Literary critic - who is he? Russian literary criticism of the 19th century. Preface

LITERARY CRITICISM is a type of word-weighted creativity that involves the evaluation and use of the work of art li-te-ra-tu-ry.

Depending on whether the time -ny dis-tan-tion in relation to the ana-ly-zi-ru-my text, allowing you to look at it against the background already completed literary era, Literary criticism turns mainly to the products of modern literature. Old texts can attract the attention of Literary Criticism, but not in the quality of the is-to-be-conditioned phenomena. me-new, but as some cultural symbols, the analysis of which can help in the development of evil-bo-day- new problems and self-cri-ti-ka.

Literary criticism and li-te-ra-tu-ro-ve-de-nie in the cultural tradition of European countries are developed in different degrees. pen-ni: in Russia and Germany, their de-gra-nation is for-cre-p-le-but in the language, while in France and in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the term “cri-ti-ka” (critique, literary cri-ti-cism) is used as a proper ven-but Literary criticism, and to phil-o-logical, li-te-ra-tu-ro-vedic things. In the framework of such right-le-ny modern culture and gu-ma-ni-tar-no-thought, as in smo-der-nism and post-struc-tu-ra -lism, development of whether-te-ra-tu-ro-ve-de-niya and Literary criticism thought as not-ade-to-vat-noe and ar-ha- ich-noe, as objective, is-to-ri-che-ski ori-en-ti-ro-van-noe study of literary production - recognized as impossible.

Revealing the meaning of pro-ve-de-tion in Literary criticism is always co-pro-vo-y-yes-e-evaluatively. -eat, something based on scientific analysis (as in li-te-ra-tu-ro-vedic research), but on subjective representations, cri-ti-ka about the norms of hu-do-same-st-ven-no-sti, the rules of taste, es-te-ticheskikh for-pro-sah epo-hi. The critic expresses an opinion about how successfully the author’s work is embodied in the text, how it is convincing that the author decides this or that artistic problem; co-presenting the ras-smat-ri-vae-my text and the modern pi-sa-te-lyu-st-vi-tel-nost, kri-tik evalua- tion Yes, how completely and accurately the author re-created an out-of-the-same reality, re-gave the world -sensation of time (from here, typical for literary criticism of the 19th-20th centuries, the transition from its own-st-ven-but-those- ra-tur-nyh to social-ci-al-but-public and even political pro-ble-moms).

On the basis of its own ideas about the literary situation, criticism can give its own “predictions” about -gnoses of how literature will develop further, what genres, themes, techniques will prevail in it. Since the critic writes only about those ideas and motivations for production that he considers important, its interpretation, addressed to the broad-based reader and giving it ori-en-ti-ry in the world of books , does not necessarily lead to a certain sense of meaning. In pro-ti-in-falseness, cry-ti-ku, li-te-ra-tu-ro-ved, as a rule, is determined by the assessment is-the-following-of-the-pro-of-de-de-tion and is not so much to chi-ta-te-lyam and to whether-te-ra-to- frames, how many to number of scientists.

Literary criticism is the self-creation of artistic literature. Co-chi-ne-nii kri-ti-kov often pri-ob-re-ta-ut the meaning of literary ma-ni-fests that express artistic principles cy-py of this or that literary direction or the-tion. The state-dominated forms of Literary criticism are the journal and the newspaper; its main genres are review (a brief analysis of the production process for the purpose of its evaluation), tya (a detailed analysis of one pro-of-ve-de-niya, the creation of a pi-sa-te-la as a whole), review literary life for the op-re-de-len period (for example, annual reviews of Russian literature by V. G. Belin-skogo), literary port- ret, es-se. Literary-critical statements in the past often appeared in the form of literary-artistic productions - poems of sa-ti-ry (for example, “Someone else’s talk” by I. I. Dmitrieva, 1794; “Vision on the shores of Le-ty” by K. N. Ba- Tyush-ko-va, 1809), pa-ro-dias, etc. Literary-critical works often present a reaction not on the artistic product itself, but on its assessment by another critic; Dia-log-gi Kri-ti-kov according to the concrete text or op-re-de-linen problem of modern literary life has often been re-written in po-le-mi-ki, many of which have played an important role in the history of literature .

Is-to-ri-che-sky essay

Literary criticism became the most important part of the word only in the 17th-18th centuries; Before this, literary-critical judgments had a place in texts of various character and pre-knowledge. In the era-hu an-tich-no-sti elements of Literary criticism are present in philosophical treatises (“Go-su-dar-st-vo” Pla-to-na), trak-ta-tah in this-ke and ri-to-ri-ke (Ari-sto-tel, Tsi-tse-ron, Quin-ti-li-an, Dio-ni -siy Ga-li-kar-nas-sky, “On the rise-high” of Psev-do-Lon-gin, etc.); literary po-le-mi-ka from-ra-zhe-na in the at-ti-che-skaya comedy (comedy Ari-sto-fa-na “La-gush-ki”, on -right-len-naya against Ev-ri-pi-da, etc.). In the Middle Ages, literary-critical works could have been part of the kur-tu-az-no-go-ro-man (for example, in “Three-hundred -not" Got-free-da Stras-burg). Frame-ki in this way (us-ta-nav-li-vayu-shchey pra-vi-la for ethical work) and ri-to-ri-ki (co-der- a thirsty set of rules for prose genres) to a significant extent op-re-de-la literary-critical judgments -niya and in the era of Voz-ro-zh-de-niya. Increasingly the status of ethical creativity (which in the era of the Middle Ages only as an imperfect sub-ra-zha-nie of the “ancient-nim”) the way-st-vo-va-whether created by many authors (J. Bok-kach-cho, K. Sa-lu-ta-ti, F. Sid-ni, etc.) texts in “za-shi-tu in poetry”, in no-my way as a reflection of the heavenly harmony, the fruit of God's inspiration, the synthesis of all other arts and etc.

