Govorukhina Yu. Russian literary criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries

Introduction

Cognition and self-knowledge of literary criticism: boundaries of interpretation

Literary criticism of “thick” magazines at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries: circumstances of operation
Sociocultural and epistemological situation at the end of the twentieth century

Forms of existence of literary criticism at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries

Literary criticism of “liberal” magazines: object field, interpretive strategies, value guidelines
Metacriticism of the late 20th - early 21st centuries: the search for identity and strategies of self-interpretation
Social consciousness as an object of attention of literary criticism: interpretative strategies, value guidelines

Mastering the literary practice of the turn of the century in the magazines “New World”, “Znamya”, “October”

Strategies and tactics for appropriating the literary field by criticism of “Our Contemporary” and “Young Guard”

Personal communication and interpretation strategies in the criticism of “thick” magazines at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries
N. Ivanova - critic-semiotician
V. Bondarenko - patriotic critic
"M. Lipovetsky the Critic" as a phantom identity
V. Kuritsyn - postmodernist critic
D. Bykov - journalist in criticism

Conclusion
Literature

Govorukhina Yulia Anatolyevna ,
Siberian Federal University, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature,
professor,
Doctor of Philology,
associate professor,
Mail

UDC 82.09
BBK 83
G577

Scientific editor: V. A. Sukhanov, Doctor of Philology. sciences, prof. Tomsk state university

Reviewers: V. N. Krylov, Doctor of Philology. sciences, prof. Kazan (Volga region) Federal University
M. A. Khatyamova, Doctor of Philology. sciences, prof. Tomsk Polytechnic University

Govorukhina Yu.A.
G577 Russian literary criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries / Yu. A. Govorukhina. - Krasnoyarsk: Sib. federal Univ., 2012. - p.
ISBN 978-5-7638-2567-1

The monograph reveals the causes of the epistemological dead end,
in which the theory of criticism found itself in the 1980s, a way to overcome it is proposed.
Within the boundaries of the terminological and conceptual field of hermeneutic ontology,
and describes the structure of literary critical activity,
new classification criteria are introduced for the typology of modern literary criticism.
The author analyzes the internal mechanisms of generating interpretive
strategies and rhetoric of “liberal” and “patriotic” thick-magazine criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries.
A separate chapter of the monograph is devoted to the study of interpretative and communicative strategies of N. Ivanova,
V. Bondarenko, M. Lipovetsky, V. Kuritsyn, D. Bykov.
The publication is addressed to professional critics, philologists, linguists,
literary scholars and readers interested in the theory and history of literary criticism,
hermeneutics, text production and perception.

UDC 82.09
BBK 83

ISBN 978-5-7638-2567-1
Siberian Federal University, 2012

Scientific publication
Yulia Anatolyevna Govorukhina
Russian literary criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries

INTRODUCTION

The modern stage of literary criticism is characterized by a situation of methodological pluralism, a humanitarian “explosion” (Yu. M. Lotman), an “epistemological gap” (M. Foucault), which coincided with the total modernization of all levels social life. The turn of the 20th-21st centuries in the humanitarian sphere is a time of terminological uncertainty, when the concepts of linguistics, philosophy, psychology and psychoanalysis, sociology, cultural studies, hermeneutics and semiology compete in the linguistic picture of the world. New areas of humanitarian knowledge are emerging, terminological and conceptual problems are becoming more acute, diverse approaches to the study and interpretation of both individual terms, texts, literary phenomena, and literary process generally. All this determines the relevance of the study different levels literary process at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries: from research art worlds individual authors to identify patterns, trends in the development of leading (literary) trends in a broad literary context. At the same time, the subject of most research is primarily fiction, while modern literary criticism, which is an integral part of the literary process and performs the function of self-awareness of literature, is still due scientifically not described or studied. Emerging new methodological approaches are used to study exclusively fiction.
Literary criticism is studied within the framework of previous methodological paradigms created in the 1970-1980s - during the period of active development of the theory of criticism (works by V. I. Baranov, Yu. B. Borev, A. G. Bocharov, B. I. Bursov, A. S. Bushmina, A. N. Jesuitova, V. N. Konovalova, M. Ya. Polyakova, etc.). Positivistically oriented and in this capacity genetically dating back to metacriticism of the 19th century, the theory of criticism of this period actualizes the concepts of “method”, “objectivity”, “scientificness”, and directs research efforts to analyze the substantive, problematic historical and cultural aspects of literary critical practice.
In the late 1980s - early 1990s, literary criticism accumulated solid experience in critically understanding the positivist concepts of literary criticism (in the works of V. S. Bryukhovetsky, G. A. Zolotukhin, V. E. Khalizev, L. V. Chernets), however Methodological renewal, which could serve as an impetus for further active development of the theory, did not occur in the 1990s. Today, the theory of criticism as a separate independent branch of literary criticism practically does not exist; there are no methodological and theoretical foundations for the study of modern literary critical practice. The attention of literary criticism is drawn to the history of criticism, personal critical discourses of the 19th - early 20th centuries, and the history of criticism of a particular region. Studies devoted to criticism of A.I. Solzhenitsyn are chronologically closest to modern times. The scientific study of modern criticism is mainly limited to a narrow linguistic aspect and is devoted to new forms of criticism. There are no comprehensive monographic studies devoted to understanding the specifics of literary critical activity and its structure, the interaction of criticism and rhetoric, the study of modern criticism: its problem-thematic field, methods, leading personal communicative and interpretive strategies, typology of discourses.
This situation in the study of modern literary criticism is explained, in our opinion, by two main groups of interrelated sociocultural and theoretical-methodological reasons. The first is the specificity of the literary critical situation itself. Back in the 19th century, there was an opinion that ideally it is criticism that determines the direction, the core of a journal. Transitional periods of the 1950s - early 1960s (opposition of the "New World" and "October"), the second half of the 1980s - early 1990s (opposition of the "New World" and "Young Guard", "Ogonyok") - a time of intense magazine struggle, propaganda of one’s values. During the “thaw” and perestroika, the ideological component determined the peculiarities of literary critical thinking, value hierarchies, and evaluations. Criticism was the center of public attention, literary articles evoked a response no less than themselves literary works, and “thick” magazines were experiencing a real boom. In the 1990s, according to the critics themselves, criticism ceases to be perceived as a field of ideological struggle, magazines lose their former positional unity, and in the late 1990s - early 2000s, the process of confrontation flows into the process of diffusion. It is no coincidence that in discussions recent years One of the reasons for the decline of magazines is the publication in them of ideologically (in a broad sense) multidirectional journalistic and literary critical works. Conservatively oriented criticism already in the 1990s overcomes the established peculiar law of critical development of only “its own” texts, and liberal criticism in the second half of the 1990s practically ceases to be aggressive towards its opponents.
The situation of the identification crisis in the criticism of the 1990s was complicated by a change of generations: most critics of the “Thaw” period, for whom the process of self-identification presupposed mainly social and ideological self-determination, leaves literary life. The younger generation coming into criticism works in completely different sociocultural circumstances; it is less characterized by the desire to act “on behalf of the group” and is more characterized by an egocentric type of manifestation of “selfhood”.
The second group of reasons for the epistemological dead end of the Russian theory of criticism is the lack of a methodological paradigm that would be relevant to the peculiarities of literary critical thinking of the transitional era, formed by crisis sociocultural circumstances. All this exposes the problem of constructing a nonlinear model of literary critical activity, a typology of literary criticism, and the search for new classification criteria that lie in the field of text-generating mechanisms. The existing foundations of the typology of modern criticism (according to the form of existence: magazine, newspaper, television, network; according to the value-ideological criterion: liberal, patriotic) cover only the visible layer of literary critical discourse and do not give an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe communicative and interpretive mechanisms of modern literary criticism, self-identification processes occurring in it.
In the absence of theoretical-critical discourse, the function of self-reflection is assumed by criticism itself. In “thick” magazines at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries, she presents an experience of interpretation and self-interpretation that begins to contradict established theoretical-critical descriptions, requiring a change in the scientific approach. The tradition of classical methodological hermeneutics, which posits the focus of meaning in the author’s intention or in the text itself, does not “coincide” with either the experience of interpretative activity or self-representation modern critic, who is inclined to see in his own activity a process of self-understanding, understanding not so much of the text as of himself in connection with this text, and who perceives the literary-critical act as a creative one, akin to an artistic one. The situation of “conflict of interpretations” within metacriticism (theoretical-critical and literary-critical) makes it urgent to search for a new methodological basis for the study of criticism of the post-Soviet period, which, on the one hand, would overcome the positivist epistemological paradigm, and on the other hand, correspond to literary-critical practice and the communicative (in a broad sense) attitudes reflected in it. In our opinion, such a basis for an adequate metacritical description of modern literary criticism can be the hermeneutic-ontological philosophical tradition in combination with the “archaeological” structuralism of M. Foucault and the communicative approach to the text.
In the proposed study, modern literary critical discourse is considered as a way of understanding and describing the sociocultural events of the post-Soviet period in social and existential aspects and searching for a new literary critical (self) identity. Literary criticism is studied in the context of the theoretical problem of ways of presenting events in various narrative discourses and is understood as a special communication space, in which the semantic organization of the critical text and the structure of the intended author's program influences on the reader are in special interaction with the pragmatics of the text. In addition, an analysis is carried out of the interpretive and communicative strategies of the leading representatives of criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries as forms of manifestation of the typological and individual in the understanding of sociocultural phenomena and the search for self-identity.
The construction of a typology of literary criticism at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries required the involvement of the entire set of critical texts published between 1992 and 2002. The main material for the study was the ideologically and aesthetically diverse literary criticism of “thick” magazines (“ New world", "Banner", "October", "Our Contemporary", "Young Guard"). The choice of “thick-magazine” criticism as a material is due to the fact that it represents a form of existence of literary criticism that most acutely felt the systemic, including literary, crisis of the late twentieth century, and in this sense most clearly demonstrates the process of searching for a new identity.
The choice of journals is determined by the need to attract ideologically multidirectional critical judgments as material, to study the qualitative change in the opposition of liberal and patriotic criticism at the turn of the century. The exclusion from the scope of analysis of criticism published in the journals “Voprosy Literaturnoe”, “New Literary Review”, “Critical Mass”, etc. is explained by the literary orientation of these magazines, while our goal is to understand the phenomenon of literary criticism of “Tolstoy” magazine of the late twentieth century: its ideological basis, cognitive attitudes, defining strategies of functioning, specifics of the development of literary space.
The chapter “Cognition and Self-Knowledge of Literary Criticism: The Limits of Interpretation” examines metacritical and theoretical-critical discourse. Identification of invariant cognitive attitudes of metacriticism makes it possible to identify the reasons for the epistemological impasse in which the theory of criticism found itself in the 1980s and pose the problem of overcoming it. The second chapter, “Hermeneutic-ontological interpretation of literary critical activity,” provides a rationale for the possibility of using hermeneutic-ontological methodology to understand the phenomenon of modern literary criticism and its correspondence to modern critical practice. Within the boundaries of the terminological and conceptual field of hermeneutic ontology, the structure of literary critical activity is identified and described, other content of the category of method of literary criticism is proposed, and new classification criteria are introduced for the typology of literary criticism. Emphasizing the moment of “questioning”, interpretation as a phenomenon of (self) understanding allows us to rethink the essence of critical activity, to present it as a complex structured whole, the components of which are dynamic, determined by the dominant goal setting, the initial orientation of the text towards the Other (above the level of interpretation of the text and its evaluation is built the level of epistemological and communicative attitudes that determine the interpretation program. The first is largely determined. sociocultural situation, in which the critic functions as a “questioner.” The second is an important structure-forming factor; it is around the recipient that the entire communicative model of literary-critical activity is formed), which gives grounds to rethink the traditionally positivist category of “method of literary-critical activity” and allows us to develop a model of the method that covers all components of the structure of critical activity.
The third chapter, “Literary criticism of “thick” magazines at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries: circumstances of functioning,” describes such circumstances of the functioning of literary criticism that are included in the field of communicative context and determine the pre-structure of critical activity.
The fourth and fifth chapters are devoted to the dynamics of the internal mechanisms of the generation of literary critical practice in the 1990s and early 2000s. The fourth chapter, “Literary criticism of “liberal” magazines: object field, interpretive strategies, value guidelines,” examines the dynamics of the internal mechanisms of generating literary critical practice in liberal “thick” magazines of the 1990s - early 2000s. Its structure reflects the main components of the object field of criticism: criticism itself and various aspects of its functioning, public consciousness in a situation of value breakdown, literary practice. In the study of criticism of “liberal” magazines, several points stand out: 1) a change in status, the loss of the reader in their influence on the process of self-identification of criticism in the 1990s and the self-affirmation strategies it used; 2) ontological explanation of the choice of fragments of literary practice by criticism; 3) semantic characteristics of the “question” that the critic asks as a “questioner”, turning to literary existence and existence reflected in literature (how does this “question” characterize the criticism itself, what “answer” does criticism read in literary practice and what “answer” suggests whether it is possible to talk about a conflict of interpretations). Based on the analysis of “answers” ​​and “questions”, invariant cognitive attitudes are identified, which are the condition for the emergence of that set of critical judgments, which constitutes the real diversity of criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries.
Chapter five “Strategies and tactics of appropriation” literary field criticism of “Our Contemporary” and “Young Guard”” is devoted to the study of literary criticism of “patriotic” magazines. The emphasis is on studying the interpretive strategies and rhetoric of “patriotic” criticism. Intransigence in the fight against false values, active use of vocabulary with the meaning of struggle, war and modeling of combat situations, the significance of the concepts “heroic”, “friend”, “alien”, lack of flexibility in evaluation criteria literary phenomenon determined the search for an epistemological invariant at the level of the strategies and tactics used to “capture” the literary/ideological field.
The sixth chapter, “Personal communicative and interpretive strategies in the criticism of “thick” magazines at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries,” analyzes the interpretative and communicative strategies of leading critics (N. Ivanova, V. Bondarenko, M. Lipovetsky, V. Kuritsyn, D. Bykov) in correlation with the typological features and dynamics of literary criticism at the turn of the century identified in previous chapters.
The author expresses sincere gratitude to the staff of the Department of History of Russian Literature of the 20th Century at Tomsk State University, as well as to I.V. Silantiev, V.N. Krylov, K.V. Anisimov for the interest shown in the research and the comments made, thanks to L.P. Bykov, S. S. Imikhelova, A. P. Kazarkin, I. V. Kondakova, A. I. Kulyapin, V. V. Maroshi, I. I. Plekhanov, M. A. Khatyamov, A. A. Shuneyko, whose feedback and questions were taken into account in the work on the book.
I express my deep gratitude to my teacher and scientific editor V. A. Sukhanov.

