History of the formation of literary criticism. The problem of the emergence of literary criticism

Criticism from the Greek “kritice” - to disassemble, to judge, appeared as a unique form of art back in antiquity, eventually becoming a real professional occupation, which for a long time had an “applied” character, aimed at overall assessment 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 in European Age 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 role in public life a huge role at that time. In the works of eminent critics XIX century(V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, A.V. Druzhinin, N.N. Strakhov, M.A. Antonovich) not only a detailed review was concluded literary works other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion of artistic principles and ideas, as well as the vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, its moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and power of influence on the minds of the public and today are among the the most powerful tool impact on the spiritual life of society and its moral principles.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

At one time, A. S. Pushkin’s poem “Eugene Onegin” received many varied reviews from contemporaries who did not understand the brilliant innovative techniques of the author in this work, which has a deep, genuine meaning. It was this work of Pushkin that the 8th and 9th critical articles of Belinsky’s “Works of Alexander Pushkin” were devoted to, who set himself the goal of revealing the relationship of the poem to the society depicted in it. The main features of the poem, emphasized by the critic, are its historicism and the truthfulness of the reflection of the actual picture of the life of Russian society in that era; Belinsky called it “an encyclopedia of Russian life”, and 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 shock 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: with Perov everything is permeated with optimism and is described in light colors, the second has the opposite - the writing style is characterized by gloom, pessimism and grief over lost opportunities.

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov

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

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

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 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 influences of harmful activities " active life» other characters

Selected work:

One of famous works 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 this or that 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.

“Each era of Russian literature had its own consciousness about itself, expressed in criticism,” wrote V. G. Belinsky. It is difficult to disagree with this judgment. Russian criticism is a phenomenon as bright and unique as Russian classic literature. It has been noted many times that criticism, being synthetic in nature, played a huge role in the social life of Russia. Critical articles by V. G. Belinsky, A. A. Grigoriev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and many others contained not only detailed analysis works, their images, ideas, artistic features; behind destinies literary heroes, behind artistic painting world critics sought to see the most important moral and social problems time, and not only see, but sometimes also offer their own ways to solve these problems.

The articles of Russian critics had and continue to have a significant impact on the spiritual and moral life society. It is no coincidence that they have long been included in the school education curriculum. However, for many decades, in literature classes, students were familiar mainly with criticism of a radical orientation - with articles by V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and a number of other authors. In this case, the critical article was most often perceived as a source of quotations with which schoolchildren generously “decorated” their essays.

This approach to the study of Russian classics formed stereotypes artistic perception, significantly simplified and impoverished the picture of development Russian literature, characterized by fierce ideological and aesthetic disputes.

Only in recently thanks to the emergence of a number of serial publications and in-depth literary studies our vision of development paths Russian literature and criticism has become more voluminous and multifaceted. In the series “Library “For Lovers” Russian literature"", "History of aesthetics in monuments and documents", "Russian literary criticism" articles by N. M. Karamzin, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, I. V. Kireevsky, N. I. Nadezhdin were published , A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov and other outstanding Russian writers.The complex, dramatic quests of critics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, different in their artistic and social beliefs, are recreated in the series “Library of Russian Criticism”. Modern Readers finally got the opportunity to get acquainted not only with the “peak” phenomena in the history of Russian criticism, but also with many other, no less striking phenomena. At the same time, our idea of ​​the “peaks”, of the scale of significance of many critics, has been significantly clarified.

It seems that practice school teaching should form a more comprehensive idea of ​​how Russian literature of the 19th century was reflected in the mirror of domestic criticism. It is important that the young reader begins to perceive criticism as an organic part of Literature. After all, Literature in in a broad sense is the art of words, embodied both in a work of art and in a literary critical speech. A critic is always a bit of an artist and a publicist. Talented critical article necessarily contains a powerful fusion of the moral and philosophical thoughts of its author with subtle and deep observations of the literary text.

Studying a critical article yields very little if its main provisions are perceived as a kind of dogma. It is important for the reader to emotionally and intellectually experience everything said by the critic, think about the logic of his thoughts, and determine the degree of evidence of the arguments put forward by him.