In the era of class-si-tsiz-ma in the role of literary tastes, you-stu-pa-et French aka-de-mia (created-da- on in 1635), with the faithful wife of Doc-three-ne F. Ma-ler-ba. She is an active teacher in the discussion of the do-instv and non-do-tat-kov of tra-gi-ko-media P. Kor -not la "Sid" (1637); this dispute is one of the earliest examples of literary language in European literature. Another sphere of the formation of literary tastes, literary language and the lack of critical assessments in France was ari-sto-kra -tic sa-lo-ny. The role of sa-lo-na as a form of literary life and mechanism of Literary criticism was preserved in France in the 18th century. In England, the development of Literary Criticism is associated with the names of J. Dry-de-na (“An Essay on Dramatic Poetry” , 1668), with the development of a zhur-na-li-sti-ki (J. Ad-di-son).

The most influential logical treatise of this era is the poem by N. Bua-lo “This is the art of art” (1674) - the combination of the norm-ma-tiv-noy in this way with the literary-critical one. Bua-lo from-r-tsal gal-lant-but-pre-ci-oz-baroque literature as elaborate and light-weight and one-time-men- but caught in rudeness and on-tu-ra-li-stich-no-sti with-chi-ne-niya P. Scar-ro-na; Mol-e-ra’s comedy-media was not rated in the same way. Under the influence of Bua-lo's ideas, class-si-ci-stic Literary criticism, which has a long-awaited importance for writing the following rules -lam and norm-mom, developed in all European countries: among its representatives are Voltaire, J. F. Mar-mont-tel , F. S. de La Harpe in France; A. Po-up in England; I.K. Gotshed in Germany. Op-po-nen-you Got-she-da, Swiss-tsars I. Ya. Bod-mer and I. Ya. Brei-tin-ger, pro-ti-vo-pos-ta-vi-li class -si-cy-stic sys-te-me rules the cr-ter-ria of freedom, but-vis-ny, power of imagination; They saw one of the main tasks of Literary criticism in the reproduction of chi-ta-te-la.

A notable event in literary life in France at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries is the “dispute about the ancients and the new”: “ancient” in di-whether in ancient literature there are unconditional models for modern authors, “but-you” this opinion is from-ver-ha-lo.

In Germany of the 18th century, Literary criticism is closely associated with es-te-ti-coy as a branch of philosophy. Pro-test-tom against the norm-ma-tiv-noy in these pro-nick-well-you literary-es-the-the-techical so-chi-non-nie G. E. Les-sin-ga (“Hamburg drama-ma-tur-gy”, volumes 1-2, 1767-1769, etc.) and I. G. Ger-de-ra (“Shek-spir”, 1773, etc. .). Ori-en-ta-tion on the philosophic substantiation of literary-critical expressions ha-rak-ter-na for Literary criticism of German writers this period, in part by F. Shil-le-ra and I. V. Goe-te. According to the class, the English critic S. Johnson, who combined Literary criticism with the genre of literary biography (“The Life of non-description of the most outstanding English poets”, volumes 1-3, 1779-1781).

At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, new phenomena related to the movement of novels are being developed in Literary criticism. MA: in Germany, literary-critical thought is about-le-ka-et-sya in a culturally-vi-rue-mu-yen-ski-mi ro-man-ti-ka-mi form frag-men-ta (No-va-lis, F. Shle-gel); in Ve-li-ko-bri-ta-nii S. T. Coleridge introduces literary-critical races into auto-bio-graphy (“Biogra- phia Literaria", 1817); in France, back in the 1820s, the literary-critical struggle against classism continued, one of the main documents swarm - V. Hugo's pre-word to the drama “Crom-vel” (1827), pro-voting the right of the rain to freedom - a new combination in one product - of the low and the high, the ugly and the beautiful but-ho. From the sources of American literary criticism - C. B. Brown, who started publishing the magazine "American Review" in 1799 .

In the 1830s. wide knowledge of the literary and critical works of Sh. O. Sainte-Beu-va, develop-vi-v-v-she-go-method of artistic bio-graphy and de-love-she-go emphasis on the moral-st-ven-no-psychological study of nii creativity-che-st-va pi-sa-te-la; his name is associated with the genre of literary port-re-ta. In the middle of the 19th century, the us-peh of natural sciences was able to ut-ver-zh-de-zh-de-in-zi-ti-vis-ma, dis-pro-country-niv-she-go for the laws of culture, including literature: “Critical experiments” by I. A. Te-na (1858), etc. . Te-na's ideas were inspired in their literary-critical works by E. Zo-lya, F. Bru-net-er (“Evo” -vision of French Li-ri-che-poetry in the 19th century”, volumes 1-2, 1894-1895), etc. In Great Britain, Literary criticism is inclined I'm trying to unite my own problems and social problems, I'm drawn to the negative assessment of the Vik-to-ri-an-sko-go society (M. Ar-nold, W. Pey-ter). Among the leading cries of the 19th-20th centuries - dat-cha-nin G. Brandes, who in his works gave a wide-ranging pa-no-ra-mu of modern European literature from the point of view of greetings -vue-mo-go im realiz-ma. The first major representatives of the American cri-ti-ki in the 19th century were: E. Poe, R. W. Emer -son, W. D. Howels, G. James, J. London, T. Dreiser.

In the 20th century, Literary criticism, which had a strong influence on various philosophical teachings, lin-gwis-ti-ki, an-tro-po-logia, psi -ho-ana-li-za, developed the efforts of both professional critics and writers. Among the best-known of her representatives are: F. R. Leevis, T. S. Eliot, W. Empson in Veli- ko-bri-ta-nii; P. Va-le-ri, J. P. Sartre in France; J. De Robert-tis in Italy; G. Bar in Austria; V. Ben-ya-min, T. Mann, B. Brecht, M. Reich-Ra-nits-ki in Germany; N. Fry in Ca-na-de; R. P. Warren, K. Brooks, S. Lewis, T. Wolfe, E. He-min-gu-ey, W. Faulkner in the USA.

