Russian Association of Proletarian Writers: wiki: Facts about Russia. Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers of Germany Literary group Russian Association of Proletarian Writers

"(1925-1932), formerly the organ of the "October" group. At the same time, the slogan of “proletarian culture” was replaced by the slogan of “learning from the classics.” L. L. Averbakh became the General Secretary of RAPP. The main activists and ideologists of RAPP were writers D. A. Furmanov, Yu. N. Libedinsky, V. M. Kirshon, A. A. Fadeev, V. P. Stavsky, critic V. V. Ermilov. In the magazine, they put forward the concepts of the development of literature “ally or enemy”, repelling “fellow travelers” writers, “dumbing” poetry and “calling shock workers into literature”. RAPP, as an organization of proletarian writers, reflected the development of the party’s struggle against Trotskyism. In terms of literature, this is primarily a fight against the “liquidationist” theory of Trotsky-Voronsky, which denied the possibility of creating proletarian culture and literature. The Rappists recognized psychologism, the “living person,” and the psychological analysis of the characters depicted as the main direction of literature. The RAPP consisted of more than 4 thousand people.

In the history of literature, the association is famous primarily for its attacks on writers who, from the point of view of the Rappovites, did not meet the criteria of a real Soviet writer. Pressure under the slogan of “party literature” was exerted on such different writers as M. A. Bulgakov, V. V. Mayakovsky, Maxim Gorky, A. N. Tolstoy and others. All these phenomena were criticized in the Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) dated June 18, 1925 “On the party’s policy in the field of fiction.”

By 1930, all other literary groups were practically destroyed, and RAPP strengthened its directive tone. For example, the resolution of May 4, 1931 called on all proletarian writers to “engage in an artistic display of the heroes of the Five-Year Plan” and report on the implementation of this call-order within two weeks. Within the RAPP, the struggle for power intensified and ideological differences intensified, and soon this situation ceased to suit the party leadership.

RAPP, together with VOAPP, as well as a number of other writers' organizations, was disbanded by the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations" dated April 23, which introduced a single organization, the Union of Writers of the USSR. However, the leaders of RAPP took high positions in the new joint venture. Most of the RAPP members joined the Writers' Union.

see also

Literature

• Creative ways of proletarian literature, vol. 1-2, M. - L., 1928-29.
• The fight for the method, M. - L., 1931.
• About the party and Soviet press. Collection of documents, M., 1954.
• Essays on the history of Russian Soviet journalism, vol. 1, M., 1966.
• From the history of Soviet aesthetic thought, M., 1967.
• Sheshukov S. Fierce zealots. From the history of the literary struggle of the 20s, M., 1970.
• Gromov Evgeniy. Stalin. Power and art. M.: Republic, 1998. ISBN 5-250-02598-6. Page 70-85.

Links

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

• Gastrointestinal tract
• Amphibian

See what the “Russian Association of Proletarian Writers” is in other dictionaries:

RUSSIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROLETARIAN WRITERS- (RAPP, 1925 32). Using the slogan of partisanship in literature, the Rappovites sought administrative control of the entire literary process; Rapp's criticism is characterized by vulgar sociologism and elaborative style... Modern encyclopedia

Russian Association of Proletarian Writers- RAPP RUSSIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROLETARIAN WRITERS (RAPP, 1925 32). Using the slogan of partisanship in literature, the Rappovites sought administrative control of the entire literary process; Rapp's criticism is characterized by vulgar sociologism... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

All-Russian Association of Proletarian Writers- (VAPP) was founded in October 1920 at one of the conferences of proletarian writers, convened by the literary association “Kuznitsa”; in 1921 it was approved by the People's Commissariat of Education as the leading literary organization. The leadership was carried out by V. ... ... Wikipedia

association of proletarian writers- organizations of writers in the USSR, formed in the 1920s. At the 1st All-Russian Congress of Proletarian Writers in Moscow in 1920, the All-Russian Association of Proletarian Writers was formed. It included members of the organization of proletarian... ... Literary encyclopedia

Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic- RSFSR. I. General information The RSFSR was founded on October 25 (November 7), 1917. It borders on the north-west with Norway and Finland, on the west with Poland, on the south-east with China, the MPR and the DPRK, as well as on the union republics included to the USSR: to the west with... ...

Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, RSFSR (public education and cultural and educational institutions)- VIII. Public education and cultural and educational institutions = The history of public education on the territory of the RSFSR goes back to ancient times. In Kievan Rus, basic literacy was widespread among different segments of the population, about which... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Writers' Union of the Republic of Bashkortostan- SPRB: Ufa, Russia Type of organization: Creative public organization Official ... Wikipedia

RAPP- Russian Association of Proletarian Writers... Dictionary of Russian abbreviations

RAPP- Russian Association of Proletarian Writers, Soviet literary organization. It took shape in January 1925 as the main detachment of the All-Union Association of Proletarian Writers (VAPP), which existed since 1924 and whose theoretical body ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Brief chronicle of the literary life of the Soviet Union 19171929- 1917 October 25 (November 7). Great October Socialist Revolution. October 26 (November 8). Decrees: about peace, about earth. Formation of the first government of the Russian Soviet Republic Council of People's Commissars (SNK) headed by... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary

The most powerful literary organization of the 20s was the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP), which officially took shape in January 1925 within the framework of the VAPP. The association included many major writers: A. Fadeev, A. Serafimovich, Yu. Libedinsky and others. Its printed organ was the magazine “At the Literary Post”.

The Rappites called for studying from the classics, especially from L. Tolstoy, this revealed the group’s orientation specifically towards the realistic tradition. But for the rest, it was not for nothing that the Rappovites certified themselves as “fierce zealots of proletarian purity.” RAPP inherited and even strengthened the vulgar sociological nihilistic tendencies of Proletkult. It declared itself not only as a proletarian literary organization, but also as a representative of the party in literature, and considered speeches against its platform as a speech against the party.

