. texts, there was a criterion for artistry. Defending the writer’s right to his own path in literature, Voronsky created a number of brilliant articles in the literary genre. portrait - “E. Zamyatin", V. Korolenko", "A. Tolstoy", "S. Yesenin."

Polonsky Vyacheslav Pavlovich (1886-1932) - journalist, lit. critic.

He began his active work as editor of the first Soviet critical and bibliographic journal “Print and Revolution” (until 1926) and literary art. magazine "New World" (1926-1929) Polonsky's main interest was associated with the figurative system of lit. works. In lit. portraits dedicated to M. Gorky, B. Pilnyak, Yu. Olesha, Polonsky sought to outline the art. the uniqueness of the writer, to delve into the poetics of his works, to understand the peculiarities of his stylistic manner. IN modern works the critic discovered their romantic character, seeing bad things in romance. the conquest of new literature.

By the end of the 20s, Polonsky was experiencing strong pressure from Rapp’s criticism. He talks about the connection between the political and aesthetic revolution. The critic creates a “contagion theory” and writes that the reader, perceiving a work, becomes infected with its ideas, but the socially savvy reader has the appropriate immunity, and therefore cannot become infected with harmful ideas.

In 1929, V. Polonsky was removed from editing magazines. In 1929-1932. he was the director of the Museum of Fine Arts.

Conclusions: Lit. critics of the 20s often showed limited knowledge of art history; they were dogmatic, but for the most part they sincerely believed in their own rightness, in the party mandate, in the speedy degeneration of public consciousness. They were replaced by a new galaxy of litas. critics. Later researchers would call them people with totalitarian thinking. They not only fit into the new system of literary and social relations, but also supported and promoted it in every possible way. At the same time, fear for one’s own reputation imperceptibly grew into fear for one’s own life and the life of one’s loved ones. LK dramatically changed the line of her destiny.

TOPIC 5. Literary criticism of the 30s

By the beginning of the 1930s, social and literary life in the country was changing significantly. In the history of lit. critics The 30s were a time of old mistakes and misconceptions. If in the 20s lit. the situation was formed and determined by the LC, then, starting from 1929, lit. life, like life in the country as a whole, took place within the strict framework of Stalinist ideology. With the acceleration and brutalization of totalitarianism, literature constantly found itself in the area of ​​close attention of the party leadership.

What was unique about the 1930s was that the theory of socialism came to the fore. realism. Social realism is the main method of art. literature and LC, which requires the writer to provide a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. Social realism provided art. creativity an exceptional opportunity to demonstrate creative initiative, choose a variety of styles and genres.

In the pre-congress period (1933-1934), about 60 articles and reviews devoted to Soviet literature were published in the journal “LK” alone. The breadth of coverage was evidenced by the range of names: articles about Gorky, Gladkov, Sholokhov, Zoshchenko.

In 1934, M. Gorky managed to fulfill the social function assigned to him by the leader, managed to “reunite” the Soviet writers who were part of different groups and associations. This is how the plan for creating the Union of Soviet Writers was implemented. Many Soviet writers were enthusiastic about the idea of ​​the Union, as there was an urgent need to consolidate writers in a single organization on a common ideological and creative basis.

On April 23, 1932, a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted “On the restructuring of literary art. organizations”, which was the result of a mature process of transformation of the organizational foundations of lit. affairs. This decree dissolved all existing organizations, and the Union of Soviet Writers was created.

6.08.34 The All-Union Conference of Critics was held. The main topics of the speakers' presentations are questions of Sov. Critics, the role of criticism in connection with the development of poetry, prose, drama.

The 1st Congress of Writers opened on August 17, 1934 and lasted 2 weeks. The congress was held as a great all-Union holiday, the main character of which was M. Gorky. He opened the congress and made a report on it “On Social. realism”, concluded the work of the congress. V. Shklovsky, L. Leonov, B. Pasternak gave bright speeches.

The 1st congress demonstrated the unity of word artists. In his report, Gorky emphasized that Soviet literature is based on art. traditions of Russian and world literature, folk art. From the rostrum of the congress, Soviet writers spoke about their duty to the people, about their desire to devote all their strength and ability to creating works worthy of their time. The congress gave impetus to the development and mutual enrichment of the national. literature Leading themes in literature: national-patriotic, internationalism, friendship of peoples. At the congress, issues of national development were discussed. Literature of the peoples of the USSR of world significance Sov. liters.

On September 2, 1934, the 1st plenum of the board of the Union of Soviets took place. writers. M. Gorky was elected chairman of the board. Until the death of the writer in 1936, lit. life in the country passed under the sign of Gorky, who did a lot to increase the authority of the owls. literature in the world.

After the writers unite into a single union, after uniting them around a common aesthetic methodology, literature begins. an era in which writers were well aware that they must submit to a program of creative and human behavior. Not entering the Union or leaving it, being expelled from the Writers' Union meant losing the right to publish one's works. If in the 20s a “guilty” critic could lose the trust of his party comrades, then in the 30s he lost his life.

Ermilov Vladimir Vladimirovich (1904-1965) - literary critic and lit. critic, active participant in all literary party discussions of different decades. In 1926-1929 he edited the magazine “Young Guard”, in 1932-1938 he headed the editorial office of “Krasnaya Novi”, in 1946-1950 “Lit. newspaper". In the 30s, V. Ermilov focused on monographic studies of the works of M. Koltsov, M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky.

Fadeev Alexander Alexandrovich (1901-1956) - before last days combined lit. activity with a lot of organizational, critical work. Fadeev's literary and social activities throughout his life were intense and varied: he was the organizer of the Sov. liters, heading the Union of Soviets after Gorky. writers, prominent public figure, editor, peace activist, mentor to young owls. writers.

1939-1944 - Secretary of the Presidium of the Union of Sov. writers, 1946-1953 - General Secretary of the Union. Their lit.-crit. He dedicated his speeches to connections between literature and Soviets. reality. This was dictated by the needs of the Stalin era: it was necessary to write and talk about the social role of literature. Problems of the classical heritage, internationalism of the Soviet Union. literature, social realism, the creative individuality of the writer - all these issues that were covered in Fadeev’s articles make it possible to evaluate his contribution to the theory of owls. liters.

From Fadeev’s article “Social. realism is the main method of the Soviets. liters" (1934):

“Social realism presupposes the scope of creative quests, expansion of thematic horizons, and the development of various forms, genres, and styles. The idea of ​​social realism should be the essence of the work, embodied in images. The cause of the working class must become the personal cause of the writer. To rejoice, love, suffer, hate together with the working class - this will give deep sincerity, emotion. saturation thin creativity and will increase the strength of his thin. impact on the reader."

From Fadeev’s article “My personal experience- to the beginning author" (1932):

“To accurately express everything that lives in your mind, you need to work a lot on the word: the Russian language is rich, and there are many words to express certain concepts. One must be able to use those words that would most accurately express the thoughts that concern the artist. This requires a lot of persistent work on the word.”

In the 1930s and subsequent years, Stalin met with writers, giving guidance and evaluating new literature; he filled his speech with quotes and images from Russian and world classics. Stalin, in the role of literary critic and critic, takes on the functions of literature. courts of last resort.

In 1934-1935, articles appeared that explored the innovative features of the historical novel and the relationship between the historical novel and real history. In 1936-1937, the problem of nationality became especially acute. An attempt was made to explore the interaction of the writer with the people. The development of the LC in the mid-30s was under the sign of the ideas of nationality and realism. During these years, the historical works of A. Tolstoy “Peter 1”, “Walking through Torment”, M. Gorky “The Life of Klim Samgin” were written. N. Ostrovsky “How the steel was tempered.”

A generation of poets who were direct participants in social life is becoming active in poetry. transformations as essayists, rural correspondents, propagandists (A. Tvardovsky, M. Isakovsky, A. Surkov, A. Prokofiev). Soviet literature began to take a more thorough approach to truthful reproduction folk life, but there were serious difficulties in its development due to the peculiarities of the class struggle, the complexity of the domestic and international situation, and Stalin’s personality cult had a negative impact on the development of literature.

One of the first discussions to have great importance, there was a discussion “On Language” (1934). In M. Gorky’s article “On Language” there was advice: “Take care of the language, read epics, fairy tales - in them you will find beauty and hear the folk language.” In Gorky's article, he touched upon the problem of language, its development and enrichment. The writer fought for purity, clarity, and clarity of language. works. The discussion “On Language” was of great importance for the definition of ideological principles. tasks of owls liters. During that period, it was especially necessary to wage a fight against far-fetched word creation, against the abuse of various local dialects and jargons. It was a fight against clogging the language and reducing its role.

M. Gorky focused the attention of writers on the experience of the classics of Russian literature, emphasizing that from them comes the tradition of language mastery, the selection of the simplest and most meaningful words. Gorky: “The classics teach us that the simpler, clearer the semantic and figurative content of a word, the more strong, truthful and stable the image of the landscape and its influence on a person, the image of a person’s character and his attitude towards people.”

Discussion “On Formalism” (1936). General features of formalism: opposition of art and reality, separation of art. forms from ideological content. Formalists believed that there is no connection between form and content. This is not true. Content is the internal meaning of the form, since the formal nature is: style, speech, genre, composition, and the content is the theme, idea, plot, conflict.

Discussion “On vulgar sociologism” (1936). The main features of the VS-ma: the establishment of a direct dependence of lit. creativity from economic decisions, the class nature of the writer, the desire to explain the world by economic factors. Not only before the dissolution of RAPP, but also after the formation of the Union of Sov. writers used the following concepts in their articles: “kulak literature.” “peasant literature”, “literature of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia”. There was no feeling of a single owl. liters. This fragmentation of literature was due to supporters of vulgar sociologism.

Never before has scientific and public interest in Russian and world classics intensified as much as in the 30s. The creative experience of the classics was actively used in critical discussions: “On dramaturgy”, “On the language of art. Literary", "About the Historical Novel". These discussions helped to understand the innovative nature of owls. liters. Periodicals of those years made their contribution to the development of LC. In addition to the aforementioned magazine “LK”, the magazine “Lit. study" and "Lit. newspaper”, which began publishing in 1929.

TOPIC 6. Periodical literary critical publications of the 20-30s

“Print and Revolution” is a magazine of criticism that published articles on the theory and history of literature, philosophy, politics, music, and reviews.

“Soviet Art” is a newspaper that covered the theatrical and musical life of the country, and paid attention to art, cinema, and architecture. The newspaper held discussions on current problems Soviet art.

"Soviet Theater" - a magazine on theater and drama. The magazine paid main attention to issues of current theatrical life.

“Our Achievements” - the magazine was founded by M. Gorky, it was designed to show the achievements of our country. It published the best essays about various aspects of the life and activities of the Soviet people.

“Reader and Writer” is a weekly newspaper that provides information about the output of Gosizdat and contains articles of an educational nature about historical events, public and state. figures, writers. For speeches by representatives of various lit. groupings, the newspaper devoted a “writer’s page”, where these representatives stated their positions and responded to the events of the lit. life.

“30 days” - the magazine was popular among readers. It published short essays and stories, and provided various information about production achievements and new products in the field of culture, art and sports.

“Lit. critic" - the magazine examines the problems of: nationality and class, the relationship between realism and romanticism in the creative method of Sov. literature, traditions and innovation, the struggle for the purity of literature. language. All this found a lively response in the magazine. Discussion of these problems was expressed in the form of heated discussions in which other lit. took part. publications of the country. Since 1936, the journal “LK” began publishing an appendix - “Lit. review”, where the works of Sov. literature of various genres.

“Lit. study" - the magazine was founded by Gorky. The main theme of the magazine was working with creative youth. The articles analyzed the work of novice writers.

“Young Guard” is a youth magazine, an organ for the ideological and aesthetic education of owls. youth. It published materials on a variety of topics from the fields of politics, science, history, and morality.

"New World" - lit-hood. and a socio-political magazine that played the role of a unifier of owls. writers. Classic works of owls appeared on its pages. literature “The Life of Klim Samgin”, “Virgin Soil Upturned”, “Quiet Don”, “Peter 1”.

TOPIC 7. Literary-critical activity of A.V. Lunacharsky

A. Lunacharsky (1875-1933) - critic, theorist, literary historian, party and government official. activist, a brilliant expert on history, philosophy, painting, theater. From 1917 to 1929, Lunacharsky was the People's Commissar of Education, whose functions included supervising all areas of art, including literature.

Possessing the gift of an extraordinary improviser and speaker, Lunacharsky constantly gave lectures in the first post-October years. He is an excellent polemicist. With the active participation of Lunacharsky, the first editions of Russian classics were published, whose work he knew perfectly, and could quote Nekrasov and L. Tolstoy on pages.

He played a huge role in the theoretical struggle for the methodological foundations of owls. liters. He was especially attentive to modern disputes and groups, entered into polemics, analyzed various trends in poetry, prose, and drama in the articles: “Issues of literature and drama,” “Ways of modern literature,” “On modern trends in Russian literature.” ry." In articles about the classics of Russian and world literature, Lunacharsky defended such important qualities of owls. literature, such as ideology, realism, nationality, humanism. Lunacharsky called for a deep assimilation of the classical heritage in the articles: “Read the classics”, “On the heritage of the classics”, “On the assimilation of the classics”.

In every possible way supporting the sprouts of new literature (articles about Furmanov, Leonov), promoting the owls. classics (articles about Gorky, Mayakovsky), Lunacharsky was concerned about the fate of literature as a whole. His critical and theoretical articles were a significant page in the history of the struggle for social services. realism.

The assessment of V. Mayakovsky’s activities was complex and contradictory. In articles by other critics, Mayakovsky's work was considered in connection with the aesthetic platform of the LEF group. Although critics noted Mayakovsky's talent, the negative attitude towards LEF extended to his work. Lunacharsky wrote about Mayakovsky like this: “We must talk about Mayakovsky from the point of view of a huge social and literary. the value of his work by carefully studying it.” His articles about Mayakovsky: “Life and Death”, “Poet of the Revolution”, “V. Mayakovsky is an innovator."