The author hopes for feedback, questions, remarks, comments ().

Ermolaeva I. A. Literary- critical method of V. V. Rozanov: Origins. Evolution. Originality: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Ivanovo, 2003; Yurina N. G. Literary-critical concept of V. S. Solovyov: origins, formation, development: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Saransk, 2004; Lokteva S. A. Typological principles literarycritics A. M. Skabichevsky: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Smolensk, 2005; Krylov V. N. Russian Symbolist criticism(1890-1910s): genesis, typology, genre poetics: dis. ... Dr. Philol. Sci. Kazan, 2007; Chernakov I. E. “Artistic criticism" I. F. Annensky as part of his literary heritage: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Vologda, 2007, etc.

criticism in Rulinet as a link in the communication system: author-text-audience. Theory of the issue: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 2006; Chinenova O.S. History of television criticism in Russia against the background of the history of Russian literary criticism: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Saratov, 2006; Pasynkov N.V. Literarycriticism in means mass media in the Russian-language Internet 1994 - 2006: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. M., 2006.

For example, A. Vasilevsky notes: “There is a process of slow diffusion between the “patriotic” and “liberal” spheres in the places of their contact. This diffusion has a variety of forms" (see: Responsibility and responsiveness of literary criticism: materials of the round table: [Electronic resource]. URL: http://lecture.imhonet.ru/element/1005065/ (access date: 12/16/2010) ).

Editor
Corrector
Computer layout

Signed for printing.
Printing is flat. Format 60x84/16
Offset paper. Condition-bake l. 18.5.
Circulation 100 copies.
Order 7530.

Editorial and publishing department


660041, Krasnoyarsk, Svobodny Ave., 79.

Printed by printing center
Library and Publishing Complex
Siberian Federal University
660041, Krasnoyarsk, Svobodny Ave., 82a.
.

I study many different topics about our society and its metamorphoses. Here interesting topic- criticism and opinion in the 21st century. It is interesting that it contains both truth and untruth, and it is precisely the same statement, not its individual elements, but all of it together that is true and untrue at the same time, in conditions where all members of society have received the right to speak.

Ubermarginal (this is the nickname of one person living in California, known in certain circles in which I am not a member) about Russian writers (I cut out the swear words and introductory words, this is a recording of a conversation with a video):
“Ilya Masodov, who wrote “The Darkness of Your Eyes”, “The Warmth of Your Hands” and so on, is a great modern Russian writer, who, unfortunately, is anonymous, and perhaps fortunately. They often write about him, they say, Masodov - this is not just a pseudonym, but a collective name, like Kozma Prutkov, Socrates Platonov - this is, in fact, Mamleev, Sorokin, Dovlatov, like MaSoDov, as it were, Mamleev-Sorokin-Dovlatov. But you understand what the problem is, the problem is that neither Mamleev, nor Sorokin, nor Dovlatov could and cannot write like Masodov. And Dovlatov died too, as far as I understand. But none of these three ever had such a brilliant line. could have written “The Darkness of Your Eyes.” In terms of composing an artistic line, they are absolutely mediocre. Mamleev could have come up with the images that Masodov used. Mamleev, in principle, would have had enough of such a special gloomy aesthetic for this if “Shatuny.” "Read, right? Sorokin - maybe, although this is no longer his style, because, in fact, there is nothing about shit there. Dovlatov is just some jokes about farts. I don’t know how this can be considered literature at all, in principle. Even if we take purely 20th century literature. In the 20th century there were Chingiz Aitmatov, there were... Shukshin, there was this, what is his name, “Yawning Heights”, what is his name, the logician who was kicked out of the Soviet Union, it slipped my mind, Zinoviev, Zinoviev was, and so on. That is, how many writers! But Solzhenitsyn and Dovlatov have real recognition. That is, there were really original people, right? Who wrote original things, right? Zinoviev, Shukshin, Aitmatov, Mamleev - if you like the completely underground. But Dovlatov is popular."