LEF (Left Front of the Arts 1922-1929)

At the end of 1922, the LEF group was formed. Head - V. Mayakovsky, composed of - B. Arvatov, V. Kamensky, B. Pasternak, N. Aseev, V. Shklovsky, O. Brik, S. Kirsanov, S. Tretyakov, N. Chuzhak. Film directors, S. Eisenstein and D. Vertov, were close to LEF and aroused great interest among Lef writers.

Lefovites advocated the applied nature of art. An abundance of proclamations. They began to consider art a simple step towards the artist’s participation in production (“I am also a factory, And if without pipes, then maybe it’s more difficult for me Without pipes,” Mayakovsky wrote). Each area of ​​art had to comprehend its technique in the concepts and ideas that production used. Art had to dissolve in him. The Lefovites put forward the theory of “social order” and the idea of ​​“production” art. This group advertised itself as the "hegemon" of revolutionary literature and was intolerant of other groups.

The evolution of futurism is obvious from the idea of ​​extreme autonomy of the artistic form to the idea of ​​complete pragmatism (“social order”, “literature of fact”) to a sociological approach to literature (“We are happy to dissolve the small “we” of art in the huge “we” of communism”).

The Lefovites were close to the constructivists - Ilya Selvinsky and Korney Zelensky, "Gosplan Literature" - a collection of constructivists.

OBERIU

A union of several poets in the late 20s was formed under the name OBERIU (Union of Real Art). It included D. Kharms, N. Zabolotsky, K. Vaginov, A. Vvedensky and others. Initially, they called themselves the “school of plane trees.” This was the last literary association in line with the Russian avant-garde. From the futurists, the Oberiuts borrowed destructive and shocking principles, a passion for phonetic and semantic “absurdity.” The basis of their artistic method was mockery of the generally accepted, ironic highlighting of the obvious absurdities of modernity.

Kharms and Vvedensky, whose creative principles underlay the poetics of the Oberiuts, despite all the differences in their literary style, had one thing in common: the illogicality of Kharms and the “nonsense” of Vvedensky were intended to demonstrate that only absurdity conveys the incoherence of life and death in an ever-changing space and time.

10. General features of the literary process of the 1920-1930s.

This time can be called the era of overcoming Gutenberg
- Development of journalism during the Civil War
- Literary associations
- Popularization of oral presentations
- Military prose (“Destruction” by Fadeev)
- Socialist realism
- Clearly regulated nature of Soviet literature (100% censorship, repression)
- Conventionally, the beginning of the new Soviet period of Russian literature is the first congress of Soviet writers (1934 - a turning point in literature). Members of the Writers' Union were on the state's payroll, and it fully provided for them.
- Dominance of prose, prosaic groups
- The flourishing of culture and social consciousness against the backdrop of revolution and chaos
- St. Petersburg – creative intelligentsia (House of Arts, House of Scientists, House of Writers)
- 1919-1923 – Eliseev House – house of arts. (Chukovsky, Gumilev, Zoshchenko. Speakers: Blok, Bely, Akhmatova, Sologub, Mayakovsky)
- But in 1921 Blok and Gumilyov died. In 1922, Akhmatova’s last book of poetry was published. Poets and writers are expelled from the country (Tsvetaeva, Khodasevich, Shmelev, Zaitsev, Gorky)
- Narrative prose – 20s, poetry – 30s.
- 1935 – metro line (Moscow) – metro poets
- Domesticization
- Conventional boundaries

In 1922, the Main Directorate for Literature and Publishing was created

In 1922 the concept of “Soviet literature” appeared (c) Voronsky
Signs:
*criterion of benefit (ideas of socialism)
*propaganda function
*culture is monotonous
It was important to clearly contrast “them and us.” Either speak out against the enemies of the new government, or show loyalty to it itself. Highly recommended topics were suggested (recent past and present). Leaving them was perceived as sabotage.
The cult syndrome of Stalin is an important feature of Soviet literature and mass consciousness. Pasternak saw in Stalin the embodiment of world historical energy (did he do it himself or through suppression? QUESTION!). Young Bulgakov writes a play about Stalin's youth (BatUm). Mandelstam was forced to write an ode to Stalin (“If only I would take coal for the highest praise”), Akhmatova for the sake of saving his son in 1950. He wrote the cycle “Glory to the World.”

In 1925, a resolution “On party policy in the field of fiction” appeared (literature must fulfill the order of the party) =>
1) Writers started samizdat
2) Private publishing houses are developing
3) Writers are published in Berlin

Groups are looking for how to combine artistic thinking with practical life creativity

· Proletkult (1917-1920) - the creation of a special art, proletarian, which would be isolated from cultural experience and traditions. Only proletarian writers.

· Union of Soviet Writers

· Serapion brothers (creation of plot prose)

· Imagists

· Pereval united around the magazine “Krasnaya Nov”, headed by Voronsky. They fight for a harmonious personality, for the writer’s right to be himself, for the right to choose

· Left Front of the Arts

Constructivists
11. Maxim Gorky - writer and organizer of the literary and journalistic process.

Many valuable publishing endeavors are associated with the name of Maxim Gorky. In the early 1900s, he united the best literary forces of that time around the Znanie publishing house. The series “Cheap Partnership Library”, “Knowledge” and other serial publications were very popular. In 1905-1906, with the participation of Gorky, one of the sharp satirical magazines “Zhupel” was published. In 1912-1913, Gorky edited the Sovremennik magazine. In 1915, he organized the Parus publishing house with a broad democratic book publishing program, which was designed to cover modern problems of science, philosophy, socio-political life, ethics and morality.

Gorky was involved in the selection of authors and developed the concept of many publications. In an effort to ensure a high level of editorial and publishing preparation of literary works, he invites V.Ya. Bryusov and I.A. Bunin (the latter, however, refused). Particular attention was paid to the scientific reference apparatus, in particular, the introductory article, which presents an essay on the history of the development of national literature, and bibliographic lists reflecting the social and cultural life of the nation.