Lunacharsky: “The people are the creators of history, the proletariat, coming to master its great mission and its right to happiness. Hood. the image of a positive hero must be alive.” Lunacharsky found confirmation of his thoughts in the works of M. Gorky. In his works, critics were attracted by his proud challenge to society. He called Gorky’s epic “The Life of Klim Samgin” the driving force, the panorama of the era, in the article “Samghin”.

In 1929, A. Lunacharsky was removed from his post as People's Commissar, after which he became director of the Pushkin House. Soon he became seriously ill and went abroad for treatment. There he learned Spanish (the seventh language), as he was going to become a plenipotentiary in Spain, but he dies during the trip. The ashes of A. Lunacharsky were buried near the Kremlin wall in Moscow.

Makarov Alexander Nikolaevich (1912-1967) - deputy editor of “Lit. newspaper" and the magazine "Young Guard". As lit. critic, Makarov had a wide creative range. He wrote about M. Sholokhov, D. Bedny, E. Bagritsky, M. Isakovsky, V. Shukshin, K. Simonov. Gentleness and goodwill distinguish Makarov's critical style. In the little-known Siberian author V. Astafiev, Makarov saw genuine talent and predicted his path to “big literature.”

The critic never tried to “destroy” the author of an unsuccessful work, to offend him with an offensive word. He was more interested in predicting the development of literary creativity and, from the shortcomings of the work under review, “deducing” further routes that the author might seek to take.

Makarov: “Criticism is part of literature, its subject is man and his social life.”

TOPIC 8. Literary-critical activity of M. Gorky

Gorky (1868-1936): “The better we know the past, the easier, more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the present we are creating.” These words contain a deep meaning about the connection between literature and folk art, about mutual influence and mutual enrichment.

Nationality in literature is not reduced to depicting the life and situation of the masses. A truly popular writer in a class society is one who approaches the depiction of reality from the point of view of the working people and their ideals. A work is popular only when it truthfully and comprehensively reflects life and meets the urgent aspirations of the people.

Gorky viewed literature as a powerful means of understanding reality. Understanding reality, literature should make the reader feel and think. He considered the main condition for the implementation of this task to be a close study of life. Gorky in his articles raised the question of the relationship between literature and life, about the active invasion of literature into the life of the people, about the influence of art. creativity for raising owls. person.

By observing, the writer must study, compare, and understand the development of life in all its complexity and inconsistency. A writer must consider a person in the process of his formation, portray him in his works not only as he is today, but also as he should be and will be tomorrow. Gorky: “A book should make the reader become closer to life and think seriously about it.”

M. Gorky pointed out to writers the important role played by the writer’s ability to see, to imagine a person in his imagination, and warned against getting carried away by little things that interfere with a clear, distinct perception of him as a bright, living image. Little things often load the image, but at the same time they are necessary. From them it is necessary to select those characteristic things that express the essence of a person. A writer must look at his heroes as living people - and they will be alive when he finds, notes and emphasizes in any of them a characteristic feature of speech, gesture, face, smile.. By noting all this, the writer helps the reader to see better and hear what the writer depicts. A man-doer, a transformer of the world, should be the center of attention of literature.

An indissoluble connection with life, the depth of penetration into literature. process, truthful representation of lit. phenomena has passed, the aesthetic education of the people, the struggle for the quality of art. works, for the creation of worthy books that faithfully serve the cause of educating the working people - these are the features of the LC method.

The idea of ​​proletarian internationalism was central to Gorky’s creative ties with writers from many countries. His enormous role as a unifier of the progressive intelligentsia is generally recognized.

In Gorky's journalism during the revolutionary years, the theme of creation arises.

His articles: “The Path to Happiness”, “Conversations about Labor”, “On Knowledge”, “The Fight against Illiteracy” raised pressing issues related to the revival of Russia. Gorky: “Social. realism is creativity, the goal of which is the continuous development of individual human abilities.”

The scientific depth of Gorky’s judgments about the method of new art was manifested in his articles: “On social. realism”, “About literature”, “About prose”, “About language”, “About plays”, “Reader’s notes”, “Conversations with young people”.

The writer paid great attention to the problem of personality formation and the creation of conditions that ensure its growth. In the wide range of creative problems posed by M. Gorky, one of the important ones was the problem of traditions - the relationship to classical literature. heritage and folklore. " Folk art- this is the source of the national thin culture."

Gorky becomes the initiator of the publication and editor of the magazine “Our Achievements”. He also publishes the magazine Lit. study”, designed to provide basic consultations for newly minted writers. Gorky attached great importance to children's literature and published the magazine "Children's Literature", where literary critical articles are published and discussions arise about the books of A. Gaidar, S. Marshak, K. Chukovsky.

Gorky's principle of active participation in literature. life of the country and the widespread use of artistic means. criticism in the construction of a new culture has become the law of activity of many owls. writers. Reflecting on the features of the new art. method, about the place of literature in the life of the people, about the relationship between reader and writer, they turned to the experience of literature, to the work of their contemporaries, and often to the lessons of their own work. They appeared in print with articles, reviews, and notes in which they assessed the literature. phenomena posed pressing issues of writing. Thus, A. Fadeev, D. Furmanov, V. Mayakovsky, S. Yesenin, A. Serafimovich, A. Makarenko, A. Tolstoy, A. Tvardovsky, M. Sholokhov, K. Fedin, L. Leonov, K Simonov, S. Marshak.

TOPIC 9. Literary criticism of the 40s

In strengthening the efficiency of literature during the war years, considerable merit belongs to the central and front-line press. Almost every newspaper issue published articles, essays, and stories. The following works were published on the pages of the newspaper “Pravda”: N. Tikhonov “Kirov is with us”, A. Tvardovsky “Vasily Terkin”, Korneychuk “Front”, B. Gorbatov “The Unconquered”, M. Sholokhov “They Fought for the Motherland”. Writers of the war years mastered all types of literature. “weapons”: epic, lyric, drama.

Nevertheless, the first word was spoken by lyric poets and publicists. Spiritual closeness with the people is the most remarkable feature of the lyrics of the war years. Homeland, war, death, hatred of the enemy, the dream of victory, military camaraderie, thoughts about the fate of the people - these are the main motives around which poetic thought beats. The poets sought in their personal experiences to express national feelings and faith in victory. This feeling is conveyed with great force in A. Akhmatova’s poem “Courage,” written during the most difficult war winter - in February 1942.

During the war years, poems were written in which the man and his feat were glorified. The authors strive to reveal the character of the hero, correlating the narrative with military events. The feat in the name of the Motherland was glorified as a national fact. meanings (Aliger “Zoe”).

Journalism had a huge influence on all genres of literature during the war years, and above all on the essay. The essayists tried to keep up with military events and played the role of lit. "scouts". From them the world first learned about the feat of Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, about the feat of Panfilov’s men, about the heroism of the Young Guard.

The study of Russian literature did not stop during the war years. The focus of critics was on literature from the war period. The main goal of the LC of the 40s was patriotic service to the people. Although these were very difficult years, LK more or less lived actively and fulfilled her mission. And this is very important - while remaining generally principled, she did not make allowances for the circumstances of the war. Much work remains to be done to collect factual information relevant to criticism of the war years. At that time, part of the lit. magazines were published irregularly and lit. life has largely moved to the pages of newspapers. Characteristic of this period is the expansion of the rights and influence of the LC on the pages of newspapers.

In the 40s, the moral and educational functions of the LC intensified, its attention to issues of humanism, patriotism, and nationalism increased. traditions, which were considered in the light of the demands made by war.

Soviet critics made a great contribution to the study and understanding of the processes that took place during the war.

Report by A. Tolstoy “A Quarter of a Century of the Soviet Union.” literature" (1942). It establishes a periodization of the history of Russian literature, characterizes the features of each period, emphasizes innovation, humanistic, ideological, and moral foundations of Soviet literature.

Article by A. Fadeev “The Patriotic War and the Soviet Union. literature" (1942). This article is interesting for understanding the processes that took place during the war in literature. Fadeev emphasizes the peculiarities of Russian literature during the war years, speaks of the responsibility of the artist, who, in the days of great trials, thinks and feels together with his people.

Report by N. Tikhonov at the 9th Plenum of the Soviet Union. writers (1944) “Soviet literature in the days of the Second World War” was dedicated to the problem of the hero of the tragic era of the Soviet Union. liters.

TOPIC 10. Literary criticism of the 50s

At the first congress of the Sov. writers in 1934, it was decided to hold writers' congresses every 4 years. However, the 2nd Congress took place only in December 1954. At the congress, it should be noted the report of Boris Sergeevich Rurikov (1909-1969) “On the main problems of the Soviet Union. criticism”, in which he focused on issues that had been forgotten by the Soviets. lit-roy. He spoke out against the calm, fearless tone characteristic of criticism in recent years, and said that criticism should be born in a free struggle of opinions. At the same time, it is necessary to connect literary-critical assessments with the historical era when the work was created.

Rurikov emphasized the importance of the categories of aesthetics for literary criticism. work. He insisted on the need to explore the art. form lit. works. From 1953 to 1955 B. Rurikov was the editor-in-chief of Lit. newspapers", and from 1963 to 1969. editor of the magazine "Foreign Literature". Soon after the writers' congress, magazines began to be published: “Moscow”, “Neva”, “Don”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Russian Literature”, “Questions of Literature”.

In May 1956, A. Fadeev committed suicide. The suicide letter said: “I see no way to live further, since the art to which I gave my life was ruined by the self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party. The best cadres of literature were physically exterminated, the best people of literature died at a premature age thanks to the criminal connivance of those in power.” This letter was not published in those years.

Lit. life in the 50s was varied and difficult to imagine as a chain of sequential events. The main quality of literature and politics in general became inconsistency and unpredictability. This was largely due to the controversial figure of N.S. Khrushchev, leader of the government party until October 1964. Like his predecessors, party leaders, Khrushchev paid close attention to literature and art. He was convinced that the party and the state have the right to interfere in cultural issues and therefore often spoke to writers and the creative intelligentsia. Khrushchev spoke out for the simplicity and accessibility of art. works. Own lit. he presented tastes as a standard and scolded writers, filmmakers and artists for elements of abstractionism in their works. Evaluation lit. works should be given by the party, N. Khrushchev believed.

In October 1958, B.L. was expelled from the Writers' Union. Parsnip. The reason for this was the publication of the novel “Doctor Zhivago” in the Milan publishing house (in Italy). The party leadership began a campaign of condemnation. In factories, collective farms, universities, and writers' organizations, people who had not read the novel supported the methods of persecution, which ultimately led to the illness and death of the author in 1960. He was sentenced at a meeting of writers: “Pasternak was always an internal emigrant, he finally exposed himself as an enemy of the people and literature."

After the 2nd Writers' Congress, the work of the Writers' Union is improving, and congresses are held regularly. Each of them talks about the status and tasks of the LC. Since 1958, Congresses of Writers of the RSFSR will be added to the union congresses (the first one took place in 1958).

Lit. life was enlivened by the publication of regional literary and artistic works. magazines: “Rise”, “Sever”, “Volga”. The writer's LC has become more active. In the speeches of M. Sholokhov, M. Isakovsky, it was said about the need for a close connection between literature and life and national tasks, about the need for a constant struggle for the nationality of literature and high art. skill.

In the new conditions of public life, the LC received ample opportunities for further development. The increased level of LC is evidenced by the controversy surrounding the novels of Granin, Dudintsev, Simonov, and the poetry of Yevtushenko and Voznesensky. Among the most important discussions of this time, which played a significant role in the development of LC, lit. process as a whole, we can highlight: 1) “What is modernity?” (1958)

2) “The working class in modern Soviet Union.” lit-re" (1956)

3) “About different styles in social literature. realism" (1958)

Based on modern lit. process, these discussions revealed the main trends in the development of owls. liters, raised important theoretical problems. Participants in the discussions Andreev and Shaginyan raised a number of questions about the moral character of modern man, about the relationship between historicism and modernity. Problems were widely discussed: the writer and life, the character of owls. human, modern life and owls. Liter.

Similar documents

The origins of Russian literary criticism and discussions around its nature. Trends in modern literary process and criticism. The evolution of V. Pustova’s creative path as a literary critic of modern times, the traditionalism and innovation of her views.

thesis, added 06/02/2017


Periods of development of Russian literary criticism, its main representatives. Method and criteria of normative genre criticism. Literary and aesthetic ideas of Russian sentimentalism. The essence of romantic and philosophical criticism, the work of V. Belinsky.

course of lectures, added 12/14/2011


On the uniqueness of Russian literary criticism. Literary-critical activity of revolutionary democrats. The decline of the social movement of the 60s. Disputes between Sovremennik and Russian Word. The social upsurge of the 70s. Pisarev. Turgenev. Chernyshev

course work, added 11/30/2002


The state of Russian criticism of the 19th century: directions, place in Russian literature; major critics, magazines. Meaning of S.P. Shevyrev as a critic for journalism of the 19th century during the period of transition of Russian aesthetics from the romanticism of the 20s to the critical realism of the 40s.

test, added 09/26/2012


Classicist criticism until the end of the 1760s. N.I. Novikov and bibliographic criticism. N.M. Karamzin and the beginning of aesthetic criticism in Russia. A.F. Merzlyakov on guard of classicism. V.A. Zhukovsky between aesthetic and religious-philosophical criticism.

course of lectures, added 11/03/2011


Poetics N.S. Leskova (specifics of style and combination of stories). Translations and literary critical publications about N.S. Leskov in English-language literary criticism. Reception of Russian literature based on the story of N.S. Leskova "Lefty" in English-language criticism.

thesis, added 06/21/2010


Biography of the politician, critic, philosopher and writer A.V. Lunacharsky. Determining the significance of A.V.’s activities Lunacharsky for Soviet and Russian literature and criticism. Analysis of Lunacharsky's critical works and his assessment of M. Gorky's creativity.

abstract, added 07/06/2014


Russian literature of the 18th century. Liberation of Russian literature from religious ideology. Feofan Prokopovich, Antioch Cantemir. Classicism in Russian literature. VC. Trediakovsky, M.V. Lomonosov, A. Sumarokov. Moral researches of writers of the 18th century.

abstract, added 12/19/2008


A study of the work of Apollon Grigoriev - critic, poet and prose writer. The role of literary criticism in the work of A. Grigoriev. Analysis of the theme of national identity of Russian culture. The Grigoriev phenomenon is in the inextricable connection between the works and the personality of the author.

test, added 05/12/2014


Definition of a literary fairy tale. The difference between a literary fairy tale and science fiction. Features of the literary process in the 20-30s of the twentieth century. Tales of Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky. Fairy tale for children Yu.K. Olesha "Three Fat Men". Analysis of children's fairy tales by E.L. Schwartz.