In Russia, Literary criticism for-ro-zh-da-et-sya in the 18th century V. K. Tre-dia-kovsky, M. V. Lo-mo-no-sov, A. P. Su- Ma-ro-kov, unlike European theo-re-ti-kov, in their literary-critical analyzes were not so sure-waited, but -new principles in the fight against the old, how many have created new secular literature as such. The formation of Literary criticism in the modern sense of the word in Russia is connected with the activity of N. M. Kara-ramzin, mainly in-bo-div-she-critical assessments from the norm-ma-tiv-no-sti, from the ori-en-ta-tion on unconditional rights for these -ki and ri-to-ri-ki and po-sta-viv-she-go to the center of attention the personality of pi-sa-te-la. Kara-ramzin created a new genre of review for Russian literature; in his reviews, he combined features of critical analysis with elements of artistic ess. He was the first to introduce a permanent section of reviews in his “Moscow Journal”.

In the 1800-1810s, the “no-word-ga” (“ka-ram-zi” -ni-sta-mi") and "ar-hai-sta-mi" ("shish-ko-vi-sta-mi"), which are ori-en-ti-ro-va-ly on " you-so-high syllable”, which goes back to the church-but-slavic language. Sides of the “new syllable”, loyal to the “average” style and culture-ti-vi-ro-vav-shy “light” some genres”, developed the ideas of Kara-ram-zin; their main op-po-nen-tom was A.S. Shish-kov. A very sharp character is discussed in Russian literature of the 1810-1820s on the pages of the journals but -new genres and individual productions (discussion about the ball-la-de “Lyud-mi-la” by V. A. Zhu-kov-skogo, about po- eme “Rus-lan and Lyud-mi-la” by A. S. Push-ki-na, about the comedy “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Gri-boy-do-va). In the mid-1820s - the first half of the 1830s, N. A. Po-le-voy, os-no-va-tel defended the shield of ro-man-tiz-ma magazine "Mo-s-kov-sky telegraph". N.I. Na-de-zh-din became a critic of the Russian novel-tiz-ma from the positions of the German idealism, in the zhur-na-le ko-to-ro- In 1833, V. G. Belinsky began his literary activity. Not-accept-my fighter with the “back-to-back” novel-man-tiz-mom, he stood up for the artistic principles of new school, ori-en-ti-ro-van-noy on the depiction of typical cases and situations in all-day life , back in the 1840s, a discussion about the poem “Dead Souls” by N.V. Go-go-lya. In the 1840s, literary politics in Russia interacted with social disputes, primarily with dis-kussi -ey between the west-nor-ka-mi and sla-vya-no-fi-la-mi. At the same time, the profession of Literary Criticism is also underway: literary critical activity for certain authors. that-ditch has become practically a single type of pi-sa-tel-st-va, while previously it was usually there was a side-by-side form for my for-this or pro-zai-ka.

1850-1860s ha-rak-te-ri-zu-yut-sya pro-ti-in-standing-nim in Literary criticism of the “es-te-ti-che-skoy cr-ti-ki”, or “push-kin-sko-go-on-right-le-niya” (P.V. An-nen-kov, A.V. Dru-zhi-nin), and “re-al-noy kri-ti- ki" (N. G. Cher-nyshevsky, N. A. Dob-ro-lyubov, D. I. Pi-sa-rev, etc.), for female believers Literary criticism was not as much a form of analysis and aesthetic evaluation of literary works as you are tion of so-ci-al-no-po-ly-tic ideas. The concept of “or-ga-ni-che-kri-ti-ki” was advanced in the 1850s by A. A. Grigor-ev, who described it at a glance -dy F. She-lin-ga and convinced that literature must grow from the people's “soil”. Later, N. N. Strakhov’s almost-ven-no-che-views developed in his cri-ti-ke. A significant phenomenon in Literary criticism of the 1870-1880s was the article by N. K. Mi-khailov-sko.

In the 1890s, the formation of the symbol in Russian literature was preceded by the articles of N. M. Minsk and D. WITH. Me-rezh-kov-sko-go, in which cr-ti-che-ski was assessed the modern layer-weight and were on-me-the-ways further literary development. Among the genres of Literary criticism of Russian sim-vo-lists are the literary ma-ni-fest, the im-press-sio-ni-stic essay, the literary-philosophical treatise, and sometimes in their complex combination. Phil-lo-soph-ski ori-en-ti-ro-van-naya Literary criticism of ha-rak-ter-na for Russian religious thoughts-li-te-leys of the 19th-20th centuries: In S. So-lov-e-va, N. A. Ber-dyae-va, S. N. Bul-ga-ko-va and others. Particular significance in this period pri-ob-re-ta-et genre of literary ma-ni-fe-sta, which is a hundred-but-vit-sha form-my ut-ver-expectation of literary te-che-niy ak-me -iz-ma, fu-tu-riz-ma, kon-st-ruk-ti-viz-ma, etc. In the 1920s, li-te-ra-tu-ro-ve-dy, including before -sta-vi-te-li formal school, actively teach-st-vu-yut in the literary process as cri-ti-ki (V.B. Shklovsky , R. O. Jacob-son, Yu. N. Ty-nya-nov).

The development of L.K. in Russia during the Soviet period proceeds under the sign of ideology and its transformation into in-st-ru-ment of literature management from the government side. Norm is returning to Literary Criticism, seemingly having gone into the past along with the destruction of class -tsiz-ma. By the 1930s, due to the disappearance of opportunities for open dis-cussions, Literary criticism was re-established to be a form of self-creation of co-literary movements, groups and circles. At the same time, the traditions of Russian Literary criticism continue to be preserved in the literature of emigration. On the pages of Russian newspapers (“Last news”, “Voz-ro-zh-de-nie”, etc.) and journals (“So-vrem -men-nye notes”, “Numbers”, etc.), in literary circles and communities there were lively dis-cussions. this about the new wines of emigrant and Soviet literature.