This is the opinion. There is truth and untruth in it. At the same time and in one place.

PS By the way, I read a collection of Masodov’s stories 15 years ago. And he made a big, strong, deep impression on me. But then I began a whirlwind love affair with postmodernism. Sorokin read everything and then read everything in the ongoing. Postmodernism - yes, it was stormy, my abandoned girl. Now I wonder whether Masodov would have approached me with novels or not.

: “I read Dostoevsky as if I were my own, like my own...” And it’s not so much a matter of complete acceptance of the broadcast thoughts, but rather an underlying irrational feeling of something verified, real - something that you immediately give the right to life, to which you can then devote time to logically complete the construction and “find out” - and, no matter how strangely, the stubborn mind always subsequently confirms the correctness of the first spontaneous feeling.

Despite the apparent unusualness of the assessments or judgments, despite the numerous statements about the “controversial” or “erroneous” views of the critic, we will not find a single place in his book that would be subject to disqualification for juggling facts or calling “black” “white.” Encyclopedic accuracy, speed of reaction, lack of descriptiveness, courage, rare gift of calling a spade a spade - without concealment or subtext - these are the characteristics of the “literary portrait” of Yu. Pavlov himself. It would not be superfluous to add that some of the mentioned features are considered bad manners today. So, before us is a real critic - sober-minded, lively, caring, sensitive to the phenomena of our time, thoughtfully analyzing the facts of a passing reality.

The merit of Yu. Pavlov is that many of the articles in his book tell about current writers - and it is always difficult to write “about the living”, about those who are still creating today and looking you in the eye - ready to refute a careless word or an incorrect assessment, who I haven’t yet put a dot on who is actively developing.

The book opens with a most interesting and non-standard reflection on Vasily Rozanov, without whom, in the words of Yu. Pavlov, “any serious conversation about literature, history, and Russia is unthinkable.” In connection with the name of the philosopher, the names of F. Dostoevsky, K. Leontiev, N. Strakhov are heard. Meaningful points that set the line of life and creative path author of “Fallen Leaves”, become religious-church culture, the perception of the individual through God, through the “cults” of family, home, people, and Motherland.

Adding your own touches to the portrait V. Kozhinova , Yu. Pavlov mentions V. Rozanov and M. Bakhtina as thinkers who determined the creative destiny of Vadim Valerianovich - thus, the logic of the arrangement of articles in the book becomes clear. Despite the fact that the article about V. Kozhinov, according to Yu. Pavlov, is based on a “patchwork quilt” of articles and sketches from previous years, we find a holistic research layer. Noteworthy are the details that reproduce the situation of hushing up the 60th anniversary of V. Kozhinov. Based on them, we can confidently say that the author of the book was one of those who already in the 80s appreciated the scale of V. Kozhinov’s personality, and moreover, he confirmed this with action, even then writing the first article about him. Considering the stages of development of V. Kozhinov as a thinker, Yu. Pavlov tries to approach the facts of the critic’s biography with an impartial mind, touching on “forbidden” topics, for example, the issue of Russian-Jewish relations. Against the background of the portrait of the main character - V. Kozhinov - assessments and characteristics are given to many phenomena of literature, history and philosophy.

The article about Mikhail Lobanov overthrows the opinion that in modern criticism there are no genuine heroes, people whose words and deeds coincide. The leading ideologist of the “Russian party,” M. Lobanov, through his personal creative destiny, carried a sense of participation in the fate of the people, a religious and spiritual perception of the world. This is clearly visible in comparisons with contemporaries. For example, the living conditions of many Russian critics left much to be desired - in the case of V. Kozhinov and M. Lobanov, these were apartments in which 13-15 people lived. And it is no coincidence that parallels arise with the famous essay “A Room and a Half”, with the historical facts of the “conquest of Moscow” in the 20-30s, including the settlement in Arbat apartments of those who would later complain of unfair oppression. The spiritual autobiography of M. Lobanov is also placed in the context of the memoirs of the “sixties”, for example, Art. Seedling. Let’s not get ahead of the curve and let future readers of this book see for themselves the “otherness” of the opinions, judgments and way of existence of people who lived in the same era, but seemingly in different dimensions. The measure by which events, people, own life M. Lobanov and St. Rassadin, is different, and for everyone it determines their personal destiny to one degree or another. This is easy to verify. The principle of “writing with love” is embodied in all the works of M. Lobanov, who “did not leave the front line” Russian literature, - it is no coincidence that Yu. Pavlov’s article continues this principle, only in relation to M. Lobanov himself.

An example of a principled approach to the facts of literature is an article by Yu. Pavlov, analyzing the thoughts of one “aesthetic intellectual” about V. Mayakovsky. Those very Rozanov “little things” that make up the whole allow the reader to compose “ general idea about time, Mayakovsky, about many, many things.” Yu. Pavlov contrasts Khlestakov’s approach to assessments of Russian literature, the “Sarnovo “noodles””, with the works of V. Dyadichev and other honest and unbiased researchers.

Tracing the creative path of “one of the best critics of the second half of the 20th century,” I. Zolotussky, Yu. Pavlov simultaneously touches on the problems of the essence of criticism, its varieties, freedom and independence of thought. Noting the colossal efficiency and significant contribution of I. Zolotussky to the history of Russian criticism, Yu. Pavlov verifies the work of the thinker with time, noting the undoubted merits of the author of the book about N. Gogol, his bold, accurate statements about literature in numerous articles, but also cites some of the critic’s judgments about political and cultural figures of the 20th century, causing fundamental disagreement. To the questions posed, Yu. Pavlov gives his own reasoned answers, foreseeing, however, that they will cause disagreement from both I. Zolotussky and many others.