Terminological minimum:periodization, Soviet period, literary criticism, literary process, party ideology, censorship, polycentrism, monism, socialist realism, conflict-free theory, “thick” magazines.

Plan

1. General characteristics of the literary-critical process of the Soviet period. Periodization of Soviet criticism.

2. The formation of Soviet criticism in the era of literary groups in Russia.

3. Formation of the institution of Soviet literary criticism in the 1930s.

4. Literary-critical atmosphere of the 1950s–1980s: the brightness of literary-critical individuals.

Literature

Texts to study

1. Ivanova, N. B. Between: On the place of criticism in the press and literature.

2. Lunacharsky, A.V. Theses on the policy of the Russian Communist Party in the field of literature.

3. Pomerantsev, V. M. On sincerity in literature.

4. Resolution of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of August 14, 1946 (On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad”).

5. Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” dated April 23, 1932.

6. Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) “On the party policy in the field of fiction” dated June 18, 1925.

Main

1. Golubkov, M. M. History of Russian literary criticism of the 20th century (1920–1990s): textbook. aid for students Philol. Facts of Universities and Universities / M. M. Golubkov. – M.: Academy, 2010. – 368 p.

2. Gromova, N. A. Decay. The fate of the Soviet critic: 40–50s. / N. A. Gromova. – M.: ELLIS LACK, 2009. – 496 p.

3. Koksheneva, K. A. Russian criticism / K. A. Koksheneva. – M.: PoRoG, 2011.
– 496 p.

4. Kornienko, N.V. “NEP Thaw”: the formation of the institution of Soviet literary criticism / N.V. Kornienko. – M.: IMLI RAS, 2010. – 504 p.

Additional

1. Bogachkov, E. There is something to start from. To the origins of Soviet and post-Soviet literary criticism / E. Bogachkov // Literary Russia. – 2012. – June 8
(No. 23). – pp. 12–13.

2. Zeldovich, M. G. In search of patterns. About literary criticism and ways of its study / M. G. Zeldovich. – Kharkov: Publishing house at the Kharkov State. Univ., 2009. – 160 p.

3. Krupchanov, L. M. History of Russian literary XIX critics century: textbook. allowance / L. M. Krupchanov. – M.: Higher. school, 2010. – 383 p.

4. Russian literature of the twentieth century in the mirror of criticism: a reader for students. Philol. higher facts textbook establishments / comp. S. I. Timina, M. A. Chernyak, N. N. Kyakshto. – M.: Academy, 2010. – 646 p.

5. Rurik, B. S. Main problems of Soviet literary criticism /
B. S. Rurikov // Second All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers: verbatim report. – M.: Sov. pis., 1956. – P. 52–53.

1. The socio-political circumstances of the beginning of the establishment of the young Soviet country, conditioned by the new nature of relations between literature and the state, expressed in the desire of the latter to turn literature into an instrument for the formation of the consciousness of a new person as a part of society, made literature the object of party-state transformation.

Already in the 1920s. ideas about the functions of literature and, as a consequence, criticism change dramatically. Criticism is gradually turning into an instrument for the formation of human ideological material, the main function of which is the construction of a new formation. Unique claims to the only correct explanation of current events, an adequate reflection of the main processes both in literature and throughout society leads to intraliterary struggle, to the formation of literary groups and, as a consequence, to a split in the literary process, which was finally consolidated by the mid-1930s gg.

Literary criticism in Russia acquired new functions in 1940 – 1950s: became an instrument of political and ideological influence on the writer and reader. Criticism turned into a powerful lever for the political leadership of social processes in the Soviet Union, as a result of which it acquired the unusual political functions of a conductor of the party position, a political controller, giving or denying a writer a residence permit in literature. At this time, the concept that originated in the mid-1920s is being updated. a genre that combines the characteristics of a devastating critical article and political denunciation, which lasted until the end of the Soviet era. The objects of just such criticism were M. Bulgakov, E. Zamyatin, A. Platonov,
B. Pilnyak in 1929, A. Akhmatova and M. Zoshchenko – in 1946, B. Pasternak – in the 1950s, in the mid-1960s. – A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel, a few years later, in the late 1960s – 1970s – A. Solzhenitsyn.

Considering the traditional mood of Russian culture for the last three centuries, the authorities sought to use literature as a powerful and, perhaps, the main instrument for the formation of socio-political views. After all, it was literature that, since the end of the 18th century, built nationally significant archetypes of Russian self-awareness, created cultural heroes, demiurges, designated a system of value guidelines, the sphere of the ideal and non-ideal, i.e., it had the ability to form a national picture of the world. Maintaining this function throughout the twentieth century, literature (and primarily criticism) became the object of close attention and intense influence from the party and the state. This role of literature intensified in a situation of cultural vacuum that emerged as a result of the crisis of traditional religious, existential, philosophical, cultural guidelines that followed the events of 1914 – 1920, which led to the collapse of the old world.

In these circumstances, criticism became the very institution through which the authorities formulated the corresponding literary tasks and carried them into practice.

Criticism, being a specific form of literary self-reflection, developed in direct connection with the fundamentally new literary situation of the twentieth century, which predetermined not only the criteria for the formation of critical thought, but also its functioning.

The literary-critical process of the twentieth century is determined by the intense interaction of two trends: internal, having their own artistic nature, characterizing the aesthetic trends of literary development, and external in relation to literature. These are circumstances of both a political and sociocultural nature.

In the textbook “History of Russian Literary Criticism of the 20th Century (1920) – 1990s)" M. M. Golubkov proposes a periodization of literary criticism in its correlation with the periodization of the history of literature. The textbook highlights three major periods:

1) 1920s – mid-1950s;

2) second half of the 1950s – turn 1980 – 1990s;

3) milestone XX – XXI centuries

This periodization of the history of literary criticism coincides with the periodization of literary history adopted in modern literary criticism. However, these periods are not integral, so it is advisable to distinguish several stages within each of them.

First period includes:

– 20s (1917 – turn 1920 – 1930s);

– 30– 50s (early 1930s – mid-1950s).

Inside second period stand out:

– mid 1950s – 1960s;

– 1970s – first half of the 1980s

Third period opens the second half of the 1980s. The literary phenomena that characterize it reach their climax at the turn of the 1980s – early 1990s

The modern literary situation dictates new conditions for the development of critical thought. This period in the history of criticism, not completed at the moment, in our opinion, should be considered separately.

This periodization of the literary process is based on a principle that allows us to take into account the interaction of both internal, inherent patterns of development, and external socio-political, sociocultural and economic factors that have a direct impact on criticism and determine its functions. This is what became key for us in the process of considering the development of literary criticism of the Soviet period.

2. Historical events 1910 – 1920s (imperialist war, revolutions, Civil War, Bolshevik victory and subsequent political repression) led to a dramatic change in the reader system – publisher – writer – critic.” Former reader, brought up on Russian classics XIX century and who formed his artistic tastes at the turn of the century, in the era of symbolism and avant-garde, is forced to adapt to new conditions – the emergence and then the dominance of the victorious class in the literary arena. The sophisticated, educated one is being replaced by a new reader, a person who was previously cut off from culture and literature, but is now joining it. It was his appearance that was welcomed by A. Blok in a series of philosophical and literary critical articles in 1918 – 1919 (“The Collapse of Humanism”, “Intellectuals and Revolution”, etc.), seeing in it fresh forces for creating a new culture. However, such views revealed their illusory nature quite quickly.

Literary struggle of the 1920s. was not so much a confrontation between reading and writing practices, consisting of different ideas about the possibilities and purpose of artistic examples, but rather a system of views on what literature should be. Occupying a leading position in shaping the activities of one or another literary group, criticism was aimed at protecting the interests of the formation, ensuring its survival in confrontation with others.

Thus, “Forge”, “Iron Flowers”, etc. are distinguished by their aggressive policy regarding the activities of other literary groups.

At this stage, criticism, in addition to its traditional function of forming dialogical communication between reader and writer, acquired new ones: it actively instilled in the contemporary reader the idea of ​​his undoubted right to demand art within his own abilities and the idea of ​​the unconditional superiority of this art over any other (the theories of Proletkult, LEF ), “squeezed out” an old writer from literature, organized slanderous campaigns (the unconditional primacy belongs to the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers - RAPP).

The role and social significance of the judgments of critics are at an unprecedented level until then. But most often this is not used for good: the word “criticism” is interpreted as a weapon of political struggle, and representatives of the dominant groups confuse the genre of a critical article with a judicial verdict.

1920s characterized as a polycentric period of literary life. It is marked primarily by the abundance of groups that become an organizational form of expression for various aesthetic and ideological views present in literature - from traditionalist to radical and the most avant-garde. Literary polycentrism turns out to be possible because during this period two trends are counteracted: free dialogue, natural for the development of critical thought, on the one hand; on the other hand, the gradually increasing pressure from the state to monologize literature and give it an ideological and propaganda role. The tendency to monologize literary life is present, but does not dominate.

In 1921, the party was determined to lead all areas of cultural life - literature, theater, education, social sciences and the humanities. The resolution “On Glavpolitprosvet and the propaganda tasks of the party” adopted by the 10th Party Congress spoke about this without any ambiguity. The implementation of the intended tasks was entrusted to the previous (Glavpolitprosvet NKP, department of press and Agitprop of the Central Committee, literary commission and department of political control of the GPU - OGPU) and newly created state institutions.
On June 6, 1922, the Council of People's Commissars (SNK) approved the “Regulations on the Main Directorate for Literature and Publishing (Glavlit).” Glavlit, as the country's censorship department, uniting all types of censorship, was called upon to: 1) engage in preliminary screening of all works intended for publication or consideration, both handwritten and printed; 2) issue permissions for the right to publish individual works, as well as periodicals and other publications; 3) compile lists of works prohibited for sale and distribution; 4) issue rules, orders and instructions on press matters. The publication and distribution of works: a) containing agitation against the Soviet regime was prohibited; b) divulging military secrets of the Republic; c) stirring up public opinion by reporting false information;
d) inciting nationalistic and religious fanaticism; e) of a pornographic nature. The Chekist status of the institution is secured by paragraph 6 of the resolution: one of the two deputy heads of Glavlit is appointed in agreement with the GPU. The GPU becomes one of the organizational centers of literary criticism, publishing and writing life. Following the adoption of the regulations on Glavlit, a number of fundamental state documents regulating the literary life of the country follow. On June 12, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution “On the procedure for authorizing congresses and meetings,” instructing the NKVD to register and control all organizations. August 3, 1921 dates back to the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars “On the procedure for approval and registration of societies and unions that do not pursue profit-making purposes, and the procedure for supervising them.” On August 10 of the same year, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued instructions for registering associations. According to the adopted documents, any association, in order to be registered (authorized), must submit a charter, lists of board members and society to the management department of the Gubis Executive Committee, receive a resolution here and then submit all documents for final approval to the NKVD. Thus, executive and punitive authorities were given the authority to open, control (through annual reports on the activities, composition of societies and boards) and close publications, both large associations and small groups. Press issues under the NEP were under constant control by the Central Committee.

The main parameters of the ideology of proletarian culture were approved by the VIII Party Congress (1919) and were not questioned during the NEP period. The book “The ABC of Communism” by N. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky, published in mass editions since 1920, gave a popular presentation of the party’s program in the field of ideology, and this “initial textbook of communist literacy” is a condensed expression of the main programs of cultural policy aimed at the destruction of traditional society and approval of international communist ideology. This ideology was actively developed in the 1920s by various state institutions: People's Commissariat for Education and its subordinate institutions (GAKhN); Communist Academy, Communist University. Ya. Sverdlova in Moscow and a similar one named after G. Zinoviev in Petrograd - Leningrad, the Institute of the Red Professorship, Soviet Party schools of various levels, etc.

The broad front of the cultural revolution included in its program the destruction of the old institutions of Russia (church, family and marriage, schools, rituals, song culture, old place names, etc.). Russia was supposed to become the “leading detachment of the world revolution,” approaching or, on the contrary, moving away from it was dictated by the choice of tactical party line in the field of literature and literary criticism.

In the defeat of Petrograd literary criticism in 1922, one tendency of the emerging ideology of literary management manifested itself - distrust of literary criticism. If in 1921 the articles were still being discussed
A. Blok, E. Zamyatin, O. Mandelstam, by the end of the decade, St. Petersburg literary criticism will be pushed to the margins of the literary process and will seem like a kind of marginal. This was explained as follows: the writer is weak in the field of literary theory and Marxist methodology; is not able to give the work correct aesthetic and political assessments, and therefore may misdirect the reader.

Busy with the construction of a new literary process, the organizing critics might not even read the work at all (there were many such cases) in order to speak about the writer. They did not burden themselves with reading the widely understood “White Guard” literature of external and internal emigrants, written off as scrap of philosophical and aesthetic criticism.