Concern for preserving the best literary and editorial-publishing traditions was also characteristic of Gorky’s publishing activities during the Soviet period. In 1918, he became the head of the publishing house “World Literature”, which he organized, the goal of which is to introduce the reader to examples of world literary classics (V.Ya. Bryusov, A.A. Blok, K.I. Chukovsky and others work here as editors). Before his departure abroad, Gorky edited a number of magazines (“Northern Lights”, “Our Journal”, the first “thick” literary and social magazine “Krasnaya Nov”, etc.).

While abroad, he directed the magazine "Conversation" published in Berlin (1923-1925). After returning from abroad, he became a member of many editorial and publishing councils, acted as the initiator and editor of a number of collective and serial publications (“History of factories and factories”, “Life of remarkable people”, “Poet’s Library”, almanacs “The Sixteenth Year”, “Year nineteen”, etc.).

As an editor, Gorky relied on traditions that were formed in the process of development of classical Russian literature and which determined the view of a literary work as an integral artistic system. For him, genre features are not literary canons, but rhythm, intonation, manner of narration, language and style - in unity. He himself suffered the “diseases” of literary growth and formation, and went through the editorial school of V.G. Korolenko, Gorky knew perfectly well the value of each of the components of literary mastery. From this point of view, Gorky the editor really “created the author.” It is believed that he wrote about 20,000 letters, most of them to aspiring writers. Maxim Gorky strictly but fairly criticized his opponents, entering into correspondence with him. In the collection of articles “On Literature,” Gorky included eleven of them, removing the initials of the recipients’ names and surnames and replacing the subheadings with Roman numbering.

In his letters, Gorky not only consistently corrects the errors he noted in the works of beginning writers he read. He also reveals some basic categories of both editorial and writing activities:

1) Gorky insists that a story requires a clear depiction of the scene of action, liveliness of the characters, accuracy and colorful language, that is, the story must be written in such a way that the reader sees everything that the author is talking about.

2) Gorky also considers excessive verbosity, devoid of ideological content, as a gross mistake. A large number of unnecessary and meaningless phrases serve not to illustrate, but to confuse. Gorky is also stressed by the hero’s excessive verbosity. Its inappropriateness sometimes kills the “life truth” of the story and makes the reader doubt the likelihood of the described development of events.

3) The author’s primary task, from Gorky’s point of view, is to create an understandable, visible, unambiguous picture in the reader’s mind. The writer, in his opinion, does not have the right to depict what he himself has not seen, what he does not imagine with all accuracy and all the details.

4) It’s even worse, according to the critic, when the author uses words that are obviously incomprehensible to the reader. It is impossible to argue with this: Russian authors write for the people of a huge, multinational country, and since any book is a path to truth, all the more so everyone should speak the same language so that people find this path faster and easier.

5) Gorky gives the authors specific advice on how to improve certain episodes. Sometimes Gorky gives advice of a different kind, especially if in general the writer’s style is close to him, and only requires minor adjustments: “Try to write something else. For example…"

6) He also criticizes the purely factual narrative. If a writer writes inattentively and dryly towards people, giving preference to predilection for facts, he has chosen “the crudest and most unfortunate deviation of naturalism.” The naturalistic method of depicting reality, even in its best expression, accurately and minutely describes things and landscapes, but weakly and soullessly depicts people. In this case, the facts themselves are deprived of their social-typical meaning. The artist must have the ability to generalize - typify repeated phenomena of reality.

7) Gorky considers such a criterion for evaluating a literary work as the degree of development of its main theme to be worthy of special attention. The authors of many of the works he read chose to explore serious, socially significant, sometimes original, fresh topics.

Talent, according to Gorky, develops from a feeling of love for the work, it is even possible that talent is only love for the work, for the process of work. Modern writers, in his opinion, learn too poorly and grow too slowly in order to adequately fulfill the mission assigned to them by the historical context.

In his early works, including “Makare Chudre”, Gorky appears before us as a romantic writer. The main character is the old gypsy Makar Chudra. For him, the most important thing in life is personal freedom, which he would never trade for anything. He believes that the peasant is a slave who was born only to pick the earth and die without even having time to dig his own grave. His maximalist desire for freedom is also embodied by the heroes of the legend he tells. A young, beautiful gypsy couple - Loiko Zobar and Radda - love each other. But both of them have such a strong desire for personal freedom that they even look at their love as a chain that fetters their independence. Each of them, declaring their love, sets their own conditions, trying to dominate. This leads to a tense conflict that ends with the death of the heroes. Loiko gives in to Radda, kneels before her in front of everyone, which among the gypsies is considered a terrible humiliation, and at the same moment kills her. And he himself dies at the hands of her father.
The peculiarity of the composition of this story, as already mentioned, is that the author puts a romantic legend into the mouth of the main character. It helps us to better understand his inner world and value system. For Makar Chudra, Loiko and Rudd are ideals of love of freedom. He is sure that two beautiful feelings, pride and love, brought to their highest expression, cannot be reconciled. A person worthy of emulation, in his understanding, must preserve his personal freedom at the cost of his own life. Another feature of the composition of this work is the presence of the image of the narrator. It is almost invisible, but we can easily recognize the author himself in it. He doesn't quite agree with his hero. We do not hear any direct objections to Makar Chudra. But at the end of the story, where the narrator, looking into the darkness of the steppe, sees how Loiko Zobar and Radda “were spinning in the darkness of the night smoothly and silently, and the handsome Loiko could not catch up with the proud Radda,” his position is revealed. The independence and pride of these people, of course, admire and attract, but these same traits doom them to loneliness and the impossibility of happiness. They are slaves to their freedom, they are not able to sacrifice even for the people they love.
To express the feelings of the characters and his own, the author widely uses the technique of landscape sketches. The seascape is a kind of frame for the entire storyline of the story. The sea is closely connected with the mental state of the heroes: at first it is calm, only the “wet, cold wind” carries “across the steppe the thoughtful melody of the splash of a wave running onto the shore and the rustling of coastal bushes.” But then it began to rain, the wind became stronger, and the sea rumbled dully and angrily and sang a gloomy and solemn hymn to the proud couple of handsome gypsies. In general, a characteristic feature of this story is its musicality. Music accompanies the entire story about the fate of the lovers. “You can’t say anything about her, this Radda, in words. Perhaps its beauty could be played on a violin, and even then to someone who knows this violin like his own soul.”
This first work of the young Gorky immediately attracted attention with its topical themes, brightness of images and language and heralded the birth of a new, extraordinary writer.