Changes in Literary criticism occur in the period “from-the-pe-whether”, when elements arise -you are te-ra-tur-noy, and also so-tsi-al-noy po-le-mi-ki, and Literary criticism is sta-no-vit-sya for-ka-muf-li-ro -van-ny form of ideological struggle (the dispute between “pro-gres-s-stov” and “kon-serv-va-to-rov”, the most vivid manifestation -le-no-eat-something-was-about-the-standing magazines “New World” and “October”). The new ideological eman-si-pa-tion of Literary criticism is being completed in the period of re-re-building, while rev-ro-zh-da- There are long-standing disputes between “li-be-ra-la-mi” and “kon-ser-va-to-ra-mi”. In connection with the abolition of censorship, the role of Literary criticism changes: it ceases to be a hidden form of expression. ci-al-no-po-ly-tic ideas. There is a decrease in the influence of journals as the main form of Literary criticism and the role of newspaper reports is increasing. cen-ziy. For-mi-ru-et-sya new way of existence of Literary criticism in the Internet.

Lit.: Essays on the history of Russian journalism and kri-ti-ki: In 2 vols. L., 1950-1965;

Spingarn J. E. A history of literary criticism in the Renaissance. 2nd ed. N. Y., 1954;

Wellek R. A history of modern criticism, 1750-1950. New Haven, 1955-1992. Vol. 1-8;

History of Russian cri-ti-ki: In 2 vols. M.; L., 1958;

Essays on Roman history of li-te-ra-tur-noy cri-ti-ki. M., 1963;

Wimsatt W.K., Brooks C. Literary criticism: a short history. L., 1970. Vol. 1-2;

Ancient non-Greek li-te-ra-tur-naya cri-ti-ka. M., 1975;

Ego-rov B.F. About mas-ter-st-ve li-te-ra-tur-noy cr-ti-ki. L., 1980;

About the theories of li-te-ra-tur-noy cri-ti-ki. M., 1980;

Bur-sov B.I. Izbr. you work. M., 1982. T. 1: Kri-ti-ka like li-te-ra-tu-ra;

Rzhevskaya N. F. Li-te-ra-tu-ro-ve-de-nie and cri-ti-ka in modern France: Basic rules -nia. Me-to-logia and tend-den-tion. M., 1985;

Za-ru-be-naya li-te-ra-tur-naya kri-ti-ka: Questions of theory and history. L., 1985;

Pro-ble-we of the lit-tera-tour-theory in Byzantium and the Latin middle-ne-ve-co-vie. L., 1986;

Ku-le-shov V.I. Is-to-ria of Russian cri-ti-ki XVIII - at the beginning of the XX centuries. 4th ed. M., 1991;

Grube G.M.A. The Greek and Roman critics. India-napolis; Camb., 1995;

Russell D. A. Criticism in antiquity. 2nd ed. L., 1995;

Essays on the history of Russian literature. St. Petersburg, 1999. T. 1;

Gas-pa-rov M. L. Kri-ti-ka as a self-goal // Gas-pa-rov M. L. Za-pi-si and vy-pi-ki. M., 2000;

Ni-ko-lu-kin A.N. American pi-sa-te-li as cri-ti-ki. M., 2000;

Ran-chin A. M. The first century of Russian li-te-ra-tur-noy kri-ti-ki // Kri-ti-ka of the 18th century. M., 2002;

Ford A. The origins of criticism: literary culture and poetic theory in classical Greece. Princeton, 2002;

Sa-zo-no-va L.I. Li-te-ra-tour-naya kul-tu-ra of Russia: early modern times. M., 2006;

Ne-dzvetskiy V.A., Zy-ko-va G.V. Russian li-te-ra-tur-naya kri-ti-ka XVIII-XIX centuries. M., 2008;

Go-lub-kov M. M. Is-to-riya of Russian literary criticism of the XX century. (1920-1990s). M., 2008.

The word “criticism” comes from the Greek kritike - the art of disassembling, judging. Critical judgments about literature arose almost simultaneously with its very birth, initially as the opinion of the most respected, sophisticated readers. Having already stood out in antiquity in Greece and Rome, as well as in ancient India and China as a special professional occupation, Literary criticism more for a long time Among other types of creativity, it retained the “applied” meaning of a general assessment of a work, encouragement or condemnation of the author, and recommendation of the book to other readers.

Theoretical definition Literary criticism must be understood historically. Thus, criticism of the 17th and 18th centuries. - in accordance with classicist aesthetics - demanded only an impartial assessment of the work based on common taste, pointing out individual “errors” and “beauties”. In the 19th century criticism has developed as special kind literature, and the writer’s activity began to be considered in its relation to the era and society.

Story Literary criticism in the West, closely related to history literary schools and directions, the development of literary thought, directly or indirectly expresses social relations and the contradictions of his time. The most significant critics and writers put forward a program for the development of literature, formulated its social and aesthetic principles (for example, D. Diderot and G. Lessing - back in the 18th century, J. de Staël, G. Heine, V. Hugo, E. Zola - in the 19th century). Starting from the 1st half of the 19th century. criticism finally won the right of one of the literary professions in Europe. Influential critics for their time were: S. O. Sainte-Beuve, I. Taine and F. Brunetier - in France, M. Arnold - in England, G. Brandes - in Denmark. In the USA, the most notable achievements Literary criticism belong to the 1st half of the 20th century. and are associated with the names of W. L. Parrington and Van Wyck Brooks.