After the expulsion of the Russian intelligentsia, the main strategic task of the party on the literary front becomes the conquest of non-proletarian groups of writers, wavering, politically unformed, for whose souls there is a real war between the emigration camps and us. The choice of this strategy was first determined by Lenin (criticism of futurism; departure of M. Gorky, invitation of A. Voronsky), but by the main figure, who in the summer of 1922 was nominated by the party for humanitarian literary direction, becomes a member of the Politburo, chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs L. Trotsky, whose name in those years was associated with victory in the Civil War. L. Trotsky turned to literary affairs after the approval in February - March 1922 of the state program of struggle against the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted on the basis of the instructions and directives he prepared.

On the cultural front, the state in 1922 needed not only commissars, whose role was played by the Proletcultists during the Civil War, but also competent cultural managers and organizers of the literary process. These functions, according to Trotsky, must be assigned to criticism. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the literary concerns of the People's Commissar in the summer of 1922, criticism, and not literature, came first. Concern about the lack of specialist critics who could be trusted and who could give a qualified assessment of a literary work runs through a wide variety of party documents of 1921–1922.

Members of the Politburo, the Central Committee of the government, the Comintern write prefaces to published books and reviews of them, answer questions from literary questionnaires, take part in literary discussions, constantly meet with the creative intelligentsia and writers, etc. “Kremlin Criticism” acts as the highest arbitration .

The first results of the hectic organizational work of the summer of 1922 will be summed up in a series of literary articles by L. Trotsky, published in Pravda from September 1922. The articles are devoted to the analysis of two groups of literary intelligentsia - the “non-October intelligentsia” (Russian emigration, internal emigrants) and the “literary fellow travelers of the revolution.”

The concept of “fellow traveler” entered the language of literary criticism and party resolutions, and in fact became key in the literary struggle of the 1920s. Trotsky himself more than once clarified it, rejected any attempts at an expanded interpretation of it, and protested against the inclusion of representatives of “non-October” literature in the number of “literary fellow travelers.”

He criticized and at the same time supported LEF and the futurists: three days after the critical article “Futurism” (September 25, 1923), Pravda published the futurist essay of the People’s Commissar “The Art of Revolution and Socialist Art (Undoubted and Presumable)” (September 29), opening a huge field of activity for ideologists of “life-building”.

In the discussion about proletarian literature and fellow travelers, and at the same time about the classics, already at the end of 1923 the internal party component began to predominate: the struggle began for Lenin’s legacy and leadership in the party (Lenin was seriously ill and no longer participated in the real government of the country) and for a new "party course" strategy.

After the death of V. Lenin (January 21, 1924), the internal party struggle for power took on a new breath. The literary Leninian literature of 1924 (from Bedny, Mayakovsky to Yesenin) owes its themes, motifs and plots, and in general the direction of myth-making, to L. Trotsky’s book “On Lenin,” which was published in the State Publishing House two months after the leader’s death with a circulation of 30 thousand.

The struggle on the literary-critical front continued throughout 1924. A certain ambiguity of the party-critical passions of the beginning of May 1924 was soon introduced into a clear ideological channel by the resolution “On the Press” adopted by the XIII Party Congress (May 23–31), which determined that in the field of fiction the party would focus on the creativity of workers and peasants becoming workers and peasant writers in the process of cultural upsurge of the masses Soviet Union. Workers' and village correspondents should be considered as reserves from which new workers and peasant writers will be promoted, and the main conductor of this line should be party literary criticism. On March 13, 1925, a special resolution of the secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted on criticism and bibliography, inviting everyone periodicals establish the departments of criticism and bibliography as permanent and politically important departments. The resolution “On the party policy in the field of fiction” (June 18, 1925) adopted by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks (June 18, 1925) formulated the basic principles of relations between the party and literature: the party took upon itself the leadership of literature as a whole, spoke out about all groups and factions of literature and claims of any of them for a monopoly, criticism was endowed with the rights of the highest supervisory body monitoring the activities of a particular writer.

In October 1926, at the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, L. Trotsky was relieved of his duties as a member of the Politburo “for factional activities”; he lost his leadership positions in the literary field. This is evidenced by numerous petitions from writers and critics to the Central Committee, addressed since 1925 to the main critics of the Trotskyist opposition - N. Bukharin and I. Stalin.

Never again in the Soviet era were writers allowed to speak publicly about criticism as much as in 1926. The political gap formed in 1926–1927, when loyal Leninists, the leaders of the revolution, came together in a fierce struggle for power (since the end of 1925, Trotsky has been supported the de facto leader of the second capital and chairman of the executive committee of the Comintern G. Zinoviev and the head of the Moscow Soviet L. Kamenev), turned out to be very productive for the literature of Soviet Russia. During these years, the pinnacle works of Russian literature of this decade were created: “The Secret of Secrets” by Vs. Ivanova, “Sentimental Stories” by M. Zoshchenko, “Meetings with Liz” by L. Dobychin, “The Hidden Man” and “Chevengur” by A. Platonov, “The Thief” by L. Leonov, “Brothers” by K. Fedin, “Russia, washed in blood "A. Vesely, 1 and 2 books of "Quiet Don" by M. Sholokhov, "Envy" by Y. Olesha, "The Twelve Chairs" by I. Ilf and E. Petrov, "Heart of a Dog" by M. Bulgakov, etc. Much in these works born of the political context of the struggle with the legendary People's Commissar - the main ideologist of the “world revolution” and the program of struggle for a “new way of life.”

However, it was precisely at this time that all critics write about the loss of the reader in literature. It turned out that the real mass reader of Soviet Russia is almost not interested in contemporary literature; the old workers don’t like it at all, preferring the old Russian classics to it; Young poets read Pushkin, Nikitin, Lermontov, Yesenin. And readers are completely indifferent to the literary-critical struggle.

The information received by 1927 on the mood in the writing community and the program for studying reader’s interests, of course, served as the reason for the decision to publish the weekly “Reader and Writer”, the first issue of which was published in December 1927. It was supposed to radically correct the prevailing situation in the first Soviet decade the situation in the relationship between new literature and criticism, the writer and the mass reader. The new “mass organ” set the following tasks: 1) to bring the writer closer to the reader; 2) help the masses understand life phenomena reflected in literature; 3) subject all political and social ugliness in literature to the most severe criticism; 4) give accessible, brief, but sensible reviews of new literature.

3. The gradual transition from the literary polycentrism of the 1920s is fundamentally significant. to literary monism of the 1930s–1950s. It is difficult to determine with an accuracy of up to a year the chronological boundary separating one stage from another; it is only possible to name a few milestones that form a kind of boundary between the two stages within the first period and subsequently indicate the strengthening of literary monism.

These milestones include:

– removal from the literary battlefield (M. Gorky) of A.K. Voronsky, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Krasnaya Nov” The reason for this was the defeat of the Trotskyist opposition (1927). Voronsky partly shared Trotsky's views on proletarian culture, which were classified by his political opponents as capitulatory;

– the unleashing of the inspired persecution of four writers in 1929 (B. Pilnyak, E. Zamyatin, M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov);

– the economic ruin of Russian foreign publishing houses, where both Soviet writers and authors from Russia abroad were widely published;

– the defeat of the academic school of V.F. Pereverzev and V.M. Fritsche, declared vulgar sociological (November 1929 – January 1930);

– a discussion about the “Pereval” school, held under the slogan “Against bourgeois liberalism in fiction” (1930);

– arrests (1929) and expulsions (1930) of members of the OBERIU group (D. Kharms, K. Vaginov, A. Vvedensky, N. Zabolotsky, etc.);

– dissolution of all literary groups (1932);

– creation of the Union of Writers of the USSR, a kind of “collectivization” of literature (1934);

– formation of the concept of a new creative method – socialist realism, which became the theoretical justification for the monistic concept of Soviet literature;

– a discussion about language (1934), as a result of which the fantastic forms of narration and the ornamental style were brought under suspicion;

– discussion on formalism (1936), which shaped life-like poetics socialist realism and placed the grotesque and any forms of conventional imagery under suspicion;

– “Zhdanov’s” decrees of 1946–1948, which completed the formation of the totalitarian state and literature; writers of the front generation;

– a campaign to persecute B. Pasternak for the novel “Doctor Zhivago” as the last act, concluding the period of the 1920–1950s.

Thus, criticism of the second half of the 1940s - the first half of the 1950s. was in stagnation, forming endless lists of new achievements in the literature of socialist realism.

Socialist realist criticism of this period includes two opposing attitudes: idealization of reality, the creation of its ideal model (V.V. Ermilov’s slogan “The Beautiful is our life”, the theory of non-conflict) and confrontation, the perception of literature as a weapon of class struggle (the slogan of searching and exposing enemies , campaigns against the theory of non-conflict have flared up from time to time). Their interaction continues until the mid-1950s, while criticism is included in the party and state political actions of the period of late Stalinism: the fight against cosmopolitanism, the destruction of everything alien in literature, etc.

At the First Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, it was decided to hold writers' congresses every four years. Nevertheless, the Second Congress took place only in December 1954. Stalin died in March 1953, and although at the very beginning the congress honored his memory, it was already a writers' meeting of a fundamentally new type. The most striking speech at the Second Writers' Congress was the speech of B. Rurikov. He focused on issues that seemed to have been forgotten by Soviet literature. He spoke out against the evenly calm, dispassionate tone characteristic of criticism in recent years, and said that criticism should be born in a free struggle of opinions. What was new was the conversation about the artistic skill of literary criticism itself. Rurikov spoke about the importance of publishing a literary critical magazine (shortly after the writers' congress, new literary magazines began to be published - “Questions of Literature” and “Russian Literature”).

The participants of the congress allowed themselves previously unimaginable remarks and jokes, answers to opponents and polemics. The participants' reports spoke about the need for change, about quickly overcoming the theory of conflictlessness, and about attracting new literary forces to the work.

The implementation of these plans and aspirations was also facilitated by the socio-political situation, which changed dramatically after the 20th Party Congress (February 1956) and the publication on July 2, 1956 of the resolution of the Party Central Committee on overcoming the cult of personality and its consequences.

4. From the mid-1950s to the second half of the 1980s, the forms of literary life, the nature of relations between literature and the state, as well as the functions and role of criticism have been changing. The events of the socio-political life of the country (the death of Stalin, the execution of Beria, the establishment of Khrushchev as a party and state leader, the first rehabilitation, the XX and XXII Congresses of the CPSU) led to Khrushchev’s “thaw”, the expression of the spirit of which in literary criticism was the “New World” under leadership of A. T. Tvardovsky. He was opposed by "October", whose editor-in-chief was V. A. Kochetov, who strived for political and literary restoration. The literary-critical struggle of these two magazines forms one of the main trends of the 1960s.

In May 1956, A. Fadeev committed suicide, whose suicide letter noted: “I don’t see the opportunity to live any longer, since the art to which I gave my life was ruined by the self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party and now can no longer be corrected. The best cadres of literature - in numbers not even dreamed of by the royal satraps - were physically exterminated or died thanks to the criminal connivance of those in power; the best people in literature died at a premature age; everything else that was more or less capable of creating true values ​​died before reaching 40–50 years of age.” The suicide letter was not published in those years, but Fadeev’s act, which caused conflicting rumors due to lack of information, became in the eyes of people an act of disobedience to the authorities.

Literary life of the 1950s–1960s. was so diverse and motley that it is difficult to imagine it as a chain of sequential events. The main qualities of both literary politics and literary criticism were inconsistency and unpredictability. This was largely due to the figure of N.S. Khrushchev.

Like his predecessors, party leaders, Khrushchev paid close attention to literature and art. A poorly educated, authoritarian man, quick to speak and make decisions, Khrushchev either helped writers feel the air of freedom, or sternly reprimanded them. He was convinced that the party and the state have the right to interfere in cultural issues and therefore very often and for a long time spoke to the creative intelligentsia and writers. On Khrushchev’s initiative, in 1957, a series of reader discussions took place about V. Dudintsev’s novel “Not by Bread Alone.”

A shameful page in Khrushchev’s leadership of literature was the expulsion of B. Pasternak from the Writers’ Union in October 1958. The reason for this was the publication of the novel “Doctor Zhivago” in a Milan publishing house. It was at this time that one of the formulas of Soviet literary life was born: “I haven’t read the novel, but I think...”. In factories and collective farms, in universities and writers' organizations, people who had not read the novel supported the methods of bullying, which ultimately led to Pasternak's serious illness and death in 1960.

In March 1963, Khrushchev spoke out for the simplicity and accessibility of artistic works. In July 1963, at the party Plenum, he stated that the party should evaluate literary works.

The name of Khrushchev is associated with the exclusion of B. Pasternak from the Writers' Union in 1958, the arrest in February 1961 of the manuscript of V. Grossman's novel “Life and Fate”, etc. All this coexisted with the return of illegally repressed people from the camps. The entire period of literary life associated with the name of Khrushchev turned out to be contradictory.

Since 1964, when general secretary The Central Committee will become L.I. Brezhnev, the literary situation will be more predictable.

After the Second Congress of Writers, the work of the writers' union is improving, and congresses are held regularly. Each of them talks about the state and tasks of literary criticism. Since 1958, Congresses of Writers of the Russian Federation will be added to the union congresses (the founding one took place in 1958). At all party congresses, starting from the twentieth century, special paragraphs devoted to literature always appeared in the reports. After all, Article VI of the Soviet Constitution (repealed only in 1990) spoke about the leading role of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in all spheres of social and political life. Party leadership of literature was essentially constitutionally enshrined.

At the turn of the 1950s–1960s. literary life revived due to the publication of regional (regional) literary and artistic magazines “Don”, “Rise”, “North”, “Volga”, etc. Since 1966, the magazine “Children's Literature” has been published again. Literary criticism was also revived as a special sphere of scientific and artistic creativity. Writers' literary criticism intensified. Literary life of the 1950s–1960s. in all its contradictory complexity cannot be presented without A. T. Tvardovsky’s magazine “New World”, without its literary critical department, that community of literary critics who worked in the magazine or collaborated with it.