Analysis of M. Gorky's novel "Mother"

The novel tells not just about the revolutionary struggle, but about how in the process of this struggle people are reborn, how spiritual birth comes to them. “A resurrected soul will not be killed!” - Nilovna exclaims at the end of the novel, when she is brutally beaten by police and spies, when death is close to her. “Mother” is a novel about the resurrection of the human soul, seemingly tightly crushed by the unjust system of Life. This topic could be explored especially broadly and convincingly using the example of a person like Nilovna. She is not only a person of the oppressed masses, but also a woman on whom, due to her darkness, her husband takes out countless oppressions and insults, and, moreover, a mother who lives in eternal anxiety for her son. Although she is only forty years old, she already feels like an old woman. In the early version of the novel, Nilovna was older, but then the author “rejuvenated” her, wanting to emphasize that the main thing is not how many years she lived, but how she lived them. She felt like an old woman, having not truly experienced either childhood or youth, without feeling the joy of “recognizing” the world. Youth comes to her, in essence, after forty years, when the meaning of the world, man, her own life, and the beauty of her native land begin to open up to her for the first time.

In one form or another, many heroes experience such spiritual resurrection. “A person needs to be renewed,” says Rybin and thinks about how to achieve such renewal. If dirt appears on top, it can be washed off; and “how to cleanse a person from the inside”? And so it turns out that the very struggle that often embitters people is the only one capable of purifying and renewing their souls. “Iron Man” Pavel Vlasov is gradually freeing himself from excessive severity and from the fear of giving vent to his feelings, especially the feeling of love; his friend Andrei Nakhodka - on the contrary, from excessive softness; “son of thieves” Vesovshchikov - from distrust of people, from the conviction that they are all enemies of each other; Rybin associated with the peasant masses - from distrust of the intelligentsia and culture, from the view of all educated people as “masters”. And everything that happens in the souls of the heroes surrounding Nilovna also happens in her soul, but it happens with special difficulty, especially painfully. From an early age she was accustomed to not trusting people, to fear them, to hide her thoughts and feelings from them. She teaches her son this too, seeing that he has entered into an argument with life that is familiar to everyone: “I only ask one thing - do not talk to people without fear! You have to be afraid of people - they all hate each other! They live by greed, they live by envy. Everyone is happy to do evil. As soon as you begin to expose and judge them, they will hate you and destroy you!” The son replies: “People are bad, yes. But when I found out that there is truth in the world, people became better!”

When Paul says to his mother: “We all perish from fear! And those who command us take advantage of our fear and intimidate us even more,” she admits: “I lived in fear all my life - my whole soul was overgrown with fear!” During the first search at Pavel's, she experiences this feeling with all its severity. During the second search, “she was not so afraid... she felt more hatred for these gray night visitors with spurs on their feet, and the hatred absorbed the anxiety.” But this time Pavel was taken to prison, and the mother, “closing her eyes, howled long and monotonously,” just as her husband had howled in animal anguish before. Many times after this, fear gripped Nilovna, but it was increasingly drowned out by hatred of her enemies and the consciousness of the high goals of the struggle.

“Now I’m not afraid of anything,” says Nilovna after the trial of Pavel and his comrades, but the fear in her has not yet been completely killed. At the station, when she notices that she is recognized by a spy, she is again “persistently squeezed by a hostile force... humiliating her, plunging her into dead fear.” For a moment, a desire flares up in her to throw the suitcase with leaflets containing her son’s speech at the trial and run. And then Nilovna inflicts the final blow on her old enemy - fear: “... with one big and sharp effort of her heart, which seemed to shake her whole, she extinguished all these cunning, small, weak lights, commandingly saying to herself: “Shame!” Don't disgrace your son! No one is afraid...” This is a whole poem about the fight against fear and victory over it!, about how a person with a resurrected soul gains fearlessness.

The theme of “resurrection of the soul” was the most important in all of Gorky’s works. In the autobiographical trilogy “The Life of Klim Samgin,” Gorky showed how two forces, two environments, fight for a person, one of which seeks to revive his soul, and the other - to devastate it and kill it. In the play “At the Bottom” and in a number of other works, Gorky depicted people thrown to the very bottom of life and yet retaining hope for revival - these works lead to the conclusion about the indestructibility of the human in man.

Analysis of M. Gorky's play "At the Depths"

In all of M. Gorky’s plays, an important motif sounded loudly - passive humanism, addressed only to such feelings as pity and compassion, and contrasting it with active humanism, arousing in people the desire for protest, resistance, and struggle. This motive formed the main content of the play, created by Gorky in 1902 and immediately causing heated discussions, and then giving rise in a few decades to such a huge critical literature that few dramatic masterpieces have generated in several centuries. We are talking about the philosophical drama “At the Bottom”.

Gorky's plays are social dramas in which the problems are common and the characters are unusual. The author does not have main or secondary characters. In the plot of the plays, the main thing is not the clash of people in some life situations, but the clash of life positions and views of these people. These are social and philosophical dramas. Everything in the play is subordinated to a philosophical conflict, a clash of different life positions. And that is why intense dialogue, often an argument, is the main thing in the playwright’s work. Monologues in the play are rare and are the completion of a certain stage of the characters’ argument, a conclusion, even an author’s declaration (for example, Satin’s monologue). The disputing parties strive to convince each other - and the speech of each of the heroes is bright and rich in aphorisms.