The critic offers his reading work of art, reveals his perception of the work of a particular writer. Often a critical article makes you rethink a work or artistic image. Some judgments and assessments in a talentedly written article can become a genuine discovery for the reader, while others may seem erroneous or controversial to him. The comparison is especially interesting different points opinions about the same work or the work of a particular writer. This always provides rich material for thought.

This anthology contains works by leading representatives of Russian literary-critical thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries, from N. M. Karamzin to V. V. Rozanov. Many publications from which the texts of articles are published have become bibliographic rarities.

The reader will allow you to look at Pushkin’s work through the eyes of I.V. Kireevsky and V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev and V.V. Rozanov, to get acquainted with how differently the poem was perceived" Dead Souls"Gogol's contemporaries - V. G. Belinsky, K. S. Aksakov, S. P. Shevyrev, how the heroes of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" were assessed by the second critic half of the 19th century century. Readers will be able to compare their perception of Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" with how it was interpreted in the articles of D.I. Pisarev and D.S. Merezhkovsky, see in Ostrovsky's plays, thanks to the work of A.V. Druzhinin, not only " dark kingdom“with lonely light “rays” penetrating into it, but the multifaceted and multicolored world of Russian national life.

For many, the articles by L. Tolstoy’s contemporaries about his work will undoubtedly be a revelation. The main signs of L. Tolstoy’s talent are the ability to show the “dialectics of the soul” of his heroes, the “purity moral sense" - N. G. Chernyshevsky was one of the first to identify and reveal. As for N. N. Strakhov’s articles on “War and Peace,” we can rightfully say: in Russian literary criticism there are few works that can be placed next to them by the depth of penetration into L. Tolstoy's plan, by the accuracy and subtlety of his observations of the text. The critic believed that the writer “gave us a new Russian formula of heroic life”, for the first time after Pushkin he was able to reflect the Russian ideal - the ideal of “simplicity, goodness and truth.”

Of particular interest are the reflections of critics collected in the anthology on the fate of Russian poetry. The problems posed in the articles by K. N. Batyushkov and V. A. Zhukovsky, V. G. Belinsky and V. N. Maykov, V. P. Botkin and I. S. Aksakov, V. S. Solovyov and V. V. Rozanova. Here we will find original judgments about the genres of “light poetry” and the principles of translation that have not lost their significance, we will see the desire to penetrate into the “holy of holies” of poetry - into creative laboratory poet, understand the specifics of expressing thoughts and feelings in lyrical work. And how true, how clearly defined in these publications creative individuality Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Fet, Tyutchev and A.K. Tolstoy!

It is noteworthy that the result of difficult searches and often fierce disputes was the desire of critics of the early 20th century to “return” Russian culture to Pushkin, to Pushkin’s harmony and simplicity. Proclaiming the need for a “return to Pushkin,” V.V. Rozanov wrote: “I want him to become a friend in every Russian family... Pushkin’s mind protects him from everything stupid, his nobility protects him from everything vulgar, the versatility of his soul and the interests that occupied him protect against what could be called “early specialization of the soul.”

We hope that the anthology will become an indispensable guide to the works of outstanding Russian literary artists, will help to truly understand these works, compare various ways their interpretation, to discover in what was read what went unnoticed or initially seemed unimportant and secondary.

Literature is a whole Universe. Its “suns” and “planets” had their own satellites - literary critics who fell into the orbit of their inevitable attraction. And how we would like that we could call not only the classics of Russian literature, but also these critics our eternal companions.

History of Russian literary criticism

History of Russian literature of the 20th century (36)

1. Literature Silver Age: ideological and artistic directions, trends, schools (general characteristics).

2. Poetry and prose by I.A. Bunina. Writer's style.

3. Symbolism: origins, concept, philosophy, representatives, meaning.

4. Romantic and realistic works young M. Gorky. Tradition and innovation in early stories.

5. Aesthetic system Acmeism. Poetry of N. Gumilyov.

6. A. Akhmatova and Acmeism: themes, images and details in poetry.

7. Russian futurism: heterogeneity of the futurist movement, aesthetic manifestos.

8. New peasant poetry. Lyrics by S. Yesenin.

9. A. Blok’s poem “The Twelve”: history of creation, images, symbolism, interpretation.

10. Urbanistic character of V. Bryusov’s poetry.

11. Topic ʼʼ scary worldʼʼ and ʼʼretributionʼ in the poetry of A.A. Blok.

12. Autobiographical motives, in M. Gorky’s trilogy “Childhood.” Youth. My universities. Problems of the trilogy.

13. Realism and fantasy in the works of F. Sologub. Understanding Russian traditions classical realism in the novel “The Little Demon”.