A. T. Tvardovsky twice began editing the magazine “New World” and was twice removed from this activity. After Tvardovsky's reappointment as editor in 1958, Novy Mir became a constant target for literary critics and party ideologists. Despite the public posts of A. T. Tvardovsky (deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, candidate member of the CPSU Central Committee), personal acquaintance with Khrushchev, embittered speeches directed against the “New World” appeared in the press of those years every now and then.

The publication in the magazine of Tvardovsky’s story by A. I. Solzhenitsyn “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” in 1962 had a colossal public resonance. The situation in literature was also heating up. In 1964, I. Brodsky was convicted of parasitism. In September 1965, A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel, participants in the Great Patriotic War, who were accused of treason, were arrested for publishing their works abroad. In Soviet publications they were called anti-Soviet and renegades. The trial ended in February 1966, after which the writers went through prison and camp. Unlike trials Stalin's time, this process was remembered for the fact that many literary figures stood up for Sinyavsky and Daniel. Letters in their defense were signed by K. Chukovsky, K. Paustovsky, A. Akhmatova, B. Okudzhava, A. Tarkovsky
and many more etc. A Vyach. Ivanov conducted a brilliant philological analysis and examination and proved that the works of Sinyavsky and Daniel do not contain a criminal offense, but are fantastic form with a conventional narrator.

Literary-critical and journalistic opinions began to appear in manuscripts, typewritten copies, on films for overhead projectors, in tape recordings - all these forms of existence of literary works will be called “samizdat”. Literary critical works that appeared in “samizdat” were distinguished by dissident sentiments and were dedicated to writers or books persecuted by the authorities.

Despite the fact that A. T. Tvardovsky always took party positions, the authorities saw features of freethinking in his editorial actions and the policies of the New World. This confluence of the general spirit of the times and the position of the magazine led to open persecution of Tvardovsky and his employees. The magazine “October” under the leadership of V. Kochetov especially loudly declared its rejection of the New World policy. The journal controversy between these two publications continued with varying degrees of intensity almost until the end of the 1960s. The magazine's position became even worse after the Czechoslovak events of 1968, when political censorship intensified.

In February 1970, Tvardovsky was fired from his post as editor, and his entire editorial staff left the magazine in protest. A year and a half later, Tvardovsky died.

A. T. Tvardovsky managed to gather the best literary and critical forces of the 1960s as permanent collaborators or authors.
A. Dementyev and A. Kondratovich, I. Vinogradov and V. Lakshin, Y. Burtin and B. Sarnov, V. Cardin and A. Lebedev, F. Svetov and N. Ilyina, I. Rodnyanskaya, A. Sinyavsky, A. Turkov, A. Chudakov and M. Chudakova, authors who published in Novy Mir at different times, deservedly entered the history of our criticism and journalism. Tvardovsky was convinced that critics were the soul of the magazine. Socio-political circumstances changed, but the general program of the magazine remained unchanged. This loyalty to democratic convictions and consistency in defending anti-Stalinist positions provoked aggressive attacks from opponents.

Literary critics of the “New World” remained free and independent in their assessments of works of art, relying on their own literary tastes, and not on established literary reputations and stereotypes. The magazine published many negative reviews - especially on those books where the propaganda of Stalinism was felt. They opposed dullness, mediocrity, and loyalty.

Criticism of the "New World" of the 1960s. develops aesthetic (“real criticism”) and ideological (Leninism, loyalty to the cause of the Great October Revolution, sharp criticism of Stalin’s personality cult) positions proposed by M. Shcheglov.

Early 1970s marked by the forced departure of A. T. Tvardovsky from the “New World” (1970), which allowed “Our Contemporary”, which holds views opposite to the “New World”, to take a leading position. The idea of ​​democracy, the aesthetic principles of “real criticism”, the traditions of Dobrolyubov and, in general, the revolutionary democratic criticism of the 50s and 60s of the 19th century are being replaced by a “soil” ideology, expressed in the desire to find criteria for national self-identification. Despite all the ambiguity and complexity, it was a strong idea that found deep and professional justification in the articles of V. Kozhinov, M. Lobanov, I. Zolotussky, Yu. Loschits, V. Chalmaev and others.

In the early 1970s. the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism” was adopted, the positive role of which was primarily in the fact that criticism became the object of close public attention: criticism departments appeared in all “thick” magazines, courses in the history of criticism were introduced in universities, magazines were revived , which arose in the 1930s and ceased to exist during the war: “Literary Review” (in the 1930s - a supplement to the “Literary Critic”) and “Literary Study”. The expansion of printed platforms where critics spoke led to a revival of literary critical polemics and an expansion of the genre system of criticism.

The first half of the 1980s, which completed the stage preceding modern times, may seem the most “stagnant”: it is characterized by the absence of bright magazines on the scale of the “New World” and other significant phenomena. During this period, the most striking phenomenon was the discussion about the prose of “forty-year-olds” (V. Makanin, A. Kim, R. Kireev, A. Kurchatkin,
V. Kurnosenko). It was the “forty-year-olds” who expressed a specific worldview of stagnation, which collapsed during perestroika.

The state of literary criticism in the 1970s - early 1980s. was hopeless. A powerful branch of literary criticism was represented by the officialdom, serving the literary generals, determining the ideological pathos of Soviet literature and being rather indifferent to the fate of writers and their works.

Literary-critical officialdom was opposed by criticism, which incorporated prompt responses to new books, assessments of the current literary situation, and propaganda of one or another creative individuality. Literary criticism of officialdom created “indestructible”, “imperishable” literary reputations: writers who found themselves in the leadership of the Writers' Unions of the USSR and the RSFSR could only be praised, regardless of the level of their works. The emerging trilogy of L. Brezhnev (“ Malaya Zemlya", "Virgin Land", "Renaissance") was seriously assessed as a work of art.

Literary mores of the 1970s - early 1980s. were distinguished by imperious cruelty towards dissenting writers. In the 1970s V. Maksimov, V. Voinovich, G. Vladimov, L. Chukovskaya and others left the Writers' Union or were expelled from it.

Literary criticism of the journalistic trend was presented by the magazine “Our Contemporary”. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. The magazine was inspired by the search for moral pillars in life, which were most often associated with the characters of the so-called “village prose”. Since 1968, the magazine has clearly shown a tendency towards “clear ideological and aesthetic assessments, towards the demand for a deep depiction of labor affairs Soviet man. In articles and reviews, there is increasingly criticism of writers who gravitate toward universal human issues. The magazine writes about Yesenin, Bunin, Kuprin, Tvardovsky, Isakovsky, and refers to the names of Dostoevsky and Nekrasov.

Since the early 1970s. “Our Contemporary”, in the absence of the former “New World”, recognizes itself as the leader of domestic journalism. His trademark of this time was analytical articles devoted to Russian classical literature in its correlation with the current literary process. In the 1980s The literary and critical articles of the magazine, addressed to the Russian national consciousness, went back to the ideology of Russian pochvennichestvo and were often perceived in opposition to the moral and ethical standards of the “society of developed socialism.” The entry of a new reader into the literature turned out to be an ambivalent phenomenon: on the one hand, people who had previously been cut off not only from culture, but also from elementary literacy, now gained access to the treasury of literature and the entire national culture, which was a positive phenomenon of historical proportions. On the other hand, it is this reader, not having sufficient cultural level, felt himself a hegemon in literature and, due to a number of circumstances, arrogated to himself the unconditional right to dictate his tastes to the writer, to educate him, which led to sad consequences and made it possible for the authorities to easily manipulate the ideas of such a reader for their own purposes. For example, the genre of reader's writing becomes in criticism one of the instruments of ideological pressure on literature and remains in this capacity until the mid-1980s.

As a result, the personnel composition of the literary environment, both writers and critics, is changing. A new reader “creates” a new writer, who has a completely different cultural reserve.

The situation changed dramatically only in the mid-1990s. The stage of development of literary criticism from this moment has its own characteristics and is considered as the modern stage in the development of domestic criticism.

Questions and tasks for self-control

1. List the characteristic features of literary criticism in the “thaw”.

2. Describe the position of the “New World” in the literary and social situation of the 1960s.

3. How did the relationship between literature and power develop in the 1920s–1930s?

4. What is the role of the Second Congress of USSR Writers for the development of domestic criticism?

5. Compose an oral portrait of A. T. Tvardovsky - editor, critic, man of his time?

CONCLUSION

It is known that in the last decade the literary text has been the object of study of a number of humanities, the fundamental one of which is literary criticism. It is this postulate that the team of authors incorporated into the lecture material addressed to bachelors of philological education.

The proposed lecture material demonstrates the multifaceted nature of studying the history of Russian literature of the Soviet period. At the same time, our priority remains that the teacher must have a creative approach to the content of lectures, not allow them to be spoken out mechanically, systematically expand the lecture material offered to students, and involve them in the conversation by posing problematic questions during the lectures. The presentation of lecture material should help students develop independent classroom work skills. To do this, it is recommended to familiarize students with the lesson plan and identify the main problems of the lecture.

The textbook provides both interactive lectures (lecture-visualization) and those that include the use of interactive technologies as components (lecture 5 - brainstorming, lecture 8 - individual design, lecture 9 - scientific discussion), which, in our opinion , promotes the assimilation of the material and arouses students’ special interest in the subject. As before, we pay special attention to the list of pre-lecture tasks necessary for a correct and complete understanding of the material, the use of interactive technologies in the process of conducting such a lesson (40% of the hours allocated by the Federal State Educational Standard for Higher Professional Education for independent work of students are intended to be spent on preparation for lecture classes).

The goal of the teacher providing the study of this course is to prepare a specialist who is familiar with modern achievements in the field of literary criticism, the history of Russian literature, who is able to apply and increase the acquired knowledge, skills, and abilities in practice, who has flexibility of thinking, a creative approach, who is responsible for the results of his own activities and focused on effective self-education. This is due to the fact that the lecture course is only part of the overall complex that ensures the study of the discipline, and should be used in conjunction with a workshop on the discipline.

The presented textbook is an attempt to systematize knowledge about the specifics of the literary process in Russia during the socialist era, the forms of their theoretical representation of the process of creating artistic samples of the designated period.

Of course, the authors did not set themselves the task of summarizing the entire experience of literary criticism from the point of view of the methods used for analyzing specific literary phenomena and interpreting artistic examples. Many research technologies in related disciplines, where the object of consideration remains a literary text, remain outside the scope of this publication. This applies mainly to cultural studies, psychology, history, philosophy and other disciplines.

The main attention was paid to the description of the literary process of the designated period as a whole, and the evolution of specific themes, creative discoveries of a number of authors. The most significant result of the work done is the development of one of the options methodological approach in the study of literature of the twentieth century, as innovative and, from our point of view, justified, is the presentation of a set of methodological provisions relating to both the periodization of the literary process of the twentieth century and the delimitation of the literary impulses of the era, the meaning and significance of which have not been sufficiently studied. The need

History of Russian literature of the twentieth century. Soviet classics. New look: textbook. manual / ed. L. P. Egorova, P. K. Chekalova. – M. – Stavropol, 1998.
– 302 s.

Mayakovsky, V.V. Selected / V.V. Mayakovsky. – M.: Education, 1998.
– 298 p.

The data is given according to the publication: The First All-Russian Congress of Soviet Writers: verbatim report. – M.: Khud. lit., 1934. – P. 498.

Quotations from the speech are given from the publication The First All-Russian Congress of Soviet Writers: verbatim report. – M.: Khud. lit., 1934. – P. 595.

Quotations from the speech are given from the publication The First All-Russian Congress of Soviet Writers: verbatim report. – M.: Khud. lit., 1934. – P. 987.

Quoted from the work of V. V. Vinogradov. The problem of authorship and the theory of styles.
– [Electronic resource] / V.V. Vinogradov. – Access mode: http://www. Sbiblio.com / BIBLIO / active / vinogradov / problemi / 03. apx (date of access: 06/04/2014)

The First All-Russian Congress of Soviet Writers: verbatim report. – M.: Khud. lit., 1934. – 1164 p.

Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) “On the party’s policy in the field of fiction” dated June 18, 1925 // Introduction to literary criticism: a reader. – M.: Education, 1990. – P. 86.

Chantsev, A. Factory of dystopias: dystopian discourse in Russian literature of the mid-2000s / A. Chantsev // UFO. – 2006. – No. 86. – P. 209.

Pasternak, B. L. Doctor Zhivago / B. L. Pasternak. – M.: Khud. lit., 2000.
– 497 p.

7 War lyrics Great War. – M.: Khud. lit., 1989. – 314 p.

Grossman, V. S. Life and Fate / V. S. Grossman. – M.: Khud. lit., 1999. – P. 408.

Quote by: Ostanina, E. A. Tragic suicides [Electronic resource] /
E. A. Ostanina. – Access mode: http://www.TheLib.ru›books/leksandrovna/

Rybakov, A. N. Heavy sand / A. N. Rybakov. – M.: EKSMO, 2008.
– P. 286.

Rybakov, A. N. Novel-memoir / A. N. Rybakov. – M.: EKSMO, 2010.
– P. 149.

Brodsky, I. A. Selected / I. A. Brodsky. – M.: Phoenix, 2010. – P. 68.

Aryev, A. Yu. Story of the narrator / A. Yu. Aryev // Dovlatov S. Collection. op. : in 4 volumes. T. 1 / comp. A. Yu. Arev. – St. Petersburg. : Azbuka, 2000. – P. 5–32.

Materials used from the book: Russian literature of the twentieth century. Prose writers, poets, playwrights. Bibliographic Dictionary. T. 3. – Yaroslavl, 2010. – P. 332–334.