First steps in Russia Literary criticism date back to the mid-18th century. (M. V. Lomonosov, A. D. Kantemir, V. K. Trediakovsky). The range and possibilities of criticism were expanded by N. M. Karamzin, who for the first time gave it a public character. Decembrist critics (A. A. Bestuzhev and others) defended the idea of ​​nationality and originality of Russian literature from a revolutionary romantic position. N. I. Nadezhdin, who in many ways preceded V. G. Belinsky, was approaching an understanding of the principles of realistic criticism. The first high examples of Russian Literary criticism took shape in the critical prose of A. S. Pushkin and N. V. Gogol, who left subtle judgments about the purpose of literature, about realism and satire, about the essence and tasks of Literary criticism In criticism of V. G. Belinsky, who put forward the concept critical realism, the assessment of a work is based on the interpretation of it as an artistic whole, in the unity of its ideas and images, and the writer’s work is considered in connection with the history of literature and society. Not being satisfied with evaluating a work in the light ideological plan author, N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov justified as the main task Literary criticism a judgment about life itself, its processes, social types, compiled on the basis of truthful evidence from the artist - the paintings he depicted. The fundamental novelty of their approach, which expanded the very concept of criticism, lay in such an interpretation of a realistic work that made it possible to discover the true depth of its life content.

Revolutionary-democratic critics of the 60-70s. (Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and others), who continued the traditions of Belinsky, managed to merge literary work with active protests against serfdom and autocracy, for the emancipation of the people. Their activities took shape in an ideological and literary struggle with the liberal tendencies of “aesthetic criticism” (A.V. Druzhinin, V.P. Botkin, etc.), which tried to tear art and literature away from public life, and the non-social understanding of the nationality of literature in criticism as the so-called soil scientists (A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov, etc.). Many of the concrete critical works of these critics had undoubted merits and provided a meaningful analysis of individual literary phenomena, but in general their activities opposed the progressive movement of Russian revolutionary-democratic criticism.

A new, truly scientific methodological basis Literary criticism created the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels, which revealed the basic laws of socio-historical development, their speeches on issues of art and literature. Marxist criticism in the West, which arose in the 2nd half of the 19th century, was represented by outstanding writers - F. Mehring (in Germany) and P. Lafargue (in France), who were the first to interpret the problems of art from the standpoint of historical materialism.

A new stage in the development of Russian critical thought was marked by Marxist criticism, which inherited and developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. traditions of revolutionary democratic criticism from the time of its heyday; it took shape in the struggle against the populist (N.K. Mikhailovsky) and decadent (A. Volynsky) Literary criticism In the works of G. V. Plekhanov, the principle of a historical-materialist approach to literary phenomena and their assessment from class positions was substantiated and implemented. Of utmost importance for the development of Marxist Literary criticism had articles and speeches by V.I. Lenin. In a series of articles about L.N. Tolstoy, Lenin substantiated the “theory of reflection” in relation to literary creativity. The principle of party literature put forward by him (in the article “Party Organization and Party Literature,” 1905), its relationship to cultural heritage, and the defense of the realistic traditions of classical literature had a great influence on the formation of Marxist Literary criticism in Russia: its development is associated with the names of V.V. Vorovsky, A.V. Lunacharsky, M. Gorky and others.

Lenin's works were of fundamental importance for establishing the methodological foundations of Soviet literary criticism and Literary criticism

After October revolution 1917 in Russia and especially as a result of the emergence in the middle of the century of the socialist camp, Marxist literary criticism and Literary criticism become one of the leading international destinations; he is presented as Literary criticism socialist countries in general, as well as many Marxist critics in the bourgeois countries of the West and East (for example, R. Fauquet, K. Caudwell, etc.).

Marxist criticism examines works of art in the unity of all its sides and qualities - from a sociological, aesthetic, ethical point of view. Literary criticism, like artistic creativity itself, serves as a means of understanding life, influencing it, and, like literature, can be classified in the field of “human studies.” Hence the high responsibility of criticism as a means of ideological and aesthetic education.

Criticism shows the writer the merits and shortcomings of his work, helping to expand his ideological horizons and improve his skill; By addressing the reader, the critic not only explains the work to him, but also involves him in a living process of joint comprehension of what he has read at a new level of understanding. An important advantage of criticism is the ability to consider a work as an artistic whole and recognize it in the general process of literary development.

In modern Literary criticism Various genres are cultivated - article, review, overview, essay, literary portrait, polemical remark, bibliographic note. But in any case, a critic, in a certain sense, must combine a politician, a sociologist, a psychologist with a literary historian and an aesthetician. At the same time, the critic needs a talent akin to the talent of both the artist and the scientist, although not at all identical with them.

In Soviet criticism, the party orientation of critical speeches, the thoroughness of the Marxist-Leninist preparation of the critic, who is guided in his activities by the method socialist realism - the main creative method of all Soviet literature. The resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism” (1972) indicated that the duty of criticism, deeply analyzing the patterns of modern artistic process, to promote in every possible way the strengthening of the Leninist principles of party spirit and nationality, to fight for a high ideological and aesthetic level Soviet art, consistently oppose bourgeois ideology

Soviet Literary criticism, in alliance with Literary criticism other countries of the socialist community and Marxist Literary criticism capitalist countries, actively participates in the international ideological struggle, opposes bourgeois aesthetic, formalist concepts that try to exclude literature from public life and cultivate elitist art for the few; against the revisionist concepts of “realism without shores” (R. Garaudy, E. Fischer), calling for peaceful ideological coexistence, that is, for the capitulation of realistic movements to bourgeois modernism; against left-nihilistic attempts to “liquidate” cultural heritage and erase educational value realistic literature. In the 2nd half of the 20th century. In the progressive press of different countries, the study of V. I. Lenin’s views on literature intensified.

One of the pressing issues of modern Literary criticism is the attitude towards the literature of socialist realism. This method has both defenders and irreconcilable enemies in foreign criticism. The speeches of the “Sovietologists” (G. Struve, G. Ermolaev, M. Hayward, J. Rühle, etc.) regarding the literature of socialist realism are directed not only against artistic method, but in essence - against those social relations and ideas that determined its emergence and development.