14. Poetry of B. Pasternak: themes, images, artistic features.

15. Poetry of M. Tsvetaeva: themes, images, artistic features.

16. “Don Stories” by M. Sholokhov: themes, ideas, artistic features.

17. Themes and problems of V. Mayakovsky’s post-October lyrics. Drama by V. Mayakovsky.

18. Artistic originality stories of the 20-30s. XX century (M. Zoshchenko, A. Tolstoy, I. Babel: topics, problems, style).

19. Roman M.A. Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" Problems of realism and modernism.

20. A. Platonov’s story “The Pit”: themes, ideas, images of the main characters.

21. The theme of the Great Patriotic War in poetry (using the example of the work of 2-3 authors of the examinee’s choice).

22. The concept of personality, its relationship with history and the universe in B. Pasternak’s novel “Doctor Zhivago”.

23. “Lieutenant’s prose” and its role in the development of literature about the great Patriotic War(V. Bykov, V. Astafiev, V. Kazakevich).

24. Problems of morality in the works of V. Rasputin and V. Astafiev.

25. The fight against the machine of totalitarianism in the works of A. Solzhenitsyn.

26. Drama of the 1950-60s. Artistic discoveries of A. Vampilov.

27. Lyric poetry in the 1950s-70s: “pop poetry”, “quiet lyrics”. Author's song and its development in modern times.

28. Poems by A.T. Tvardovsky: lyrical and philosophical understanding Soviet history; the image of the author, features of poetics.

29. Postmodernism as literary movement. Features of Russian postmodernism.

30. V. Erofeev’s poem “Moscow-Petushki” in the context of postmodernism.

31. Fate military prose 1980-1990s: a new vision of military events of the war of the 1940s. New truth of the war years in the novels by V. Astafiev “Cursed and Killed” and G. Vladimov “The General and His Army” (student’s choice).

32. Seteratura. Hypertext. Discussion about online literature in the mid-1990s. Competition "Teneta" Guest books.

33. “Women’s handwriting” in modern prose: T. Tolstaya, L. Ulitskaya, L. Petrushevskaya, V. Tokareva. Discussions about women's prose.

34. Modern Russian fiction: definition of the genre, its varieties.

35. Reflections on human destiny in prose by V. Rasputin and V. Astafiev.

36. Popular literature the end of the twentieth century: genre features, narrative features, types of heroes.

37. Dominants in Russian literature of the 1980-1990s: pop art, social art, the emergence of conceptualism, minimalism, Mitka and courtly mannerists.

1. The concept of “literary criticism”. Subject, tasks, genres of literary criticism.

2. Classical criticism. Literary-critical activity of M.V. Lomonosov, A.P. Sumarokova, V.K. Trediakovsky, M.M. Kheraskova, G.R. Derzhavin.

3. Sentimentalist criticism. Literary-critical activity of N.M. Karamzina, I.I. Dmitrieva.

4. Romantic criticism. Main currents. Literary-critical activity of V.A. Zhukovsky and K.N. Batyushkova.

5. Aesthetic and literary-critical views of A.S. Pushkin.

6. N.V. Gogol is a critic. The originality of N.V.’s critical articles. Gogol.

7. Place V.G. Belinsky in the history of Russian criticism. The main periods of literary critical activity.

8. Russian literary criticism of the second half of the 19th century. The struggle of trends in criticism.

9. Writer’s criticism of the second half of the 19th century: I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, L.N. Tolstoy, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, N.S. Leskov, F.M. Dostoevsky.

10. Radical democratic criticism in the journal Sovremennik.

11. Basic principles of literary criticism of the symbolists. Literary-critical activity of D.S. Merezhkovsky, V. Bryusov, A. Blok, A. Bely.