Literary criticism is a field of creativity that lies on the border between art (that is, fiction) and the science of it (literary criticism). Who are the experts in it? Critics are people who evaluate and interpret works from the perspective of modernity (including the point of view of pressing problems of spiritual and social life), as well as their personal views, affirm and identify the creative principles of various literary movements, and influence active influence, and also directly influence the formation of a certain social consciousness. They draw on history and aesthetics and philosophy.

Literary criticism is often politically topical, journalistic in nature, and intertwined with journalism. There is a close connection between it and related sciences: political science, history, textual criticism, linguistics, and bibliography.

Russian criticism

The critic Belinsky wrote that each era of literature in our country had a consciousness about itself, which was expressed in criticism.

It is difficult to disagree with this statement. Russian criticism is as unique and vibrant a phenomenon as classical Russian literature. This should be noted. Various authors (critic Belinsky, for example) have repeatedly pointed out that it, being synthetic in nature, played a huge role in the social life of our country. Let us remember the most famous writers who devoted themselves to studying the works of the classics. Russian critics are D.I. Pisarev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, A.V. Druzhinin, V.G. Belinsky and many others, whose articles contained not only a detailed analysis of the works, but also their artistic features, ideas, images. They sought to see behind the artistic picture the most important social and moral problems of that time, and not only capture them, but sometimes also offer their own solutions.

The Meaning of Criticism

Articles written by Russian critics continue to have a great influence on the moral and spiritual life of society. It is no coincidence that they have long been included in the compulsory school curriculum of our country. However, in literature classes for a number of decades, students were exposed mainly to critical articles of a radical nature. Critics of this direction - D.I. Pisarev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky, V.G. Belinsky and others. At the same time, the works of these authors were most often perceived as a source of quotations with which schoolchildren generously “decorated” their essays.

Stereotypes of perception

This approach to the study of classics formed stereotypes in artistic perception, significantly impoverished and simplified the overall picture of the development of Russian literature, which was distinguished, first of all, by fierce aesthetic and ideological disputes.

Only recently, thanks to the emergence of a number of in-depth studies, the vision of Russian criticism and literature has become multifaceted and more voluminous. Articles by N.N. were published. Strakhova, A.A. Grigorieva, N.I. Nadezhdina, I.V. Kireevsky, P.A. Vyazemsky, K.N. Batyushkova, N.M. Karamzin (see the portrait of Nikolai Mikhailovich, made by the artist Tropinin, below) and other outstanding writers of our country.

Features of literary criticism

Literature is the art of words, which is embodied both in a work of art and in literary-critical speech. Therefore, a Russian critic, like any other, is always a bit of both a publicist and an artist. An article, written with talent, necessarily contains a powerful fusion of various moral and philosophical reflections of the author with deep and subtle observations on himself. Studying a critical article gives very little useful if you perceive its main provisions as a kind of dogma. It is important for the reader to intellectually and emotionally experience everything said by this author, determine the degree of evidence of the arguments put forward by him, and think about the logic of thought. Criticism of works is by no means an unambiguous thing.

Critic's own view

Critics are people who reveal their own vision of the writer’s work and offer their unique interpretation of the work. The article often makes you think again, or it can be a criticism of the book. Some assessments and judgments in a talentedly written work can serve as a genuine discovery for the reader, while others may seem controversial or erroneous to us. Particularly interesting is the comparison of different points of view regarding the work of an individual writer or one work. Literary criticism always provides us with rich material for reflection.

The wealth of Russian literary criticism

We can, for example, look at the work of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin through the eyes of V.V. Rozanova, A.A. Grigorieva, V.G. Belinsky and I.V. Kireevsky, get acquainted with how Gogol’s contemporaries perceived his poem “Dead Souls” differently (critics V.G. Belinsky, S.P. Shevyrev, K.S. Aksakov), how the heroes of “Grief” were assessed in the second half of the 19th century from the mind" Griboyedov. It is very interesting to compare the perception of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” with the way it was interpreted by D.I. Pisarev. A portrait of the latter is presented below.

Articles dedicated to the work of L.N. Tolstoy

For example, very interesting literary criticism is devoted to the work of L.N. Tolstoy. The ability to show the “purity of moral feeling”, the “dialectics of the soul” of the heroes of works as characteristic feature Lev Nikolaevich’s talent was one of the first to be revealed and identified by N.G. Chernyshevsky in his articles. Speaking about the works of N.N. Strakhov, dedicated to “War and Peace,” can be rightfully stated: there are few works in Russian literary criticism that can be ranked next to it in terms of the depth of penetration into the author’s intention, in terms of the subtlety and accuracy of observations.

Russian criticism in the 20th century

It is noteworthy that the result of often fierce disputes and difficult quests of Russian criticism was its desire at the beginning of the 20th century to “return” Russian culture to Pushkin, to his simplicity and harmony. V.V. Rozanov, proclaiming the necessity of this, wrote that Alexander Sergeevich’s mind protects a person from everything stupid, his nobility from everything vulgar.

In the mid-1920s, a new cultural surge occurred. After the end of the civil war, the young state finally has the opportunity to seriously engage in culture. In the first half of the 20th century, literary criticism was dominated by the formal school. Its main representatives are Shklovsky, Tynyanov and Eikhenbaum. Formalists, rejecting the traditional functions that criticism performed - socio-political, moral, didactic - insisted on the idea of ​​​​the independence of literature from the development of society. In this they went against the prevailing ideology of Marxism at that time. Therefore, formal criticism gradually came to an end. In subsequent years, socialist realism was dominant. Criticism becomes a punitive instrument in the hands of the state. It was controlled and directed directly by the party. Criticism sections and columns appeared in all magazines and newspapers.

Today, of course, the situation has changed radically.

Criticism from the Greek “kritice” - to disassemble, to judge, appeared as a unique form of art back in antiquity, over time becoming a real professional occupation, which for a long time had an “applied” character, aimed at the general assessment of a work, encouraging or, on the contrary, condemning the author’s opinion, as well as whether or not to recommend the book to other readers.

Over time, this literary movement developed and improved, beginning its rise in the European Renaissance and reaching significant heights by the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.

On the territory of Russia, the rise of literary criticism occurred in the mid-19th century, when it, having become a unique and striking phenomenon in Russian literature, began to play a huge role in the social life of that time. In the works of outstanding critics of the 19th century (V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, A.V. Druzhinin, N.N. Strakhov, M.A. Antonovich) it was concluded that only detailed review literary works of other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion of artistic principles and ideas, as well as the vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, its moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and power of influence on the minds of the public and today are among the the most powerful tool impact on the spiritual life of society and its moral principles.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

At one time, A. S. Pushkin’s poem “Eugene Onegin” received many varied reviews from contemporaries who did not understand the brilliant innovative techniques of the author in this work, which has a deep, genuine meaning. It was this work of Pushkin that the 8th and 9th critical articles of Belinsky’s “Works of Alexander Pushkin” were devoted to, who set himself the goal of revealing the relationship of the poem to the society depicted in it. The main features of the poem, emphasized by the critic, are its historicism and the truthfulness of the reflection of the actual picture of the life of Russian society in that era; Belinsky called it “an encyclopedia of Russian life,” and a highly folk and national work.”

In the articles “A Hero of Our Time, the Work of M. Lermontov” and “Poems of M. Lermontov,” Belinsky saw in Lermontov’s work an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian literature and recognized the poet’s ability to “extract poetry from the prose of life and shock souls with its faithful depiction.” In the works of the outstanding poet, the passion of poetic thought is noted, in which all the most pressing problems of modern society are touched upon; the critic called Lermontov the successor of the great poet Pushkin, noting, however, the complete opposite of their poetic character: in the former everything is permeated with optimism and described in bright colors, in the latter it is the opposite — the writing style is characterized by gloom, pessimism and grief over lost opportunities.

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov

Famous critic and publicist of the mid-19th century. N. And Dobrolyubov, a follower and student of Chernyshevsky, in his critical article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” based on Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”, called it the author’s most decisive work, which touched upon very important “painful” social problems of that time, namely the clash the personality of the heroine (Katerina), who defended her beliefs and rights, with the “dark kingdom” - representatives of the merchant class, distinguished by ignorance, cruelty and meanness. The critic saw in the tragedy described in the play the awakening and growth of protest against the oppression of tyrants and oppressors, and in the image of the main character the embodiment of the great people's idea of ​​liberation.

In the article “What is Oblomovism,” devoted to the analysis of Goncharov’s work “Oblomov,” Dobrolyubov considers the author to be a talented writer who in his work acts as an outside observer, inviting the reader to draw conclusions about its content. Main character Oblomov is compared with other “superfluous people of his time” Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him “nonentity”, angrily condemns his character traits (laziness, apathy towards life and reflection) and recognizes them a problem not only of one specific person, but of the entire Russian mentality as a whole.

Selected works:

Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev

The play “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky made a deep and enthusiastic impression on the poet, prose writer and critic A. A. Grigoriev, who in the article “After the “Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky. Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev” does not argue with Dobrolyubov’s opinion, but somehow corrects his judgments, for example, replacing the term tyranny with the concept of nationality, which, in his opinion, is inherent specifically in the Russian people.

Selected work:

D. I. Pisarev, the “third” outstanding Russian critic after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, also touched on the topic of Goncharov’s Oblomovism in his article “Oblomov” and believed that this concept very successfully characterizes a significant vice of Russian life that will always exist, highly appreciated this work and called it relevant for any era and for any nationality.

Selected work:

The famous critic A.V. Druzhinin, in his article “Oblomov,” a novel by I.A. Goncharov,” drew attention to the poetic side of the nature of the main character, landowner Oblomov, which evokes in him not a feeling of irritation and hostility, but even a certain sympathy. He considers the main positive qualities of the Russian landowner to be tenderness, purity and gentleness of soul, against the background of which the laziness of nature is perceived more tolerantly and is regarded as a certain form of protection from the influence of the harmful activities of the “active life” of other characters

Selected work:

One of the famous works of the outstanding classic of Russian literature I.S. Turgenev, which caused a stormy public response, was the novel “Fathers and Sons” written in 18620. In the critical articles “Bazarov” by D. I. Pisarev, “Fathers and Sons” by I. S. Turgenev” by N. N. Strakhov, as well as M. A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of Our Time,” a heated debate flared up over the question of who should be considered the main the hero of Bazarov's work - a jester or an ideal to follow.

N.N. Strakhov in his article “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev" saw the deep tragedy of Bazarov's image, his vitality and dramatic attitude to life and called him the living embodiment of one of the manifestations of the true Russian spirit.

Selected work:

Antonovich viewed this character as an evil caricature of the younger generation and accused Turgenev of turning his back on democratically minded youth and betraying his former views.

Selected work:

Pisarev saw in Bazarov a useful and real person who is capable of destroying outdated dogmas and outdated authorities, and thus clearing the way for the formation of new advanced ideas.

Selected work:

The common phrase that literature is created not by writers, but by readers turns out to be 100% true, and the fate of the work is decided by the readers, on whose perception it depends future destiny works. It is literary criticism that helps the reader form his personal final opinion about a particular work. Critics also provide invaluable assistance to writers when they give them an idea of ​​how understandable their works are to the public, and how correctly the thoughts expressed by the author are perceived.

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"USSURI STATE PEDAGOGICAL INSTITUTE"

Faculty of Russian Philology and Social Sciences and Humanities

Department of Literature, Theory and Methods of Teaching Literature

TRAINING AND METODOLOGY COMPLEX

BY DISCIPLINE

Tasks disciplines:

1. Consistently consider the formation of Russian critical thought of the twentieth century, reflecting the ideological struggle in Russian literature of the twentieth century through a comparison of different points of view on works of Russian classical literature.

2. Expand knowledge of the theory and history of literary criticism of the twentieth century, paying special attention to the close relationship between Russian critical and literary thought, the understanding of which will provide a comprehensive historical, cultural, historical and literary education.

3. The history of Russian criticism has universal possibilities for shaping the professional activity of a library worker.

The discipline focuses on the following types of professional activities: teachers of Russian language and literature, library workers in the field of educational activities:

a) assistance in implementing the learning process in accordance with the educational program;

b) use of modern scientifically based techniques, methods and teaching aids;

c) use of technical teaching aids, information and computer technologies;

d) use of modern means of assessing learning outcomes;

e) assistance in organizing and conducting extracurricular activities; in the field of scientific and methodological activities:

Analysis of one’s own activities in order to improve them and improve one’s qualifications;

in the field of cultural and educational activities:

Formation of the general culture of students.

The course “History of Russian Literary Criticism of the 20th Century” is designed for 79 hours. Of these, 10 hours are lectures, 10 hours are practical classes, 59 hours are independent work of students, consolidating theoretical knowledge of the subject.

Classes end with a test in which students must demonstrate knowledge of the main aspects of the course and the ability to practically apply them.

2. THEMATIC PLAN OF DISCIPLINE

a) for distance learning

Name of modules, sections, topics

(indicating the semester)

Auditory lessons

Independent work of students

Labor intensity (total hours)

Total

Lectures

Practical lessons

Laboratory exercises

V year 9 semester

Literary criticism in Soviet Russia in the 1920s – early 1930s.

Soviet literary criticism 1930 – mid-1950s.

Soviet literary criticism 1950 – mid-1960s.

Soviet literary criticism of the 1970s - mid-1980s.

Literary criticism of Russia in the 1990s.

Literary-critical written genres.

Literary-critical creativity.

Literary text and literary criticism.

Literary-critical assessment of one of the works of Russian literature of the twentieth century (optional).

Total for semester 9:

Total for the discipline:

Target : determine the connection between Russian literary criticism and the history of Russian culture and social life of the country; to emphasize the close relationship of the history of literary criticism both with the history of Russian literary criticism, with the history of literature itself, with the development of its leading directions and trends, with the destinies of masters of words, and with the movement of socio-political life, with current modernity.