M. Gorky, A. Fadeev and other writers at one time substantiated and defended the principles of socialist realism in Soviet criticism. The Soviet Union is actively fighting for the establishment of socialist realism in literature. Literary criticism, which is designed to combine the accuracy of ideological assessments, the depth of social analysis with aesthetic discernment, careful attitude towards talent, towards fruitful creative searches. Evidence-based and convincing Literary criticism gets the opportunity to influence the course of development of literature, the course of the literary process as a whole, consistently supporting advanced and rejecting alien trends. Marxist criticism, based on scientific methods of objective research and living public interest, opposes impressionistic, subjectivist criticism, which considers itself free from consistent concepts, a holistic view of things, a conscious point of view.

Soviet Literary criticism fights against dogmatic criticism, which proceeds from preconceived, a priori judgments about art and therefore cannot understand the very essence of art, its poetic thought, characters and conflicts. In the fight against subjectivism and dogmatism, criticism is gaining authority - social in nature, scientific and creative in method, analytical in research techniques, associated with a wide readership.

In connection with the responsible role of criticism in the literary process, in the fate of the book and the author, great importance raises the question of her moral duties. The profession imposes significant moral obligations on the critic and presupposes fundamental honesty of argumentation, understanding and tact towards the writer. All kinds of exaggerations, arbitrary quoting, hanging “labels”, unsubstantiated conclusions are incompatible with the very essence Literary criticism Directness and sharpness in judgments about craft literature are qualities inherent in advanced Russian criticism since the time of Belinsky. In criticism there should be no place, as stated in the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism,” for a conciliatory attitude towards ideological and artistic marriage, subjectivism, friendly and group biases. The situation is intolerable when articles or reviews “...are one-sided in nature, contain unfounded compliments, are reduced to a cursory retelling of the content of the work, and do not give an idea of ​​its real value and values” (“Pravda”, 1972, January 25, p. 1).

Scientific persuasiveness of argumentation, combined with party certainty of judgment, ideological adherence to principles and impeccable artistic taste, is the basis of the moral authority of the Soviet Union. Literary criticism, its influence on literature.

ABOUT Literary criticism for individual countries, see the Literature and Literary Studies sections in articles about these countries.

Lit.: Lenin V.I., On literature and art, 4th ed., M., 1969; Belinsky V.G., Speech on criticism, Complete. collection soch., t, 6, M., 1955; Chernyshevsky N. G., Aesthetics, M., 1958; Plekhanov G.V., Literature and Aesthetics, vol. 1-2, M., 1958; Gorky M., On literature, M., 1961; Lunacharsky A.V., Criticism and critics, Sat. articles, M., 1938; him, Lenin and literary criticism, Collection. soch., vol. 8, M., 1967; Essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism, vol. 1-2, M., 1950-1965; History of Russian criticism, vol. 1-2, M. - L., 1958; Rurikov B.S., The main problems of Soviet literary criticism, in the book: Second All-Union Congress Soviet writers, M., 1956; Fadeev A., Problems literary theory and critics, in his collection: For thirty years, M., 1957; Belinsky and modernity, M., 1964; Essays on the history of Russian Soviet journalism, vol. 1, 1917-1932, M., 1966; t. 2, 1933-1945, M., 1968; Actual problems criticism and literary criticism, “Questions of Literature”, 1966, No. 6; Kuleshov V, I., History of Russian criticism, M., 1972; Bursov B., Criticism as literature, “Zvezda”, 1973, No. 6-8; Soviet literary criticism and criticism. Russian Soviet literature (general work). Books and articles, 1917-1962. Bibliographical index, M., 1966 (sections “Literary criticism” and “Literary discussions”); Weiman., “New Criticism” and the development of bourgeois literary criticism, M., 1965; the formation of Marxist literary criticism in foreign Slavic countries, M., 1972; Tasks and opportunities of literary criticism. (At the international congress in Reims), “Foreign Literature”, 1972, No. 9; Teeter L., Scholarship and the art of criticism, “A Journal of English literary history”, 1938, No. 5; Peyre., Writers and their critics, lthaca, 1944; Kayser., Das sprachliche Kunstwerk, 12 Aufl., Bern - Münch., 1967 (bibl.); Weliek R., Warren A., Literary theory, criticism and history, in their book: Theory of literature, 3 ed., . ., 1963 (there is a library).

V. L. Matveev.

Article about the word " Literary criticism" in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was read 19821 times

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 overall rating works that encourage or, conversely, condemn the author’s opinion, as well as recommend or not the book to other readers.

Over time this literary direction developed and improved, beginning its rise during 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 other authors, an analysis of the personalities of the main characters, a discussion of artistic principles and ideas, and a vision and own interpretation of the whole picture of the modern world as a whole, its moral and spiritual problems, and ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and the power of their impact on the minds of the public, and today they are among the most powerful tools for influencing the spiritual life of society and its moral principles.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

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

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

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov

Famous critic and publicist of the mid-19th century. N. And Dobrolyubov, a follower and student of Chernyshevsky, in his critical article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” based on Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”, called it the author’s most decisive work, which touched upon very important “painful” social problems of that time, namely the clash personality of the heroine (Katerina), who defended her beliefs and rights, with “ dark kingdom"- representatives of the merchant class, distinguished by ignorance, cruelty and meanness. The critic saw in the tragedy described in the play the awakening and growth of protest against the oppression of tyrants and oppressors, and in the image 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. The main character Oblomov is compared with other “superfluous people of his time” Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him “nonentity”, angrily condemns his character traits (laziness, apathy towards life and reflection) and recognizes them as a problem not only of one specific person, 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 most important positive qualities the Russian landowner's tenderness, purity and gentleness of soul, against the background of which the laziness of nature is perceived more tolerantly and is regarded as a certain form of protection from the 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, which is capable of destroying outdated dogmas and outdated authorities, and thus clearing the way for the formation of new advanced ideas.