12. Literary criticism V Soviet Russia 1920 – early 1930s.

13. Literary criticism on the pages of the magazine ʼʼ New worldʼʼ. A.T. Tvardovsky is a critic.

14. Russian literary criticism of the 1990s.

History of Russian literary criticism - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "History of Russian Literary Criticism" 2017, 2018.

About the Russian type of criticism

There is no reason to discuss in " Russian writer"(newspaper of the Union of Writers of Russia) problems liberal criticism- What do we care about someone else’s house when ours is squandered in last years much of that valuable thing that made up the meaning of Russian criticism.

N.N. Strakhov wrote that a contemporary critic often resembles a cook who, when asked: “Can he cook dinner well?” says: “It will be hot, but I’m not responsible for the taste.” The current “hot” criticism, of course, comes from the newspapers “Zavtra” and “Day of Literature” with their principle of “challenging” (any to the ruling regime, globalists, new and old Russians, “gloomy and insignificant orthodoxies”, that is, Orthodox, etc.), with their “blows”, “protestism”, comfortable “trenchness”, “cursability” and “stupidity”. In general, the whole point is in the “heat”, and not in the quality and evidence of criticism. If in the articles of V.G. Bondarenko was not in a fever, then they simply would not have been read for a long time. As an inveterate vaper, he has to give in, give in, give in all the time... And if the main critic of the “Day of Literature” “the ghoul temporarily becomes the center of the salvation of Holy Rus',” then we, sinners who read this, quite naturally have the idea of genetically modified criticism by analogy with the labeling of “genetically modified products” introduced by the Ministry of Health. Bondarenko’s articles should have been published under such a heading. How else can one explain that today a critic, foaming at the mouth and wearing a red half-believe, defends one thing, and tomorrow in a yellow jacket - the exact opposite. Vova, where are you?

Two acrobat brothers from the “Moscow Writer” (from the long-known camp whistlers) do not have the slightest idea about literary art criticism, replacing it with journalistic somersaults with figs in their pockets and “whatever you want” stances.

Of course, a decent amount of our criticism consists of others - those who try to comprehend literature seriously, whose names do not sparkle with samovar gold, who do not scald readers with boiling water.

Polemics in criticism are completely natural and necessary. But today there is no real polemic in criticism. No, because polemics require understanding another opinion, a view. Principle of Understanding has always been put forward as the main one in Russian criticism. Therefore, in order to win a debate, you need convincing argumentation, you need to see more deeply and subtly what you think is insufficient in your opponent. Modern criticism is categorically incapable of precisely this: in best case scenario what has been demonstrated will happen " Literary newspaper» discussion about modern literature: different (and often interesting) points of view were expressed, but everyone (with rare exceptions) spoke “for himself”, without hearing the other and without bothering to understand other points of view.

My own experience as a critic in this sense is also very indicative: I write about modern prose, and they answer me in publications of any kind according to the same template - arguing about me(“Koksheneva is such and such”). However, this is still the same old “childhood disease of leftism”, when there is no strength to answer, and you need to quickly stick a label on it.

The Russian type of criticism is based on organic look. This view was characteristic of the work of Apollon Grigoriev and N. N. Strakhov, whom I have already mentioned. He, and only he, seems to me to be true. “This look,” Strakhov wrote, “ It has exactly that virtue that is more difficult than all others". It requires from the critic historical breadth and a deep relationship to tradition (tradition for the critic is not something “objectively given”, but always personally conquered). This view avoids any party one-sidedness, since it is tested primarily by life. The word “life” was dominant in the worldview of both Grigoriev and Strakhov. “But life itself, according to Grigoriev, “is something mysterious and inexhaustible,” writes modern writer N. Kalyagin. Life in Russian criticism is not opposed to either creativity or fiction, nor “colored truth” (A. Grigoriev), and literature is a big, popular, zemstvo affair. Only the contempt of modern criticism for living life leads it to a pitiful “ability” to build according to its own personal (often selfish) whim literary lists“magnificent tens” and introduce into Russian literature writers whose “creativity” without tweezers and without sanitary treatment is physically and morally dangerous.