Target

The new literary era, the tasks of literary criticism in its formation. Proletkult. Critical methodology of the Proletcultists. Futurists and Lef. V. Shklovsky as a literary critic. “Serapion Brothers” L. Lunts. History of RAPP. Literary-critical ideology of nastovstvo. G. Lelevich. Split in RAPP and new trends in literary criticism. A. Voronsky, N. Bukharin. Disputes about proletarian culture and the position of E. Zamyatin. Circles of workers' criticism and reader's criticism. "Oppositional" literary criticism. A. Lunacharsky, V. Polonsky, V. Pereverzev. Literary-critical activity of the group “Pereval”. D. Gorbov, A. Lezhnev.

Target

Target

Target

Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism.” Types of literary criticism and critics. Variety of typological formations (socio-thematic, artistic-conceptual, literary-historical, cultural-historical). Creative individuality of literary critics: Yu. Seleznev, I. Dedkov, A. Turkov, I. Zolotussky, V. Cardin, B. Sarnov, V. Kozhinov, I. Rodnyanskaya and others. Classical literature in critical assessments. The end of the 1980s in literary criticism.

Target:

Questions for the lesson

Literature

Prozorov of Russian criticism. – M.: graduate School, 2003. History of Russian literary criticism in 2 volumes. – St. Petersburg, 2003. On the skill of literary criticism: genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. , Skorospelov’s criticism in Russia of the twentieth century. – M., 1996. Chuprinin S. Criticism is critics. Problems and portraits. – M., 1988.

Target

Questions for the lesson

Literature

Bocharov literary and artistic criticism. – M., 1982. On the skill of literary criticism: genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. Problems of the theory of literary criticism. Digest of articles. – M., 1980. Prozorov of Russian criticism. – M., Higher School, 2003. Chernets - a methodological manual on the history of Russian criticism “How our word will respond.” – M., 1998.

Target

Questions for the lesson

1. Theoretical provisions in A. Makarov’s articles: about the essence of art, about artistry and poetry, about the pathos of creativity.

2. Russian literature of the twentieth century in interpretation. Approval of universal human criteria for evaluating literary phenomena in critic’s articles.

3. The variety of genres in the critical works of A. Makarov.

Literature

Makarov - critical works: In 2 volumes - M., 1982. On the skill of literary criticism. Genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. Astafiev’s staff. – M., 1988. Chuprinin S. Criticism is critics. Problems and portraits. – M., 1988.

Target

Questions for the lesson

Literature

“Is it a clear day?” Leiderman N. Cry of the heart. In the book: Russian literature of the twentieth century in the mirror of criticism. Reader. – M., St. Petersburg, 2003. Pp. 375. Astafiev and fate.// Astafiev V. Everything has its hour. – M., 1985. Muromsky V. Russian Soviet literary criticism: Questions of history, theory, methodology. – L., 1985.

Target

Questions for the lesson

Literature

Literary text of your choice. Bocharov literary and artistic criticism. – M., 1982. On the skill of literary criticism. Genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. Istratova through the eyes of a writer. – M., 1990. Prozorov of Russian literary criticism. – M., 2002.

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (COMPETENCES) OF STUDENTS

IX semester

Students should know:

· the history of Russian criticism of the twentieth century as a completely independent historical and literary phenomenon, reflecting the general trends in the development of Russian culture, literature, as well as pedagogical thought;

· monographically the work of outstanding Russian critics belonging to different ideological movements, both extensively studied and those revived for study in Russia in the 90s of the twentieth century;

· close to the text are fragments of articles by Russian critics.

Students should be able to:

· demonstrate in practice mastery of key literary critical written genres: abstract, review, essay, review of any literary and artistic publication, review of a literary work, dramatization, original play, film adaptation.

Students must have the skills:

· analytical approach to a literary text and critical reviews of it;

· understand what principles and techniques of literary analysis a critic uses when evaluating a work of art;

· realize the difference between direct critical reviews of the writer’s contemporaries and the established historical assessment of classical works.

5. FORMS OF CONTROL

IX semester

a) Milestone (current) control

Written work No. 1

Goal of the work : test mastery of the skills of independent analysis and literary-critical evaluation of a work of art or other form of art.

Exercise : write a review of works of art (poetry, prose, stage productions, feature films and documentaries).

Written work No. 2

Goal of the work : test knowledge of the work of Russian critics, understanding of the principles and techniques of literary analysis used by them when evaluating a work of art.

Exercise : understanding of the work of V. Rasputin in the critical works of N. Kostenko, V. Kurbatov, I. Pankeev, S. Semenova (to choose from).

b) Final control

IX semester

Form of final control - test

Credit requirements

Each student is obliged:

1. Know the history of Russian criticism of the twentieth century as a completely independent historical and literary phenomenon, reflecting the general trends in the development of Russian culture, literature, as well as pedagogical thought.

2. Close to the text of the article (fragments of articles) by Russian critics.

3. Understand what principles and techniques of literary analysis a critic uses when evaluating a work of art;

4. The ability to identify literary critical genres. Know their features.

Questions for testing

1. Criticism as a science. Distinctive properties of criticism.

2. The connection of criticism with other scientific disciplines: literary criticism, literary history, etc.

3. Genres of literary and artistic criticism.

4. Characteristics of literary criticism in Soviet Russia in the 1920s – early 1930s.

5. Critical methodology of the Proletcultists.

6. as a literary critic.

7. Characteristics of literary criticism of the 1930s - mid-1950s.

8. Soviet literary criticism of the mid-s.

9. Writer's literary criticism (K. Fedin, L. Leonov, K. Simonov).

10. Literary-critical creativity of A. Makarov.

11. A. Tvardovsky as a literary critic.

12. Soviet literary criticism of the 1920s.

13. Creative heritage of literary critics: Y. Seleznev, I. Dedkov, I. Zolotussky, V. Kardin, V. Kozhinov, I. Rodnyanskaya and others (optional).

14. Literary criticism of Russia in the 1990s.

Materials for preparing for the test

1. Criticism as a science. Distinctive properties of criticism.

Literary criticism as literature about literature. It occupies an intermediate position between science and reading. Literary criticism as a science that explains a work of art, its meaning, idea, and author's intention. It prepares the reader for a meeting with the art of words, prepares him to expect this meeting, and enters into dialogue with the author and other critics.

2. The connection between criticism and other scientific disciplines.

Literary criticism naturally correlates with many areas of science and culture: philology, philosophy, history, aesthetics, cultural studies, psychology, sociology, etc. Experiencing the direct influence of related or related humanities, literary criticism contributes to their development. In the relationship between “fiction and literary criticism,” literature itself is always primary: it is examined, comprehended, analyzed, and commented upon. The literary critical text is intended to echo literature itself with a significant adjustment to the active co-creation of the critic.

3. Genres of literary and artistic criticism.

Key literary critical written genres: abstract, review, essay, literary portrait, review of a literary and artistic publication, review of a literary work, dramatization, original play, film adaptation.

4. Characteristics of literary criticism in Soviet Russia in the 1920s – early 1930s.

Literary criticism as a source of formation of a new literary situation. Methodological guidelines of Marxist criticism in the post-October period. The educational and organizing function of art in the works of Plekhanov, Vorovsky, Lunacharsky. Sociological method of analyzing artistic phenomena.

5. Critical methodology of the Proletcultists.

Proletkult is a mass literary and artistic organization that played a decisive role in the development of literature and literary criticism in the 1920s. The priority of literary criticism in the 1920s in determining the social functions of all participants in the literary process. Proletkult and its role in influencing large masses of people. A vulgar sociological approach to a literary text, the requirement of a social and class assessment of the work.

6. as a literary critic.

– a prominent theorist and literary critic of LEF, defending the need to consider the literary process from the point of view of a change in literary forms. Ideas of Shklovsky's theoretical poetics. The critic’s early works are “The Resurrection of the Word” and “Art as a Technique.” Literary critical articles by Shklovsky dedicated to A. Akhmatova, E. Zamyatin, A. Tolstoy, L. Leonov, M. Zoshchenko, K. Fedin and others.

7. Characteristics of literary criticism of the 1930s - mid-1950s.

Creation and implementation of the concept of socialist realism, which led to the unification of culture. Soviet literary criticism, represented by speeches, reports, party resolutions and resolutions. The essence and methodology of party literary criticism. Its authors: I. Stalin, A. Zhdanov, A. Shcherbakov, D. Polikarpov, A. Andreev and others. The main features of party literary criticism: rigid certainty, indisputable unambiguity of judgments, genre and stylistic monotony, rejection of the “other” point of view.

Writer's Literary Criticism - Sample Speeches and Performances. Literary critical speeches by A. Fadeev (“Literature and Life”, “Learn from Life”, “Go Straight into Life”) are a response to the needs of the Stalin era.

Declaration is a necessary attribute of literary criticism, designed to emphasize the partisanship and class character of literature.

8. Soviet literary criticism of the mid-s.

Literary criticism in the context of the “thaw”. Role in the literary situation of the 1960s. Contradictions in literary life and literary criticism associated with the name of Khrushchev. The role of Tvardovsky – editor of the magazine “New World”. New trends in the literary life of the country.

The loyalty of the “Novomirtsy” to democratic beliefs, consistency in defending anti-Stalinist positions. Literary critical works that appeared in samizdat.

9. Writer's literary criticism (K. Fedin, L. Leonov, K. Simonov).

Revitalization of literary life at the turn of the 20s through the publication of many regional literary and artistic magazines: “Don”, “Sever”, “Volga”, etc. Revitalization of literary criticism as a special sphere of scientific and artistic creativity. Activation of writers' literary criticism. The desire of Fedin and Leonov to show the connection between Russian literature of past years and the present, to emphasize the high importance of literary work.

The genre of literary portrait in the works of Fedin (Articles about Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol, Blok). Literary and critical speeches of Leonov. Verbal “revival” of the writer in “A Speech about Chekhov”, “A Tale about Tolstoy”.

Examples of journalistic criticism in the works of K. Simonov. “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” is Simonov’s literary-critical chronicle.

10. Literary and critical creativity of A. Makarov.

The wide creative range of Makarov - a literary critic. Makarov's critical style. Articles about M. Sholokhov, D. Bedny, M. Isakovsky, M. Svetlov, V. Shukshin and others. A book about V. Astafiev “In the depths of Russia.” Reflections on the subject and purpose of literary criticism. Makarov wrote that criticism is part of literature, its subject is man and his social life.

The main collections of literary critical works by A. Makarov are “Education of Senses”, “Conversation on the Matter”, “In the Depths of Russia”.

11. A. Tvardovsky as a literary critic.

Tvardovsky's articles about Pushkin, Bunin, Isakovsky, Tsvetaeva, Blok, Akhmatova, Ehrenburg are evidence of a deep understanding of classical literature. Genre diversity of Tvardovsky’s literary and critical heritage.

12. Soviet literary criticism of the 1920s.

The confrontation between two “branches” of literary criticism: official, serving the literary generals, and criticism, which incorporates prompt responses to new books and assessments of the current literary situation. Reasons for leaving the Writers' Union of V. Voinovich, V. Maksimov, L. Chukovskaya. Forced emigration of writers. The role of the magazine “Our Contemporary” in assessing the moral pillars of life. Consistent criticism of Stalinism and Soviet ideology.

13. The creative heritage of literary critics: Y. Seleznev, I. Dedkov, A. Turkov, I. Zolotusny, V. Cardin and others (optional).

The literary critical activity of Yu. Seleznev, I. Dedkov, L. Anninsky, A. Turkov, I. Zolotussky, V. Kardin, B. Sarnov and others as a manifestation of bright literary and creative individuals conveying the social consciousness of the era.

14. Literary criticism of Russia in the 1990s.

Changes in the literary and social situation in the country. The situation in literary criticism in the article by N. Ivanova “Between: On the place of the critic in process and literature” (New World Magazine, 1996, No. 1, pp. 203-214).

Newspaper criticism and online criticism. New problems of literary criticism.

6. REFERENCES

Main literature

1. , Surovtsev - art criticism. – M., 1982.

2. History of Russian literary criticism in 2 volumes. – St. Petersburg, 2003.

3., Skorospelov’s criticism in Russia of the twentieth century. – M., 1996.

4. Prozorov of Russian criticism. – M., 2003.

additional literature

1. Bocharov literary and artistic criticism. – M., 1982.

2. From the history of Soviet literary-critical thought of the 20s. – M., 1985.

3. About the skill of literary criticism. Genres, composition, style. – L., 1980.

4. Istratova through the eyes of a writer. – M., 1990.

5. Problems of the theory of literary criticism: Sat. articles. – M., 1980.

6. Muromsky Soviet literary criticism. Questions of history, theory, methodology. – L., 1985.

7. Russian literary criticism of the early twentieth century. Modern look. Sat. reviews. – M., 1991.

8. Russian literature of the twentieth century in the mirror of criticism. Reader. (Compiled ,). – St. Petersburg State University; M., 2003.

9. Sobolev criticism. – M., 1990.

10. , Mikhailova literary criticism of the late XIX – early XX centuries. Reader. – M., 1982.

11. “How our word will respond”...The fate of literary works. – M., 1995.

Texts (Sources)

1. Anninsky L. Elbows and wings of hope, reality, paradoxes. – M., 1989.

2. Astafiev V. Sighting staff. – M., 1988.

3. Gorky M. About literature. – M., 1980.

4. Dedkov I. Updated vision. – M., 1988.

5. Zolotussky I. Hour of choice. – M., 1989.

6. Ivanova N. Resurrection of necessary things. – M., 1990.

7. Ivanova N. Between: On the place of criticism in the press and literature.// New World. – 1996. - No. 1.

8. Cardin V. Where is the dog buried?. Polemical articles of the 60-80s. – M., 1991.

9. Cardin V. Passions and passions // Znamya, 1995.

10. Kozhinov V. Articles about modern literature. – M., 1990.

11. Lakshin V. Magazine paths. From the literary polemics of the 60s. – M., 1990.

12. Leiderman N. Cry of the heart. In the book: Russian literature of the twentieth century in the mirror of criticism. – M., St. Petersburg, 2003.