Through the conversation about the 20th century in the book, voices from the 19th century emerge: K. Aksakov, A. Khomyakov, N. Strakhov and others, whose “hearing” Yu. Pavlov seeks to strengthen. So, for example, V. Lakshin’s judgments about will and bondage, in relation to “camp prose”, are “tested” by the thoughts of K. Aksakov, set out in the article “Slavery and Freedom”, and in general the work of A. Tvardovsky’s potential successor as chief editor of "New World" - attitude towards the people, Russian literature and history. Unlike those for whom V. Lakshin remained forever “left,” Yu. Pavlov was able to see evidence of the critic’s “recovery” on the edge of earthly life. It is interesting to compare the creative path of V. Lakshin with the line of development of the worldview of V. Belinsky, whom his Western friends before his death reproached for “secret Slavophilism.” Such sensitivity to your work is a rare gift that not every literary critic receives. In connection with the above, I would like to cite one of the confessions of the author of the book: “For 20 years I have been writing mainly “on the table” ...” Will Yu. Pavlov, a critic and literary critic, so attentive to other people’s books, be read?

The personality of the “Kostroma critic” I. Dedkov emerges against the background of the oppositions “Moscow – province”, “individual – mass”, “family – childlessness”, “statehood – hostility to the state”, built by Yu. Pavlov. “Disciplined” (according to V. Bondarenko) I. Dedkov receives many characteristics at once - Russian, Soviet, liberal. The critic himself divided literary activity into the “bottom line” - what was written - and what does not count: “the struggle for positions, vanity, speeches, meetings.” Yu. Pavlov draws attention to something else: the facts of I. Dedkov’s biography, his attitude towards his father, his wife, children, the province, corruption, betrayal and, analyzing the path traveled by the critic, he comes to a conclusion that may sound unexpected for many: “...And . I see Dedkov as a father and husband as a much more significant person than I. Dedkov the critic. In the first capacity, he is completely a “provincial”, a “moral conservative”, a Russian person.”

In an article about Yu. Seleznev, one of the most notable critics of the 70s and 80s. XX century, - Yu. Pavlov highlights the “invisible” or distorted pages of it creative biography, firstly, emphasizing that even during his years of study at the Faculty of History and Philology of the Krasnodar Pedagogical Institute, Yuri Ivanovich “stood out among students for his extensive and versatile knowledge and polemical gift”; secondly, noting that all subsequent literary activity could only grow on “Krasnodar soil”; thirdly, denoting the great positive role of V. Kozhinov in the fate of the critic; fourthly (and in terms of semantic content - firstly), rightly asserting that in critical articles, books, as editor of the ZhZL series, on the path to understanding F. Dostoevsky and all Russian literature, Yu. Seleznev was a real ascetic, a man of fundamental honesty and tremendous efficiency. Considering the attitude towards Yu. Seleznev, expressed in memoirs and articles of contemporaries, Yu. Pavlov highlights the statements of Yu. Loschits, A. Kazintsev, who accurately captured the essence of this “knight, Russian defender, intercessor” and points out factual inaccuracies, inconsistencies of A. Razumikhin and S. Vikulova.

When creating literary-critical portraits, Yu. Pavlov always turns to the “origins” of the individual - he reveals the hidden or obvious reasons that forced the critic to take this or that path. The image of the “drummer of critical labor” V. Bondarenko was created using the same principle. The critic, beaten by his own and others for the breadth of his views, for turning to seditious names from the “alien” camp, was shrewdly called a “healer of love” for his attempts to find kindred spirits and a craving for light in those who had long been classified as “literary trolls.” And even though Yuri Pavlov speaks with irony about the need for literary “flogging”, “smearing”, “killing” - in reality he does the opposite: he revives, defends and whitewashes what has been undeservedly denigrated.

The literary portrait of A. Kazintsev reflects numerous facets of the inner world of this extraordinary thinker, who called criticism “the art of understanding,” and is not only a response to A. Nemzer, S. Chuprinin and others “fundamentally inadequate” in A. Kazintsev’s assessment, but also another accurate a touch in the study of the literary process, affirming artistry, not clouded by sociality, not distorted by a bias towards formalism. Comprehending the various arguments of A. Kazintsev about certain authors, Yu. Pavlov identifies a single logical criterion applicable to Russian literature - the “Russian matrix”. Outside of it are the national egocentrism of V. Grossman, who sees in the history of the first half of the 20th century, overflowing with the tragedies of different peoples, an exclusively Jewish tragedy; “Bell game” and the artificiality of V. Makanin’s creativity in recent decades; “new mythology” of A. Voznesensky, E. Evtushenko, A. Rybakov, V. Voinovich, V. Aksenov, I. Brodsky, A. Dementiev and others. A return to the fold of criticism of today’s publicist A. Kazintsev is the hope of Yu. Pavlov, which , perhaps, the hero of his article will not ignore.

The portrait of Sergei Kunyaev, who dedicated his literary destiny restoration of the true history of Russian literature of the 20th century. Serious work in the archives formed the basis of unique materials that overturn the clichéd versions of the events of the 1920s–30s. Discovery of the names of Pavel Vasiliev, Alexey Ganin, Pimen Karpov, Vasily Nasedkin and others, the story of the life and death of S. Yesenin as close to reality as possible, accurate assessments of the work of N. Tryapkin, V. Krupin, L. Borodin, V. Galaktionova, immediate responses on the phenomena of our time - this and much more, coming from the pen of Sergei Kunyaev, was contained in the pages of “Our Contemporary” and other publications. The figure of S. Kunyaev rises before us as a faithful servant of Russian literature, the “Russian cause” with “rare for our time faith in the Word and Man.” And the inevitability of changes caused by his ascetic activity becomes obvious.