The development of the action of the play “At the Bottom” flows along several parallel channels, almost independent of each other. The relationship between the owner of the flophouse Kostylev, his wife Vasilisa, her sister Natasha and the thief Ash is tied into a special plot knot - on this vital material one could create a separate social and everyday drama. A separate storyline develops related to the relationship between the locksmith Kleshch, who lost his job and sank to the bottom, and his dying wife Anna. Separate plot nodes are formed from the relationships of Baron and Nastya, Medvedev and Kvashnya, from the destinies of Actor, Bubnov, Alyoshka and others. It may seem that Gorky gave only the sum of examples from the life of the inhabitants of the “bottom” and that, essentially, nothing would have changed if there had been more or fewer of these examples.

It even seems that he deliberately sought to separate the action, dividing the stage every now and then into several sections, each of which is inhabited by its own characters and lives its own special life. In this case, an interesting polyphonic dialogue arises: the lines sounding on one part of the stage, as if by chance, echo the lines sounding on another, acquiring an unexpected effect. In one corner of the stage, Ash assures Natasha that she is not afraid of anyone or anything, and in the other, Bubnov, who is patching his cap, says drawlingly: “But the threads are rotten...” And this sounds like evil irony addressed to Ash. In one corner, a drunken Actor tries and fails to recite his favorite poem, and in the other, Bubnov, playing checkers with policeman Medvedev, gloatingly tells him: “Your queen is missing...” And again, it seems that this is addressed not only to Medvedev , but also to the Actor that we are talking not only about the fate of a game of checkers, but also about the fate of a person.

Such cross-cutting action is complex in this play. To understand it, you need to understand what role Luke plays here. This wandering preacher consoles everyone, promises everyone deliverance from suffering, says to everyone: “You hope!”, “You believe!” Luka is an extraordinary person: smart, he has enormous experience and a keen interest in people. Luke's entire philosophy is condensed into one saying: "What you believe is what you believe." He is sure that truth will never cure any soul, and nothing can cure it, but you can only soften the pain with a comforting lie. At the same time, he sincerely feels sorry for people and sincerely wants to help them.

It is from collisions of this kind that the through-action of the play is formed. For his sake, Gorky needed the parallel developing destinies of different people. These are people of different vitality, different resistance, different ability to believe in a person. The fact that Luke's sermon, its real value, is “tested” on so many different people makes this test especially convincing.

Luke says to the dying Anna, who knew no peace during her life: “You die with joy, without anxiety...” And in Anna, on the contrary, the desire to live intensifies: “... a little more... I wish I could live... a little! If there is no flour there... here we can be patient... we can!” This is Luke's first defeat. He tells Natasha a parable about the “righteous land” in order to convince her of the destructiveness of the truth and the saving power of deception. And Natasha makes a completely different, directly opposite conclusion about the hero of this parable, who committed suicide: “I couldn’t stand the deception.” And these words throw light on the tragedy of the Actor, who believed Luke’s consolations and was unable to endure bitter disappointment.

Brief dialogues between the old man and his “wards,” intertwining with each other, impart intense internal movement to the play: the illusory hopes of the unfortunate people grow. And when the collapse of illusions begins, Luka quietly disappears.

Luke suffers the biggest defeat from Satin. In the last act, when Luka is no longer in the shelter and everyone is arguing about who he is and what he is actually trying to achieve, the tramps’ anxiety intensifies: how, how to live? The Baron expresses the general state. Having admitted that he had “never understood anything” before and lived “as if in a dream,” he thoughtfully notes: “... after all, for some reason I was born...” People begin to listen to each other. Satin first defends Luka, denying that he is a conscious deceiver, a charlatan. But this defense quickly turns into an attack - an attack on Luke's false philosophy. Satin says: “He lied... but it was out of pity for you... There is a comforting lie, a reconciling lie... I know the lie! Those who are weak at heart... and those who live on other people's juices need a lie... Some people are supported by it, others hide behind it... And who is their own master... whoever is independent and does not eat someone else's things - why does he need a lie? Lies are the religion of slaves and masters... Truth is the god of a free man!” Lies as the “religion of the owners” are embodied by the owner of the shelter, Kostylev. Luke embodies lies as the “religion of slaves,” expressing their weakness and oppression, their inability to fight, their inclination toward patience and reconciliation.

Satin concludes: “Everything is in man, everything is for man! Only man exists; everything else is the work of his hands and his brain.” And although for Satin his roommates were and will remain “dumb as bricks,” and he himself will not go beyond these words, for the first time in the shelter a serious speech is heard, pain is felt because of the lost life. Bubnov's arrival reinforces this impression. “Where are the people?” - he exclaims and offers to “sing... all night” and sob his inglorious fate. That is why Satin responds to the news of the Actor’s suicide with harsh words: “Eh... ruined the song... fool!” This remark also has a different emphasis. The passing of an Actor is again the step of a man who could not stand the truth.

Each of the last three acts of "At the Bottom" ends with someone's death. In the finale of Act II, Satin shouts: “Dead men don’t hear!” The movement of the drama is associated with the awakening of “living corpses,” their hearing, and emotions. This is where the main humane, moral meaning of the play lies, although it ends tragically.

The problem of humanism is complex in that it cannot be solved once and for all. Each new era and each shift in history forces us to pose and solve it anew. This is why disputes about the “softness” of Luke and the rudeness of Satin can arise again and again.

The ambiguity of Gorky's play led to different theatrical productions. The most striking was the first stage adaptation of the drama (1902) by the Art Theater, directed by K.S. Stanislavsky, V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, with the direct participation of M. Gorky. Stanislavsky later wrote that everyone was captivated by “a peculiar romanticism, on the one hand bordering on theatricality, and on the other – on preaching.”

In the 60s, Sovremennik, under the leadership of O. Efremov, seemed to enter into polemics with the classical interpretation of “At the Depths”. The figure of Luke was brought to the fore. His consoling speeches were presented as an expression of concern for a person, and Satin was reprimanded for being “rude.” The spiritual impulses of the heroes turned out to be dampened, and the atmosphere of the action seemed mundane.