At the same time, for the Russian type of criticism there is only one condition - understanding of your people; and this ability to understand resulted in the principle of pochvennichestvo with its fear of “lying to the people.” Today everything is different: the critic is “mistaken” because he is glad to be wrong, because he gives his assessments completely in isolation from the nationality, authenticity and truthfulness of literature, in the heat of supposedly defending the “common cause”, the entire “community” of which does not extend beyond the Moscow ring road . Today, not only is there no fear of “lying to the people” or lying to the Russian people, but one’s own lies can be passed off as “ radical criticism" So radical that the nasty texts of Vl. Sorokin and E. Limonov try to approve in print as the new “good news”.

Russian traditional criticism (for me its conservative direction) has never was not a criticism of the phrase, she never turned the subject of her speech into rhetorically meaningful shocking, such as: “My own uncle... is a real Russian martyr” (V. Bondarenko). Poor uncle! Having accomplished a feat in the Great Patriotic War, did he think that he would become only a momentary “argument” for a spectacular exclamation from a descendant?!

The modern patriotic critic does not just spit out phrases, but whistles - broadcasts in patriotic slang, without seeing, without feeling (and the impressionability of the Russian critic has always been strong, allowing him to maintain a sense of proportion) that the “metaphysical richness” of critical texts can be absolutely empty: well, not to make a “new avenger” out of Vladimir Sorokin, even if the critic is cynically confident that the reader “will not notice swear words"of this unsurpassed authority of foul language, and will appreciate and remember only the "metaphysical efforts" of the writer Sorokin, directed "against the red-haired Deputy Prime Minister."

Alas, most likely everything will happen exactly the opposite. There cannot be double accounting in Russian criticism - black cash and white kickback. The boundless, allowing for moral compromise, patriotism of criticism with a double bottom (“let them write even obscenities,” let them write about any perversions, as long as they protest against red-haired deputy prime ministers and corrupt officials) is no different from boundless liberalism with its wolf howl about freedom (even if for her sake, my dear, millions will die out). However, there is nothing new here either: in former times, “boots” were “higher than Shakespeare,” and in today’s times, Sorokin is “more patriotic” than the post-villageists.

Russian criticism has always been characterized by idealism. In its conservative direction, it was a Christian ideal, against which today’s liberals, together with patriotic phrase-mongers, so unanimously united in irritated hatred. Anti-idealists, as a rule, use as their main thesis the “plight of the people” who need to survive, so, they say, there is no time for idealism. The newest crisis opposition is the most convincing evidence that a social idea and a spiritual ideal can diverge widely. Christian idealism is the strongest force of human life.

Classical Russian literature and classical criticism had a remarkable property - sincerity. The former reader could be sure that they were speaking to him in purity of heart (even errors and moral doubts were sincere and open). Nowadays, criticism, understanding itself as a tool and force, is aimed not so much at expressing thoughts and expressing feelings that arose from empathy with the writer’s work, but at influencing the reader in in the right direction and with advance prepared trend.. Consequently, counterfeits of real thought and sincere feeling are not only possible, but also desirable. Under the guise of ardent service to the principles of justice lies a cold calculation, under the guise of “disgrace” a commercial project is hidden, under the veil of “serving the idea of ​​patriotism” lies a lack of knowledge about this very idea, buried under a heap of ignorant words. The critic no longer wants to be only a critic, but will certainly strive to become “famous” public figure of our century,” which means he intends to serve not the truth, but to live by momentary interest.

It is clear that national criticism today cannot win - neither in circulation, nor in the demand for its ideas, nor can it compete with the “newest aesthetics” introduced today. But in long history Russian literature, as we already know from the past, is what always remains modern - we, every new generation, grow up to our classics again and again (or, let’s say, it would be desirable to grow up).

Perhaps I will again seem “too orthodox” to my colleagues, and they will remind me of rest, pleasant emotions, “pleasure” (this is how we care about a reader tired of a difficult life). I will answer this with the words of Nikolai Kalyagin: “The utilitarian principle of “pleasure,” introduced by Kant into the foundation of aesthetics, is generally a double-edged principle. Of course, the pleasure of Kant or Apollo Grigoriev, more accurately than any theory, testifies to highest quality the book they are reading. But what does the enjoyment of your neighbor on the train reading Stephen King indicate? However, the current critic suggests replacing the old aesthetic pleasure with “vomit from extreme prose.” And just. And cool. Which, meanwhile, will not sully the purity of the principles of the best Russian critics.