Yu. Pavlov speaks about the catastrophic situation of modern Yesenin studies, ideological distortions, negligence and deliberate distortions of the creative path of one of the most beloved Russian poets in the article “Yesenin studies today.” Despite all the absurdity of the parodic and derogatory Gippius formula “I drank, fought - got bored - hanged myself”, numerous “memoirs” and literary delights reproduce precisely this mocking scheme, multiplying the legacy of the Russian genius by zero. Considering the mystery of S. Yesenin's death, the poet's attitude to Russia, politics, and the existing government, the critic gives examples of a different - philosophical-metaphysical, Orthodox approach, implemented in the works of Art. and S. Kunyaev, Y. Mamleev, M. Nikyo, Y. Sokhryakov, N. Zuev, A. Gulin and others, who can serve as an example of the best traditions of Russian thought.

The article “Dmitry Bykov: Chichikov and Korobochka in one bottle” emphasizes the “sixties” of the author of the book about Pasternak. Yu. Pavlov gives exhaustively accurate characteristics of both the “mirrors” of Boris Pasternak - M. Tsvetaeva, A. Blok, V. Mayakovsky, A. Voznesensky, and his heroes - Yuri Zhivago, first of all.

Using examples of numerous factual, logical and other errors, Yu. Pavlov reveals the “fantasy basis” of Dmitry Bykov’s judgments and his “vocational school level” of knowledge of literature. The critic defends “one of the most worthy statesmen” from Bykov’s comments Russia XIX century" - Konstantin Pobedonostsev, recalling that during his reign the number of church schools in Russia increased from 73 to 43,696, and the number of students in them increased 136 times; Yu. Pavlov points out what is forgotten today, namely: the fact that the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod already at one time precisely defined the essence of liberal democracy.

It must be said that, unlike other critics who received in the book “Criticism of the XX–XXI centuries.” According to one literary portrait, the award-winning “workaholic” Dmitry Bykov, probably in accordance with the volume of “building blocks” he wrote in a fairly short period dedicated to the idols of the intelligentsia - B. Pasternak and B. Okudzhava, finds himself in the center of two articles by Yu. Pavlov. It is not difficult to understand that the impetus for the creation of these works was the indignant “I cannot remain silent” as a reaction to the distortion of the values ​​of Russian literature, to the distortion of the facts of Russian history.

In the article “Discussion “Classics and Us”: Thirty Years Later,” Yu. Pavlov calls for seeing in the classics not “critical-criticizing” realism, but “spiritual reality,” recalling M. Lobanov’s behest to comprehend literature through the highest aspirations of the soul, to seek “ not denunciation, but (...) the depth of spiritual and moral quest, thirst for truth and eternal values.” Using eloquent examples of the works of E. Bagritsky, V. Mayakovsky, Vs. Meyerhold, D. Samoilov, the author of the article holds the idea that more than thirty years later, the statements of Art. Kunyaeva, M. Lobanov, S. Lominadze, I. Rodnyanskaya; that having formally ended on December 21, 1977, the discussion about the classics and Russian literature continues and cannot be ended, since peace between the “conquerors”, “marquitants” and defenders of the spiritual heritage of Russian culture is impossible.

The triple personality of A. Tvardovsky grows through the prism of the realities of that time, in the refraction of the memories of V.A. and O.A. Tvardovskikh, articles by V. Ogryzko - Y. Pavlov comments on the discrepancies and gives answers to controversial questions that arise when referring to the figure of the former editor of Novy Mir. The author of “The Country of Ant”, placed on a par with the creators of “Pogorelshchina”, “The Pit”, “The Story of a Fool”, noticeably loses in the courage that V.A. insists on. and O.A. Tvardovsky, and in objectivity, as evidenced by A.T. himself at the end of his life. Tvardovsky. Other layers of rouge, “lofty tongue twisters” addressed to the editor of the Novomir region, are also removed. The “Workbooks” of A. Tvardovsky and the testimonies of contemporaries, verified from various sources, come to the rescue with this.

Yu. Pavlov’s response to V. Pietsukh’s book “Russian Theme” is subtitled “A Collection of Vile Anecdotes.” The book is seen by critics as another link in the discussion about the classics, which flared up again in last decade, another salvo discrediting the best representatives of Russian literature. The pathos of Y. Pavlov's review of V. Pietsukh is reminiscent of the pathos of I. Ilyin, who defends A. Pushkin from those who want to see his “smallness and abomination” and reduce the life of a genius to a series of anecdotes. And I also remember R. Gul’s response to A. Sinyavsky, “Walking a boor with Pushkin” - the same word of protest to those in whom there is an indomitable desire to see in Russian life not poetry, but ugliness, an object for ridicule, “Egyptian darkness.” In a sense, Pietsukh’s book is “a boor’s walk through the gardens of Russian literature,” a boor trying to plant myths about the universal dislike of Dostoevsky, about Yesenin’s passion for suicide, about the underground anti-Soviet “kolobok” Prishvin. And again, as in the cases of B. Sarnov, D. Bykov, Yu. Pavlov revealed predictable Russophobic schemes, blatant inaccuracies, free interpretations, presented “stupidly, dishonestly, unprofessionally”, without any serious appeal to literary texts. Not without irony, the critic notes that the difference between the conventional “poor”, playing, pretending to be Pietsukh in a mask and Pietsukh, the “enlightened” author, is not felt at all.

The series of “anti-heroes” from the book “Criticism of the XX-XXI Centuries” is closed by A. Razumikhin, who published a memoir article dedicated to contemporaries known to him personally. Yu. Pavlov draws attention to the fact that A. Razumikhin’s work features a fictional, but very colorfully described car by M. Lobanov, fictional characteristics of Kabanikha and Katerina, which never existed and could not exist in the book “Ostrovsky” (ZhZL), fictional “lack of demand” by D. Asanov, V. Korobov, V. Kalugin, fictitious criteria for assessing creative destinies, fictitious situations that are impossible if we proceed from the chronology of events, from published and unpublished facts; the fictional, absurd language constructs of a former professional editor. The critic considers such an “eclipse of the mind and conscience” of the “literary alien” A. Razumikhin to be nothing more than a self-exposure of a person who considers himself to be among the “Russian patriots.”