Disputes about the play are caused by different perceptions of Gorky's dramaturgy. In the play “At the Bottom” there is no subject of dispute or clashes. There is also no direct mutual assessment of the characters: their relationship developed a long time ago, before the start of the play. Therefore, the true meaning of Luke’s behavior is not immediately revealed. Next to the embittered remarks of the inhabitants of the shelter, his “good” speeches sound contrasting and humane. This is where the desire to “humanize” this image comes from.

M. Gorky psychologically expressively embodied the promising concept of man. The writer revealed in unconventional material the acute philosophical and moral conflicts of his time and their progressive development. It was important for him to awaken the personality, its ability to think and comprehend the essence.

12. Zoshchenko

Zoshchenko was an adherent of realistic literary traditions. He stood for life-affirming art, showing a harmonious, strong and beautiful person, imbued with a bright attitude. His turn to satire and humorous stories was dictated by the need to fight for such a person.

M. Zoshchenko’s first book, “Stories of Nazar Ilyich, Mr. Sinebryukhov,” was a collection of humorous short stories, where all the characters are philistines trying to adapt to new conditions of existence. The comic incongruity of their claims and spiritual poverty appear in funny, ugly and curious situations. The most important figure in all the humorous and satirical short stories that make up this book and all subsequent ones is the narrator, whose very speech, tongue-tied, filled with street jargon, clericalism and grammatical absurdities, exposes both himself and those about whom he talks. This mask of a simple-minded, ignorant storyteller was created by Zoshchenko truly with great art. Exposing philistinism, vulgarity, feeble-mindedness, and spiritual poverty became the main goal of his work.

In Zoshchenko's satirical stories there are no effective techniques for sharpening the author's thoughts. They, as a rule, are devoid of sharp comedic intrigue. M. Zoshchenko acted here as a satirist of morals. He chose as the object of analysis the bourgeois owner - a hoarder and money-grubber, who from a direct political opponent became an adversary in the sphere of morality, a breeding ground for vulgarity. By developing deliberately ordinary plots, telling private stories that happened to an unremarkable hero, the writer elevated these individual cases to the level of significant generalization. He penetrates the inner sanctum of a tradesman who involuntarily exposes himself in his monologues.

The works created by the writer in the 20s were based on specific and very topical facts, gleaned either from direct observations or from numerous letters from readers.

Their themes are motley and varied: riots in transport and in hostels, grimaces of the New Economic Policy and grimaces of everyday life, the mold of philistinism and philistinism and much, much more. Often the story is built in the form of a casual conversation with the reader.

In a series of satirical short stories, M. Zoshchenko angrily ridiculed cynically calculating or sentimentally thoughtful earners of individual happiness, intelligent scoundrels and boors, and showed in their true light vulgar and worthless people who are ready to trample on everything truly human on the way to achieving personal well-being (“Rich Life” , “Trouble”, “Bad Custom”, “Barrel”)

Breaking the connection between cause and effect is a traditional source of comedy. It is important to capture the type of conflicts characteristic of a given environment and era and convey them through the means of satirical art. Zoshchenko is dominated by the motif of discord, everyday absurdity, some kind of tragicomic inconsistency of the hero with the tempo, rhythm and spirit of the times.

In the 1930s, everything changes. Zoshchenko appears to have teaching intonations that were not there before. The satirist not only and even not so much ridicules and castigates, but patiently teaches, explains, interprets, appealing to the mind and conscience of the reader. High and pure didactics were embodied with particular perfection in a cycle of touching and affectionate stories for children, written in 1937 - 1938. Zoshchenko of the 1930s completely abandoned not only the usual social mask, but also the fantastic manner developed over the years. The author and his heroes now speak in completely correct literary language. At the same time, naturally, the range of speech dims somewhat, but it became obvious that it would no longer be possible to embody a new range of ideas and images with the previous Zoshchenko style. The departure from skaz was not a simple formal act; it entailed a complete structural restructuring of Zoshchenko’s short story. Not only the style changes, but also the plot and compositional principles, and psychological analysis is widely introduced. Even externally, the story looks different, being two to three times larger in size than the previous one. Zoshchenko often seems to return to his early experiences of the early 20s, but at a more mature stage, using the legacy of the fictionalized comic novel in a new way.

The very titles of the stories and feuilletons from the mid and second half of the 30s (“They acted tactlessly,” “Bad wife,” “Unequal marriage,” “On respect for people,” “More about the fight against noise”) quite accurately indicate the exciting Now satirical questions. These are not everyday oddities or communal problems, but problems of ethics, the formation of new moral relations.
The genre uniqueness of Zoshchenko’s large prose paintings is undeniable. If “Youth Restored” could still be called a story with some degree of convention, then the other works of the lyrical-satirical trilogy (“Blue Book”, “Before Sunrise”, 1943) have tried and tested genre definitions - “novel”, “story”, “ memoirs" etc. - they didn’t come any more. Implementing his theoretical principles, which amounted to a synthesis of documentary and artistic genres, Zoshchenko created large works at the intersection of fiction and journalism in the 30s and 40s.

Although in The Blue Book the general principles of combining the satirical and didactic, pathos and irony, touching and funny remained the same, much has changed compared to the previous book. So, for example, the method of active authorial intervention in the course of the narrative remains, but no longer in the form of scientific comments, but in a different form: each main section of the Blue Book is preceded by an introduction and ends with an afterword. Reworking his old short stories for this book, Zoshchenko not only frees them from the fantastic manner and half-criminal jargon, but also generously introduces an element of teaching. Many stories have introductory or concluding lines of a clearly didactic nature.

Zoshchenko's works were of great importance not only for the development of satirical and humorous literature in the 20-30s. His work became a significant social phenomenon; the moral authority of satire and its role in social and moral education thanks to Zoshchenko increased enormously.