Selected work:

The common phrase that literature is created not by writers, but by readers turns out to be 100% true, and the fate of the work is decided by the readers, on whose perception the future fate of the work depends. It is literary criticism that helps the reader form his personal final opinion about 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.

Literary criticism is biased intuitive-intellectual reading of verbal and artistic texts, permeated with interests, worries, temptations, doubts connecting verbal art with the multicolored reality of life. Literary critical statements are addressed to a wide range of social and moral issues, to “the living needs of the social organism” (Grigoriev A. Literary criticism). According to R. Barth, literary criticism “occupies an intermediate position between science and reading” (Barth R. Selected Articles). A literary critic, capable of expressing an individual understanding of the artistic revelations contained in the text, is a conscious or involuntary intermediary on the path of a literary work from the author to the reader. In one person he often represents both the writing workshop and the reading world. “The function of criticism,” F. Brunetiere wrote in 1891, “is to influence public opinion, the authors themselves and the general direction of development of literature and art” (F. Brunetiere. Literary criticism. Foreign aesthetics and theory of literature of the 1920s) . Literary critical work is almost invariably accompanied by a polemical mood, a polemical dialogue with the author, with intended readers, with fellow opponents. A literary critic is one of the first, not yet having any traditions of interpreting a newborn text, to determine its value parameters. A critic can also turn to texts that are ancient in origin, but continue to powerfully influence the mindset of the reading public. Critical study I.A. Goncharov’s “A Million Torments” (1872), which responded to the production of “Woe from Wit” (1822-24) on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg and contained a detailed analysis of the comedy itself by A.S. Griboyedov, is separated from the time of the birth of the comedy by several for decades. With such a temporal distance, the journalistic pathos of a critical speech, returning to the literary events of yesterday to clarify their topical meaning, is more likely to make itself felt. Literary critical texts comprehend and shape the literary process. Based on the rich historical experience of Western European and Russian literature, V.G. Belinsky concluded: “Art and literature go hand in hand with criticism and have a mutual effect on each other” (“Speech on Criticism,” 1842). In modern philology, literary criticism is distinguished between professional, literary and readerly. Professional criticism includes literary critical activity, which has become the dominant occupation for the author. Professional criticism is a phenomenon bordering between artistic literature and literary criticism. “A critic, while remaining a scientist, is a poet” (Bely A. Poetry of the Word Semiotics). A professional critic is characterized by the depth of literary and general cultural memory, a strictly aesthetic approach to the phenomenon of literary text, and ways of reacting to the ethical, social and moral dictates of modernity, and to reader demand.

Literary criticism in Russia

In Russia, the formation of literary criticism, its understanding of its subject and its tasks takes place in the 18th century. The literary text, however, is not yet recognized as an aesthetic phenomenon, and its Critical Assessment is built primarily on a rationalistic basis; The critic's thought is closed and focused on a narrow circle of writers and lovers of the elegant. At the beginning of the 19th century, a sharp confrontation between rationalistic and aesthetic approaches to the work was indicated. Criticism is gradually becoming professionalized and acquiring a magazine character. Since the mid-19th century, the opposition between real, aesthetic and organic criticism has been indicated. The utilitarian approach to literature is opposed to absorption in aesthetic analysis; piece of art becomes a convenient pretext for concentrated reflection on the problems of “real life.” Literary criticism of the radical trend invades near-literary issues related to the “topic of the day” and enters into fierce debates with points of view that are unacceptable to it on the most important social issues. “Olympic calm,” asserts D.I. Pisarev, “may be very appropriate in a scientific meeting, but it is no good on the pages of a magazine serving a young, not yet fermented society” (Pisarev D.I. Works: In 4 volumes) . In the last third of the 19th century, abandoning aesthetic criteria, criticism increasingly subordinated its assessments to certain sociological concepts. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, the active work of critics, whose creative path began back in the 1860-70s under the influence of the ideas of real criticism (N.K. Mikhailovsky, A.M. Skabichevsky, L.E. Obolensky, etc.). A criticism is formed, focused mainly on the phenomenon of the text and at the same time addressed to a larger philosophical, religious, aesthetic context. Literary critical platforms are taking shape modernist movements, characterized by a wide genre and thematic range and stylistically refined diversity. The signs of mass magazine and newspaper (“feuilleton”) criticism are finally determined. The original literary-critical concepts of V.S. Solovyov, I.F. Annensky, V.V. Rozanov clearly reveal themselves, standing apart.

In Soviet times, the traditions of aesthetic criticism are being destroyed, the functions of which are partly taken over by literary criticism. New ways of communication between authors and readers are developed on the basis of normatively interpreted ideas about the “testaments” of the revolutionary-democratic criticism of the “sixties”. Rapp's postulates about the utilitarian role of literature take over. Literary criticism of the 1920s is characterized by a clear movement from analytical pluralism to pseudo-monologism and fusion with official structures. 1930-50s - a period of consolidation, forced doctrinaire “unanimity” and cruel control over the art of speech by official party literary criticism 1960s - a “thaw” in social and literary life, marked by the destruction of blinkered monologue consciousness, the strengthening of the subjective principle in criticism , a return to lost forms and methods of communication with the reader (the revival of magazine literary criticism, relatively independent from the authorities, and polemical discussions). The 1970s were marked by the turn of criticism to the classical verbal and artistic experience, to the moral potential Russian classics. The last decades of the 20th century are marked by a noticeable strengthening of self-valued, aesthetic, anti-utilitarian tendencies in literary criticism.