A controversial attitude towards M. Golubkov’s textbook “The History of Russian Literary Criticism of the 20th Century” was expressed by Yu. Pavlov in a review with the subtitle “A Successful Failure.” Voicing the only relative success of this unsuccessful book, Pavlov makes an attempt to “straighten out” the literary process of the 1960–1970s recreated by M. Golubkov, adding missing strokes and lines, missing names, eliminating factual errors, obvious illogicalities, and refuses further detailed analysis of the textbook due to its inconsistency either with the declared branch of literary criticism (given the differences between the history of criticism and the history of literature), or with the necessary scientific standards.

The characters of the book, “living” in different articles, seem to be connected by invisible threads. Here and there V. Rozanov, V. Kozhinov, Art. Kunyaev, S. Kunyaev, M. Lobanov, V. Bondarenko and others in connection with this or that phenomenon, with this or that figure. This speaks of the integrity of the literary layer of Russian criticism, taken by Yu. Pavlov and placed under one cover. In fact, he himself is one of those who define the literary process today. Using links to various articles, books, and other sources cited by Yu. Pavlov as illustrations of various topics, you can study not only the history of criticism, but also the history of Russian literature of the 20th century. This reading fills with energy, gives a spiritual charge, enlightens the soul and puts thoughts in order, teaches the culture of literary critical thinking and inspires one to practice criticism.

Each article by Yu. Pavlov is a miniature dissertation, a substantiated and fact-intensive full-fledged study, in a condensed form representing the result of a lot of work - a deep and serious penetration into the topic. Nowadays, such systematic and high-quality research is not found in all dissertations. Such a book is a verdict on those critics who base their evidence on one quote and catching “verbal fleas” in the texts of their colleagues. If we use I. Zolotussky’s classification, then Y. Pavlov’s metacriticism can be classified as philosophical. Those who talk about criticism as secondary manifestations emanating from failed writers can present the book “Criticism of the 20th–21st centuries,” which contains genuine philosophy, genuine literature, answers to the most important questions and demands of modern Russian life.

V. Kozhinov and A. Tvardovsky, mentioned in the book, considered the critical gift to be rarer than the literary one. And today, when the share of books devoted to Russian criticism in relation to the colossal flow of prose is incredibly small, we celebrate the publication of Yu. Pavlov’s book “Criticism of the 20th – 21st centuries: Literary portraits, articles, reviews” as a significant milestone in the modern literary process. This book is the answer to the question: what will happen if you are a professional critic and, in applying your principles, are guided not by half measures and considerations of momentary convenience, not by fear of misunderstanding or habitual stereotypes, but by being honest and consistent to the end, remaining yourself.

The debut work of Helen Devitt was recognized as the best novel. The main character of the novel is the boy Ludos, who lives with his mother Sibylla in a modest London apartment and knows nothing about his father. Mother works hard comprehensive development child - already at the age of four he reads the Illiad, then he knows several foreign languages, and then decides to find his father.

The beginning of the book, written from the mother's point of view, is replete with details. It's hard to wade through the redundant details and encyclopedic information. However, the patient reader will be rewarded.

Jonathan Franzen, "Corrections"

First published in just 10 days after September 11, Franzen's novel became an encyclopedia of modern American life. The family saga about the not-so-happy Lamberts absorbed many themes and made Jonathan Franzen famous in the United States and abroad. The novel’s unsightly, but so lively characters have been forcing readers around the world to follow all the twists and turns of the plot for 17 years now.

Kazuo Ishiguro, "Never Let Me Go"

The 2017 Nobel laureate, British-Japanese Kazuo Ishiguro, dissects human souls in his novels with impeccable accuracy.
“Never Let Me Go” - a frightening book of memories by a certain Katie H. about her childhood within the walls of the boarding school and her youth outside it. The dystopia takes place in Britain at the end of the 20th century, where human cloning has become widespread.

A film adaptation of the novel was released in 2010. Starring Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield.

Sheila Heti, “What should a person be?” / “How should a person be?”

Sheila Heti's book about the friendship of two women, which turned them into enemies, is called the "Girls" series in prose. Hetty herself admits that she does not like to write fictional stories, and in her honest and biting novel you can find real emails and conversations between members of the Toronto art scene.

Elena Ferrante, Neapolitan Quartet series

Having learned about the disappearance of his “sworn friend” Lila from her unlucky son, Lenu does not rush to search. She writes her own (far from objective) version of their friendship, in which there will be everything - first books and first loves, the Camorra and the intelligentsia, jealousy and betrayal, betrayal and forgiveness. The story of Lenu and Lila in four books encourages the reader to dissolve in the lives of the heroines, dive headlong into the pool of words and emerge only on last page fourth novel.

Ferrante's personality is mysterious - some believe that this is a creative pseudonym for several authors at once. However, there is information that Elena Ferrante herself grew up in Naples, like the heroines of her “Quartet” - she writes about the dirty streets of poor post-war neighborhoods in such a way that you are immediately ( great power literature) you find yourself there with little Lenu and Lila, who still do not know what awaits them ahead.

Maggie Nelson, "The Argonauts"

Poet Nelson's autobiographical book about her relationship with transgender artist Harry Dodge is one of the works recommended for reading by actress Emma Watson. Maggie Nelson openly explores her own feelings and speaks, without mincing words, about childbirth, sex and the death of her parents. The work has not yet been translated into Russian or Ukrainian, so if you dare to read “The Argonauts,” it will also be excellent English practice.

Roberto Bolaño, "2666"

The novel by the Chilean Bolaño, who died in 2003, was published posthumously. The book consists of five parts, which the author planned to publish separately, but his descendants decided that a single work would be more organic.

It includes "The Critics' Story" about four teachers German literature from different countries, "History of Amalfitano", main character of which he is a professor of philosophy originally from Chile, wandering around the world; “Faith's Story,” about a New York journalist who is forced to leave the United States and comes to Mexico; “The History of Crimes” about the terrible events that are happening in the city of Santa Teresa, and “The History of Archimboldi” about German writer, whose work is revered by the characters of the first part and who also ends up in Santa Teresa.