Kurt Tucholsky's involvement in the revolutionary labor movement testified to the general trend in the development of socialist literature. By that time it had reached such a level when it began to be of not only political, but also professional interest for bourgeois writers.

The proletarian revolutionary literary movement in the late 20s was an important factor in the cultural life of the country. The socio-historical prerequisites for this cultural upsurge were determined by the political interests of the progressive wing of the German working class, which the KPD rallied around itself. However, in themselves, these spontaneous needs for art could hardly lead to a tangible result: at the new stage in the history of German socialist literature, the struggle for revolutionary culture on a national and international scale was conducted in a more organized and purposeful manner.

Already in 1924, at the V World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow, the question of creating the International Association of Revolutionary Writers (IORP) was raised. In 1927, the first International Conference of Proletarian and Revolutionary Writers took place in Moscow, in which delegates from Germany (Johannes R. Becher, Bertha Lask, Hungarian Andor Gabor) also took part. Under the influence of the initiative emanating from the KPD, the Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers of Germany (SPRPG) was founded in Berlin in 1928. He led a literary movement, which, on the one hand, distinguished itself - already thanks to its name - from the so-called “worker poets” who were aligned with social democracy, and on the other hand, it stood in solidarity with all the writers who “wanted to depict the world from the position of the revolutionary proletariat "

In 1930, only forty percent of the Union's members belonged to the KKE. The Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers of Germany had its own theoretical organ - the magazine Linkskurve (Left Turn). The chairman of this writers' association, which had about 500 members, was Johannes R. Becher. The Union saw its primary task in “the unification of those writers who are ready to create in the proletarian-revolutionary spirit” 84. At first glance, it seemed to be a purely organizational task, but its solution was already becoming a historical merit: at that time a stable core of writers was formed, which was to determine the direction of development of socialist German literature for more than three decades.

The Union sought first of all to identify talents from the proletarian environment, “writing workers” who, being correspondents for the communist press, often tried to prove themselves in journalism. Miner Hans Marchwitz, metal worker Willi Bredel, tinsmith Otto Gotsche, toolmaker Jan Petersen, Max Zimmering, Elfriede Brüning, Bertha Waterstradt, Hedda Zinner and others, only while in the ranks of the Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers, had the opportunity to master the craft of writing. Here they were able to adopt artistic and theoretical experience from those writers who, like I. R. Becher, had already linked their fate with the revolutionary workers’ movement several years ago. The crisis of the world capitalist system at the end of the 20s once again brought writers of bourgeois origin to the side of the Communist Party; they immediately - like, for example, Ludwig Renn or Anna Seghers - were actively involved in the work of the Union. In addition, the Union also included German-speaking writers of other nationalities: theorists Gyorgy Lukács and Andor Gabor were Hungarians. Egon Erwin Kisch and Franz Karl Weiskopf are from Czechoslovakia. It was the diversity of starting positions, life experience, political temperament, and direction of talent that determined the effectiveness of the Union.

In addition, works of socialist literature in the second half of the 20s were also created by progressive writers who were not members of the Union. Thus, the well-known author of proletarian novels Adam Scharrer (1889-1948) was at that time a member of the radical left party. Bertolt Brecht, theater figure Erwin Piscator, composer Hans Eisler, graphic artist John Heartfield, literary critic Walter Benjamin began to develop the theory and practice of an art that would proceed in its formal and technical innovations from the desire to transform society. In their experiments, they relied on the proletarian masses capable of perceiving art, which the KKE united around itself. The pro-letarian-revolutionary cultural movement acquired even greater scope with the creation of the Society for Workers' Culture, founded on the initiative of the KKE.

The primary task of the Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers was “to develop on a dialectical and materialistic basis” a theory of proletarian revolutionary literature, “which still has gaps.”85 In fact, it was then that theoretical debates began about the purpose, functions, method and traditions of socialist literature. Until the mid-30s, its development experienced a proletarian-revolutionary phase, which found expression in a radical change in its tasks and an active search for means of artistic expression. Unlike other trends, socialist literature was characterized, on the one hand, by a sharp emphasis on originality, on the other, by an orientation towards the agitation and propaganda tasks of art, which was clearly formulated in Friedrich Wolf’s manifesto article “Art is a Weapon” (1928). He proceeded from the political engagement of literature, the essence of which was “to be the conscience of the era, to light a fire from the burning issues of everyday life and to carry its torch high.”

Wolf's slogan summarized existing literary practice and served as an impetus for its further development. Maxim Valentin created in 1925 the first group of “agitprop art” of the Union of Communist Youth. Subsequently, this direction acquired wide scope. Highly dynamic, operational ensembles arose, using such forms as short skits, choral recitation, pantomime, song, and pictorial caricature. United into a single whole, these funds were something like various revues. The art of agitprop was designed to directly influence the public, whether at a meeting or on the street. In such cases, the back of a truck could serve as an improvised stage. The art of agitprop smoothed out not only the difference between individual genres, but also between professional and amateur art. A professional actor, the author of the text, and a participant in amateur performances were members of a team whose goal was not commercial success.

The limitations of the “propaganda” function of art made themselves felt most palpably when the exacerbation of the class struggle by the early 1930s made it necessary to evaluate literary works by their actual impact. The art of agitation had its audience (and amateur actors) primarily in the politically mature part of the working class. Thus, the different levels of cultural needs of the proletariat were not taken into account (the art of agitprop was not intended for the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois layers of the public at all). In addition, the sharp opposition of proletarian-revolutionary literature to “bourgeois” literature became an obstacle to the unification of anti-fascist forces on a creative platform, and during the onset of fascism such unity acquired vital importance. The Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers faced the danger of “turning into a petty-bourgeois sect” 89.

The Union called for the creation of works that were close to the broad masses, significant in the scope of the phenomena depicted, capable of showing “proletarian everyday life in their interaction with the life of other classes” so deeply and comprehensively that the reader could draw a conclusion about “the main driving forces of social development.” The style of modern literature should be “bold and comprehensive realism” 91.