13. Makarov A. Literary and critical works. In 2 volumes - M., 1982.

14. Nemzer A. Literary today. About Russian prose. 90s – M., 1998.

15. Rodnyanskaya I. Literary seven years. – M., 1995.

16. Tvardovsky A. About literature. – M., 1973.

4. EDUCATIONAL AND METHODOLOGICAL SUPPORT OF DISCIPLINE

4-a. Methodological materials to discipline

1. Introduction. The content of the concept of “literary criticism”. Literary criticism as a synthesis of literature and science.

Target : determine the connection between Russian literary criticism and the history of Russian culture and social life of the country; to emphasize the close relationship of the history of literary criticism both with the history of Russian literary criticism, with the history of literature itself, with the development of its leading directions and trends, with the destinies of masters of words, and with the movement of socio-political life, with current modernity.

Russian literary criticism as a special field of literary and artistic activity, reflecting the general trends in the development of domestic and world culture and literature.

2. Literary criticism in Soviet Russia in the 1920s – early 1930s.

Target : highlight the features of the new literary era; the role of literary criticism as a source of formation of a new literary situation; tasks of Marxist literary criticism; the methodological basis of post-revolutionary Soviet literary criticism.

The new literary era, the tasks of literary criticism in its formation. Proletkult. Critical methodology of the Proletcultists. Futurists and Lef. V. Shklovsky as a literary critic. “Serapion Brothers” L. Lunts. History of RAPP. Literary-critical ideology of nastovstvo. G. Lelevich. Split in RAPP and new trends in literary criticism. A. Voronsky, N. Bukharin. Disputes about proletarian culture and the position of E. Zamyatin. Circles of workers' criticism and reader's criticism. "Oppositional" literary criticism. A. Lunacharsky, V. Polonsky, V. Pereverzev. Literary-critical activity of the group “Pereval”. D. Gorbov, A. Lezhnev.

3. Soviet literary criticism 1930 – mid-1950s.

Target : to study the process of formation of Russian literary criticism at a new historical stage; define the features of a new literary era. Identify the nature of the relationship between literary criticism and the development of literature and aesthetics; reveal the role of literary criticism in the literary process of the 30s - mid-50s.

A feature of the new Literary era. Creation of the Union of Soviet Writers. Party resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations.” The first congress of Soviet writers. The role of Gorky in the literary life of the 1930s. Party literary criticism. Writer's literary criticism: A. Fadeev, A. Tolstoy. Literary criticism in the light of party decisions. V. Ermilov. The crisis of literary criticism.

4. Soviet literary criticism of the mid-s.

Target : to study the features of the development of literary criticism in the conditions of a new historical and literary era.

Second Congress of Soviet Writers. Literary criticism in the context of the “thaw”. The role of N. Khrushchev in the literary situation of the 1960s.

Writer's literary criticism: K. Fedin, L. Leonov, K. Simonov. Literary and critical creativity of A. Makarov. Literary criticism on the pages of the magazine “New World”. The position of the “New World” in the literary and social situation of the 1960s. Literary-critical department of the “New World”. N. Ilyina, I. Vinogradov, V. Lakshin. A. Tvardovsky as a literary critic. Literary-critical department of the magazine "Youth".

5. Soviet literary criticism of the 1920s.

Target : to characterize literary criticism of the 1920s, to identify the nature of its relationships with the literary and social atmosphere of the 1970s and early 1980s.

Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism.” Types of literary criticism and critics. Variety of typological formations (socio-thematic, artistic-conceptual, literary-historical, cultural-historical). Creative individuality of literary critics: Yu. Seleznev, I. Dedkov, A. Turkov, I. Zolotussky, V. Cardin, B. Sarnov, V. Kozhinov, I. Rodnyanskaya and others. Classical literature in critical assessments. The end of the 1980s in literary criticism.

Lesson 1. Literary criticism of Russia in the 1990s.

Target: determine the literary and social situation of the last decade of the twentieth century, present a general characteristic of literary criticism in Russia in the 90s.

Plan:

New problems of literary criticism at a new stage:

A). Newspaper criticism and online criticism.

b). "Party" in literary criticism.

V). Pluralism of opinions and culture of discussions.

2. Literary criticism and school literary education.

3. Criticism as an open system.

Literature

Main

Prozorov of Russian criticism. – M.: Higher School, 2003. History of Russian literary criticism in 2 volumes. – St. Petersburg, 2003. On the skill of literary criticism: genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. , Skorospelov’s criticism in Russia of the twentieth century. – M., 1996.

Additional

Soloviev criticism. – M., 1984. Strakhov criticism. – M., 1984. Chuprinin S. Criticism is critics. Problems and portraits. – M., 1988.

When starting to complete this topic, students should have a good understanding of the features of the literary and social situation of the last decade of the twentieth century. It is important to remember that reforms in the political and economic life countries have led to the fact that historical documentaries are becoming popular reading, but over time, interest in documentary sources is lost, since publications began to be perceived by public opinion among the daily changing information. The media “push aside” literature and literary criticism, moving the interests of the public to the area of ​​modern events and news. New social institutions are emerging in the country, the role of which has been assumed by literature for many decades. In 1990, censorship was eliminated, and in the same year the sixth article of the USSR Constitution on the leading role of the Communist Party was abolished. New problems of literary criticism are outlined in the article by N. Ivanova “Between: On the place of criticism in the press and literature” // New World: 1996. - No. 1. - P. 203-214. Students should refer to it when preparing for class.

Lesson 2. Literary-critical written genres of the twentieth century.

Target : Explore the variety of literary critical genres. Be able to demonstrate in practice mastery of key literary critical writing genres.

Plan:

Define the concepts: abstract, review. By contacting the literary-critical department of the magazine (optional), determine the features of the named genres in the magazine’s publications. Define the concepts: literary portrait, critical miniature, essay, review of a literary and artistic publication, review of a literary work. Demonstrate in practice knowledge of literary critical genres, and therefore present a written version of any genre (optional).

Literature

Main

Bocharov literary and artistic criticism. – M., 1982. On the skill of literary criticism: genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. Problems of the theory of literary criticism. Digest of articles. – M., 1980.

Additional

Prozorov of Russian criticism. – M., Higher School, 2003. Chernets - a methodological manual on the history of Russian criticism “How our word will respond.” – M., 1998.

When preparing for the lesson, students should draw on their experience of working with reference literature and reference publications. It is important to study the theoretical aspect of the issue and demonstrate in practice mastery of key literary-critical written genres. For this purpose, students must turn to the literary-critical department of the magazine (optional) and determine the features of the named genres in the magazine’s publications. Students are invited to submit a written version of any genre (optional) for this lesson, and therefore they should focus on the work of one author, demonstrating in practice their mastery of literary critical genres.

Lesson 3. Literary-critical creativity.

Target : get acquainted with the work of a literary critic, reflecting trends in the development of national culture, literature, and pedagogical thought.

Plan:

4. Theoretical provisions in the articles of A. Makarov: about the essence of art, about artistry and poetry, about the pathos of creativity.

5. Russian literature of the twentieth century in interpretation. Approval of universal human criteria for evaluating literary phenomena in critic’s articles.

6. The variety of genres in the critical works of A. Makarov.

Literature

Main

Makarov - critical works: In 2 volumes - M., 1982. On the skill of literary criticism. Genres, composition, style. – L., 1980. Astafiev’s staff. – M., 1988.

Additional

1. Kazarkin Soviet literary criticism of the 60-80s. – Sverdlovsk, 1990.

2. Chuprinin S. Criticism is critics. Problems and portraits. – M., 1988.

Carrying out the tasks proposed in this topic, students should have a good understanding of the features of literary life at the turn of the 1990s, signs of its revival due to the publication of many regional literary and artistic magazines: “Don”, “North”, “Volga”, “Rise” ", etc. The magazine "Children's Literature" is being published again, in which literary critical articles are published. Literary criticism also began to revive as a special sphere of scientific and artistic creativity. Writers' literary criticism intensified.

Literary critical works became a noticeable phenomenon. Students should become familiar with the contents of V. Astafiev’s book about Makarov, “The Seeing Staff,” which emphasized the peculiarities of the critic’s human and literary talent.

When preparing for a lesson, it is important to read the main collections of literary critical works by A. Makarov - “Education of Senses”, “Conversation on the Matter”, “In the Depths of Russia”, in which the critic shares with the reader his thoughts on the purpose of art and the pathos of creativity. Particularly noteworthy are Makarov’s articles about M. Sholokhov, M. Isakovsky, M. Svetlov, K. Simonov, V. Shukshin, V. Astafiev, which affirmed universal human criteria for evaluating literary phenomena. Getting acquainted with Makarov's work, students must understand the main thing in his creative laboratory: criticism is a part of literature, its subject is a person and his social life, each critic has his own artistic experience and his own theme. This position allowed Makarov to remain an independent critic with a wide creative range.

Lesson 4. Literary text and literary criticism (using the example of V. Astafiev’s story “Is It a Clear Day” and its assessment in the literary critical article by N. Leiderman “Cry of the Heart.”

Target : developing the ability to analytically approach a literary text and become familiar with critical reviews about it; understanding the principles and techniques of literary analysis used by a critic when evaluating a work of art.

Plan:

Explain how the material from the Great Patriotic War helps V. Astafiev in posing universal human problems (the story “Is it on a Clear Day”). What is the skill of the story's author in portraying the main character? Literary-critical assessment of V. Astafiev’s story in N. Leiderman’s article “Cry of the Heart.”

Literature

Main

Astafiev and fate.// Astafiev V. Everything has its hour. – M., 1985. “Is it a clear day?” Leiderman N. Cry of the heart. In the book: Russian literature of the twentieth century in the mirror of criticism. Reader. – M., St. Petersburg, 2003. Pp. 375. Muromsky V. Russian Soviet literary criticism: Questions of history, theory, methodology. – L., 1985.

Additional

1. Lanshchikov A. Viktor Astafiev. – M., 1992.

2. Belaya G. Literature in the mirror of criticism. – M., 1986.

3. Zolotussky I. Hour of choice. – M., 1986.

When preparing for this topic, students should remember that literary criticism stems from the science of literary criticism. Literary criticism is an assessment of literature; it seeks to explain a work of art, its meaning, prepares the reader for an encounter with the work, and enters into dialogue with the author and other critics. Literary criticism is a conscious creative process in which text analysis is the main component.

After familiarizing themselves with the text, students should turn to its analysis, relying on the developed skills of an analytical approach to a literary text. Considering the importance of determining such structures of the text as the genre of the work, its theme, features of the artistic image, the poetics of the text, it is necessary to answer the question of what is the skill of V. Astafiev in solving the theme of the Great Patriotic War in the story “Is it on a Clear Day”. Students should come to the conclusion: the writer turned to a psychological story in which the theme of the Great Patriotic War is resolved in the context of the individual fate of the main character. The retrospective narrative plan helps the author characterize the main character as a bearer of the traits of the national Russian character: he is brave, selfless, and bravely fulfills his military duty. He is the hero to whom the author entrusts his humanistic thoughts about the future of the Motherland. The idea of ​​affirming the “eternal” values ​​of life based on the material of the Great Patriotic War is the main one in the story. Thinking about its content, students aesthetically evaluate the artistic image.

Reading and thoughtfully understanding N. Leiderman’s article “The Cry of the Heart” will help students not only get acquainted with the critic’s skill in evaluating V. Astafiev’s story. Students learn the ability to understand and evaluate a literary work based on the internal properties of the text and the spiritual needs of society.

Lesson 5. Literary-critical assessment of one of the works of Russian literature (optional).

Target : test mastery of the skills of independent analysis of a literary text and its critical evaluation.

Plan:

Review the features of key literary critical writing genres. Demonstrate mastery of literary critical written genres using the example of one work of Russian literature of the twentieth century (optional).

Literature

Main

Literary text of your choice. Bocharov literary and artistic criticism. – M., 1982. On the skill of literary criticism. Genres, composition, style. – L., 1980.

Additional

Istratova through the eyes of a writer. – M., 1990. Prozorov of Russian literary criticism. – M., 2002.

Based on the purpose of the lesson - to test students’ mastery of the skills of independent analysis of a literary text and its critical evaluation, the completion of tasks for this lesson is individual in nature, offering to demonstrate, based on the theoretical material of the lectures, mastery of literary critical written genres using the example of one work of Russian literature of the twentieth century optionally. The student can either analyze a specific literary work, or (a more complex option) show the solution to one of the studied literary problems in a specific literary work. The work is preceded by a repetition of the features of key literary-critical written genres.

4-b. Map of literature availability by discipline

Information about the provision of the educational process with educational literature or

other information resources

Educational program OP-02.01 – Russian language and literature

Name of disciplines included in the educational program

Number of copies in the USPI library

Supply per 1 student

DS.4 History of Russian literary criticismXIX-XX century

Main

Russian literature of the twentieth century. in the mirror of criticism (Compiled by Timina S., Chernyak M., Kyakshto. - M., 2003.

Leiderman N., Lipovetsky M. Modern Russian literature: e. In 2 volumes. - M., 2003.

Additional

Anninsky A. Elbows and wings. Literature of the 90s. – M., 1989.

Belaya G. Literature in the mirror of criticism. – M., 1986.

Dedkov I. The living face of time. Essays on prose of the 70-80s. – M., 1986.

Kozhinov V. Articles about modern literature. – M., 1990.

Mineralov Yu. History of Russian literature of the 90s. XX century – M., 2002.

History of Russian literary criticism / Ed. V. Prozorova. – M., 2002.

Chuprinin S. Criticism is critics. – M., 1988.

4-in. List of available demonstration and handout materials,

equipment, computer programs, etc.

The program does not provide demonstration materials.