In Western European professional literary criticism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, there was an increased interest in the biographical method (“Literary-critical portraits”, 1836-39, S.O. Sainte-Beuve; “Literary walks”, 1904-27, R. de Gourmont and etc.), to positivist approaches to the assessment of belles-lettres, going back to the Frenchman I. Taine, the Italian F. De Sanctis, the Dane G. Brandes. In literary criticism of the 20th century in the West, the intuitionist ideas of A. Bergson and B. Croce, the psychoanalytic doctrine of S. Freud, the existentialism of J. P. Sartre, and the semiology of R. Barthes enjoy special credit.

Writer's criticism implies literary-critical and critical-journalistic speeches of writers, the main body of whose creative heritage is literary texts (in Russia - literary-critical articles, letters of V.A. Zhukovsky, A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, F. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D. S. Merezhkovsky, Rozanov, A. A. Blok, M. Gorky, A. P. Platonov, A. T. Tvardovsky, A. I. Solzhenitsyn and others .). In the creative practice of some authors, a relative balance develops between poetic and literary-critical creativity itself (A.S. Khomyakov, I.S. Aksakov, Annensky). Writer's criticism is interesting for its clearly manifested unconventionality, the suddenness of associative series, the involuntary or completely conscious desire to understand the “alien” in the all-consuming light of one’s own poetic practice, in the scale of one’s innermost aesthetic quests.

Reader criticism is a variety of reactions to artistic literature, belonging to people who are not professionally associated with literary work. Reader criticism is often marked by spontaneity and imbued with the spirit of confession.

The phrase literary criticism comes from Greek kritike, which means the art of disassembling.

This is a Trial Version of Social Share & Locker Pro plugin. Please add your purchase code into License section to enable the Full Social Share & Locker Pro Version.

In the West, literary critics are people on whom the fate of a book directly depends. If they give a good rating, it means there will be good sales; if they give a bad rating, it means sales will be low; will not notice at all - there is a high probability that the unsold edition will be returned to the publishing house. In a word, a literary critic is a very honorable and highly paid profession. We asked Dmitry Bavilsky, a full member of the Academy of Russian Modern Literature (a professional guild that unites the country's leading literary critics), to talk about how things are with literary criticism in Russia.

E.B.: Dmitry, what, in your opinion, is the work of a literary critic?

D.B.: A critic is, first of all, an attentive and biased reader. If a common person simply evaluates a book - “like” - “dislike”, then the critic must justify his position, and without any direct emotional assessments. Ideally critical article is an attempt to analyze the work in such a way that a potential reader can decide for himself whether this book is worth reading or not. If he the target audience- people who are already familiar with this work, then the critic talks about the meanings that he saw in the text. In this case, his task is to give an interpretation. After all, writers often do not themselves understand what they wrote.

E.B.: Is the profession of literary critic in demand in Russia now?

D.B.: Unfortunately, it is slowly but surely fading away. The traditional “ruler of thoughts” is being replaced by a marketing critic who promotes the product. Few people are interested in text analysis as such. Perhaps because almost no one knows how to do this. People have forgotten how to draw information about a text from the text itself - from how it is structured and how it comments on itself. It is much easier to fit the text under review into one of the social contexts - political, bonus, etc.

E.B.: How do you choose the books to write critiques on?

D.B.: I read, first of all, what interests me: high-quality fiction, for example, competent non-fiction. I don’t like writing negative reviews: firstly, it’s easy to criticize (it’s even easier to feel smarter than the author, despite Pushkin’s covenant to judge the artist according to the laws he accepted over himself), and secondly, it leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. I have experience and instinct, so I know approximately what to expect from this or that text. If you have your own internal concept, then it is from the point of view of this concept that you divide texts into, relatively speaking, “worth reviews” and “not worth.”

E.B.: Can a writer offer you his work?

D.B.: I don’t like it when writers themselves offer me their texts. It’s better, of course, that I myself find what I want to write about. As a rule, the books that the writers themselves present, with rare exceptions, are nothing good.

E.B.: So you work only with popular writers? After all, somehow you have to find out about them.

D.B.: I work a lot with young authors. Participated in one of the first “Debut” drawings. Then, on the jury, I was responsible for the “short prose” nomination. Denis Osokin from Kazan and Volodya Lorchenkov from Chisinau reached the finals. Since then I have been constantly in touch with them. I helped Lorchenkov release the first book - in the “Neformat” series from Vyacheslav Kuritsin, when he was looking for interesting texts. All new texts by Osokin (they are very strange, experimental) are passed through the site "Topos", which I edit together with Valeria Shishkina and Svetlana Kuznetsova. This is a very important site for young people; there have been so many debuts on it that you can’t even remember them all. Our policy is a combination (in approximately equal proportions) of texts by newcomers and “old-timers”, established writers. The young feed off the veterans and vice versa. Several times publications in Topos aroused interest and were published as separate books. It’s very convenient to attach a link to the publication on Topos to the synopsis. It obliges you to a lot.

E.B.: Reviews from critics are most important for beginning authors. How can a talented but completely unpromoted newcomer attract the attention of a critic? What exactly does he need to do for this?

D.B.: Honestly, I don’t know. The will of chance. There is a selection committee, there are different sites... After all, there is LiveJournal, where the virtual earth is instantly filled with rumors about good texts. A young author does not need a review from a critic, he needs his text to get to the publisher. Criticism has little to do with the publishing business these days (except for a few critics who advise the big monsters. Although, frankly, it would be better if they didn't do that). Personally, I think what a new author needs most is an experienced editor.

E.B.: What do you think about the state of Russian literature today?

D.B.: That everything is fine, the process is ongoing. New names, new books, new phenomena appear. Culture is smarter than our idle thoughts about culture; it is self-regulating. I believe that literature is not threatened by new media as long as the desire for self-improvement and self-realization is alive in a person. That is, as long as “man” exists as a species.

E.B.: How do you solve the problem of grievances from writers who feel that you have “criticized” something “wrong”?

D.B.: I don’t pay attention. They have their job, I have mine. And I write offensive texts extremely rarely. I try to spare - first of all, myself. There are more bad books than good ones, and I don't think I need to waste my time on them.