Paul Beatty, "Sale"

For this book, American Paul Beatty received the Booker Prize in 2016. Beatty, who worked on Novel Seven many years, in his satirical book talks about racism and racial segregation. But he does it in a way that no one else has ever managed - his book is considered one of the wittiest novels of our time, destroying all racial prejudices.

Rachel Cusk, The Circuit trilogy

In the first novel of the trilogy, we meet the British writer Fay, about whom we learn little in the next two books. Faye takes a writing course in Greece and meets people there and explores their stories, aspirations and search for meaning in life, while remaining a mysterious figure herself.

Ian McEwan, "Atonement"

The novel by modern British classic Ian McEwan tells the story of a fatal act that distorted the lives of several people at once. Briony, a girl living in the world of her fantasies, accuses her sister's lover, the son of the gardener Robbie, of rape, which he did not commit. Throughout her subsequent life, Briony, who became a writer, tries to atone for her mistake.
McEwan's book was filmed by Joe Wright. Starring Dames McAvoy, Keira Knightley and Saoirse Ronan.

Joan Didion, "The Year of Magical Thinking"

Writer and journalist Joan Didion was honored for her "Year of Magical Thinking" by the National book prize. In this book, Joan Didion talks about the loss of her husband, the writer John Gregory Dunne, who suddenly died from heart attack, and then Quintana’s daughter, who was seriously ill. For Didion, the scraps of memories of her loved ones collected in the book and an attempt to describe her emotions before and after losses are, of course, therapy.

Vanessa Redgrave played in the one-woman show based on the book. Didion herself wrote the play in 2007.

Critics also called it a new classic of our century."Leaving the Atocha Station" by Ben Lerner and "Flamethrowers" by Rachel Kushner.

The “High Canon” of books already known to the Ukrainian reader includes, among others, “The Middle Sex” by Jeffrey Eugenides, “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy, “The Brief Fantastic Life of Oscar Wow” by Junot Diaz, “Gone Girl” by Gillian Flynn and “The Goldfinch” by Donna Tartt .

The entire list can be seen.

Cover: Susan Yin/Unsplash

American literary critics compiled a list of the best works created over 18 years of the 21st century.

An attempt to create a new literary canon, collecting the opinions of critics who write both for old publications like the New York Times and for sites n+1 and others.

After polling critics, a list of 100 books considered the best written in the 21st century was compiled.

The list was topped by Helen De Witt's novel The Last Samurai.

The rest of the canon was divided into subsections - "New Classics", "High Canon" (books chosen by two respondents) and "The rest of the canon" - books whose presence in the "canon" can be discussed, but at the same time they are still iconic.

The New Classics include Corrections by Jonathan Franzen, Never Let Me Go, Neapolitan Novels by Elena Ferrante, The Argonauts by Maggie Nelson, Atonement by Ian McEwan and others.

The “High Canon” includes “The Platform” by Michel Houellebecq, “The Plot Against America”, “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy, and “Wolfhall” by Hillary Mantel. "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn, "NW" by Zadie Smith, "The Goldfinch" by Donna Tartt and others.

Also on the list are “The Adventures of Cavalier and Clay” by Michael Chabon, “Austerlitz” by V.G. Sebald, "Oblivion: Stories" by David Foster Wallace, "Voices of Chernobyl" by Svetlana Alexievich, Harry Potter novels by JK Rowling, "The Sense of the End" by Julian Barnes, "1Q84" by Haruki Murakami and other books.

Read also

• The creators of the 25th James Bond film have announced the name of the film's new director. As reported on the film's official Twitter, Cary Fukunaga, known for... 11:31, sat in the director's chair.

• Victoria Bavikina

  The Non Stop Media festival, which has been held in Kharkov for many years in the biennale format, has always been positioned by the Municipal Gallery as an image event with a load of various... 14:00
• From October to December 2018, the Docudays UA human rights film festival organizes a cultural diplomacy project “See Ukraine: Empty Pedestal”. According to the organizers, at... 12:20
• Ted Mumford, a four-time Emmy Award nominee, screenwriter and producer of the TV series “Alf” and “The Electric Company,” has died in the United States at the age of 67, the Hollywood Reporter reports with reference… 11:08
• The Lviv regional council introduced a moratorium on the public use of Russian-language cultural products. This decision was made at the session on September 18. They voted for the introduction of a moratorium... 20:01
• In November, the album "Thought Gang", created by David Lynch and Angelo Badalamenti, will be released. According to Little White Lies, the album was recorded in 1992 and 1993, when... 18:54
• Marvel Studios has released the first trailer for the new film from its cinematic universe, Captain Marvel. According to the distributors of the film, it will be released on wide screens in Ukraine on March 7... 18:08

• Katerina Yakovlenko

  You worked as a curator in institutions of different formats - M17, Closer, PinchukArtCentre. What experience have you gained in each institution, what are the features and differences in these experiences? My... 14:00
• The film “Donbass” by Sergei Loznitsa will be released in limited release on September 20. According to the distributors of the film, the release in one cinema - "Zhovten" in Kyiv - will take place as part of the Oscars... 12:07
• The television series "Game of Thrones" won the Emmy television award in the main category - "Best Drama Series." This was announced following the results of the 70th ceremony... 09:10

• Anatoly Solov’yanenko

  The leading musical VNZ of the region is looking for democratic elections for the first time, and not their imitation “with one candidate, which has a total boost.” 19:07
• The Toronto Film Festival, which ended on September 16, announced the winners. According to Vulture, the main prize of the film festival - the Audience Award - went to the film... 14:45

• Stanislav Bityutsky

  There were two key periods in Ukrainian history when national cinema experienced a real rise, and whole generations of directors with a unique style and films appeared in cinema... 14:00
• Japanese writer Haruki Murakami declined nomination for alternative Nobel Prize in literature, Kyodo News reports. According to the message, the writer addressed the New Academy... 14:26

• Sergey Ksaverov

  Like any visionary director, Gilliam has a difficult life. At the time of his film debut in 1975, he was a member of Monty Python, with its penchant for satire using the old... 11:30