In the discussions of the Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers of Germany, for the first time (since the fundamental statements of Marx and Engels), the question of the tasks, form and method of modern socialist literature was raised and an idea of ​​realism was formed, which in its content coincided with the concept of socialist realism, formulated somewhat later in Soviet Union. While in exile, most proletarian revolutionary writers fought for a theoretical understanding of this concept and its implementation in practice.

Union of Proletarian Revolutionary Writers of Germany

Other essays on the topic:

1. The association of working literature circles includes workers and employees who, in city “workshops”, together with writers and journalists, use...
2. During the initial period, it was primarily about eliminating the spiritual legacy of fascism in order to clear the way for development...
3. But the “golden” twenties led to the “black” thirties and forties. In 1929, an economic crisis broke out in the United States, paralyzing the entire...
4. The European Union is an integration grouping of twenty-five Western European countries (Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland,...
5. In the novel by A. Andersch “Winterspelt” (1974) we are talking about the surrender of a German regiment without a fight to the Americans in the fall of 1944. Although...
6. In 1919, the poetic anthology “Comrades of Humanity”, published by the poet and playwright Ludwig Rubiner (1891-1920), was published. This anthology pursued...
7. In the 30s, several heroic-revolutionary dramas appeared, among them “Death of the Squadron” (1933) by Alexander Korneychuk and “Intervention” (1932) by Lev should be highlighted...
8. The owner of a small loan office named Jabez Wilson, who has an unusual red hair color, turns to Sherlock Holmes for help. Affairs...
9. Since 1910, Blok worked on the poem “Retribution,” in which he raised the problem of relations between the people and the intelligentsia, but did not finish it:...
10. This was the title of Ernst Jünger's book, published in 1926. In the same year, Hans Grimm’s novel “A People Without...

On July 8, 1926, at a meeting of the literary community, the Karelian Association of Proletarian Writers (KAPP) was formed - the first literary organization in Karelia. An important role in its development was played by T.K. Trifonova, who worked as a teacher in schools in Tivdia and Petrozavodsk. She was elected executive secretary of the CAPP. The management bureau included T. Alimov, J. E. Virtanen. People's poet of Karelia Yalmari Erikovich Virtanen was elected chairman. He headed the writers' organization for more than 10 years.

Initially, 14 writers were members of the association, including T. Alimov, J. E. Virtanen, L. Helo, Kh. K. Tikhlya, F. P. Ivachev. The main task of the organization was to involve “workers from the machine and peasants from the plow” into the literary movement. Russian, Finnish and Karelian sections were formed in the structure of the organization. Stanislav Vitalievich Kolosenok was elected secretary of the Russian section of the CAPP. Six months later, the Karelian Association of Proletarian Writers already numbered 29 people. From July to December 1926, the organization held about 20 literary subbotniks, at which the works of writers-members of the association were read and discussed, and presentations were made.

The works of writers in Russian were published on the pages of the newspaper “Red Karelia” and the magazine “Karelo-Murmansk Territory”. In 1928, in the city of Petrozavodsk, the literary and artistic almanac “Puna-Kantele” (“Red Kantele”) began to be published in Finnish, which became a general publication for Finnish-speaking writers of Leningrad and Karelia.

In June 1934, at the first All-Karelian Conference of Soviet Writers, in which 45 writers took part, the organization was renamed the regional branch of the Union of Writers of the USSR “Union of Writers of Karelia.” The conference elected Ya. E. Virtanen, E. B. Parras, S. K. Norin and N. Gribachev as delegates to the first All-Union Congress of Writers.

In the second half of the 1930s. The development of the national literature of the republic suffered enormous damage. In Karelia and the Leningrad region, Finnish-language schools, newspapers and magazines were closed. Many cultural, educational and literary workers were arrested.

In 1940, the 1st Congress of Writers of Karelia took place, after which new names appeared in Karelian literature - A. N. Timonen, F. A. Trofimov, V. K. Ervasti and others.

Folk storytellers M.I. Mikheeva, E.I. Hämäläinen, F.I. Bykova, A.M. Pashkova, P.I. Ryabinin-Andreev also joined the Writers' Union. They created new epics and runes about statesmen and war heroes.

During the Great Patriotic War, many Karelian writers fought on the fronts, in partisan detachments. Their works were published on the pages of front-line newspapers and raised the spirit of the soldiers.

After the Great Patriotic War, the union was headed by writers Ulyas Karlovich Vikström, Nikolai Grigorievich Laine (N. Gippiev), Pyotr Abramovich Mutanen, Yakov Vasilyevich Rugoev, Antti Nikolaevich Timonen. The structure of the organization included sections for poetry, prose, criticism, and translation. The Union worked under the Bureau of Propaganda of Fiction, a branch of the Literary Fund of the Union of Writers of the USSR. A special commission provided regular assistance to aspiring writers, and meetings of young writers were held.

Nowadays the successor of the Union of Writers of Karelia is the Karelian regional branch of the all-Russian public organization “Union of Writers of Russia”. It is headed by the people's writer of Karelia, Marat Vasilievich Tarasov. The main goals of the organization: strengthening the creative community of writers, active participation in the spiritual life of society, promoting the development of literature of all peoples living in the territory of the republic.

Lit.: Dyuzhev Yu. I. Writers’ Unions // Karelia: encyclopedia. In 3 volumes. T. 3. R-Ya. Petrozavodsk, 2011. P. 131; Kolosenok S.V. 30s // On the front of peaceful labor: memories of socialist participants. construction in Karelia, 1920 -1940. Petrozavodsk, 1976. P.264-274; Kolosenok S.V. Culture of Soviet Karelia. Petrozavodsk, 1959. From the contents: Literature of Karelia. pp. 51-63; Mashin A. The milk and cream of literature: On July 8, 1926, the first pisat was created. org. Karelia - Karel. assoc. span. Writers // Courier of Karelia. 2008. July 3. P. 6.

Material provided by the National Library of the Republic of Karelia.