Real criticism. Drama A
Independent work № 1
Target:.
Exercise: compile a bibliographic map on the work of M.Yu. Lermontov and prepare her defense ( guidelines see page 9 and appendix 1).
Independent work No. 2
Target:
Exercise: compose a glossary literary terms Key words: romanticism, antithesis, composition.
List of poems to memorize:
“Thought”, “No, I’m not Byron, I’m different ...”, “Prayer” (“I, the Mother of God, now with a prayer ...”), “Prayer” (“In a difficult moment of life ...”), “K *” (“Sadness in my songs, but what a need ...”), “Poet” (“My dagger shines with gold trim ...”), “Journalist, Reader and Writer”, “How often surrounded by a motley crowd ...”, “Valerik”, “Motherland”, “Dream” (“In the afternoon heat in the valley of Dagestan ...”), “It’s both boring and sad!”, “I go out alone on the road ...”.
Topic: “Creativity of N.V. Gogol"
Independent work No. 1
Target: expansion of literary and educational space .
Exercise: compile a bibliographic map on the work of N.V. Gogol and prepare her defense (see methodological recommendations on p. 9 and Appendix 1).
Independent work No. 2
Target: development of the ability to identify the main literary concepts and formulate them; ability to navigate in the literary space.
Exercise: compile a glossary of literary terms: literary type, detail, hyperbole, grotesque, humor, satire.
Independent work No. 3
According to the story by N.V. Gogol "Portrait"
Target: expansion and deepening of knowledge of the text of the story and its analysis .
Exercise: answer in writing the proposed questions on the story of N.V. Gogol "Portrait".
Questions on the story of N.V. Gogol "Portrait"
1. Why did Chartkov buy the portrait for the last two kopecks?
2. Why is Chartkov's room described in such detail?
3. What properties of Chartkov speak about the artist's talent?
4. What opportunities does the unexpectedly discovered treasure give the hero, and how does he use it?
5. Why do we learn the name and patronymic of Chartkov from a newspaper article?
6. Why did “gold become… a passion, an ideal, a fear, a goal” of Chartkov?
7. Why does the shock of a perfect painting in Chartkiv turn into "envy and rage", why does he destroy talented works of art?
1. What is terrible about the usurer from whom the portrait was painted?
2. What misfortunes did the portrait of the usurer bring to the artist and how did he cleanse the soul of filth?
3. What is the meaning of art and why "talent ... should be the purest of all souls"?
Evaluation criteria:
"5" (2 points) - answers are given in full, quotes from the work are used.
"4" (1.6-1.2 points) - the answers are given in full, but there are 2-3 inaccuracies.
"3" (1.2-0.8 points) - there are no answers to 1-2 questions, the rest of the answers are given incompletely.
"2" (0.7-0 points) - no answers to 4 or more questions.
Topic: “Creativity of A.N. Ostrovsky"
Independent work No. 1
Target: expansion of literary and educational space .
Exercise: compile a bibliographic map based on the work of A.N. Ostrovsky and prepare her defense (see methodological recommendations on page 9 and Appendix 1).
Independent work No. 2
Target: development of the ability to identify the main literary concepts and formulate them; ability to navigate in the literary space.
Exercise: compile a glossary of literary terms: drama, comedy, stage direction.
Independent work No. 3
Based on the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"
Target: expansion and deepening of knowledge of the text of the play and its analysis .
Exercise: Check out the materials in the table. Answer in writing questions on I and II tasks.
I. Criticism of the play
| N. A. Dobrolyubov "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" (1859) | DI. Pisarev "Motives of Russian drama" (1864) | |
| About the play | Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life ... He captured such social aspirations and needs that permeate the entire Russian society ... Thunderstorm is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought in it to the most tragic consequences ... There is even something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. | Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" caused a critical article from Dobrolyubov under the title "A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom". This article was a mistake on the part of Dobrolyubov; he was carried away by sympathy for the character of Katerina and took her personality for a bright phenomenon ... Dobrolyubov's view is incorrect and ... not a single bright phenomenon can either arise or take shape in the "dark kingdom" of the patriarchal Russian family, brought to the stage in Ostrovsky's drama. |
| The image of Katerina | ... the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us new life which is revealed to us in its very death. ... The resolute, integral Russian character, acting among the Wild and Kabanovs, appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the weakest and most patient ... ... A woman who wants to go to the end in her uprising against the oppression and arbitrariness of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-denial, must decide on everything and be ready for everything ... ... Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikh there is no scope for her bright visions, just as there is no freedom for her feelings ... | In each of Katerina's actions one can find an attractive side ... ... education and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind ... ... Katerina's whole life consists of constant internal contradictions; every minute she rushes from one extreme to another ... she confuses at every step both her own life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything that was at her fingertips, she cuts the tightened knots with the most stupid means, suicide, which is completely unexpected for herself ... I completely agree that passion, tenderness and sincerity are really the predominant properties in Katerina's nature, I even agree that all the contradictions and absurdities of her behavior are explained precisely by these properties. But what does this mean? |
| Katerina and Tikhon | ... She has no particular desire to get married, but there is no aversion from marriage either; there is no love in her for Tikhon, but there is no love for anyone else ... ... Tikhon himself loved his wife and was ready to do everything for her; but the oppression under which he grew up disfigured him so much that there is no strong feeling in him, no resolute desire can develop ... ... She has long striven to make her soul akin to him ... ... In a play that finds Katerina already with the beginning of love for Boris Grigorich, Katerina’s last, desperate efforts are still visible - to make her husband dear to herself ... ... Tikhon is here simple-hearted and vulgar, not at all evil, but extremely spineless creature, not daring to do anything contrary to his mother ... | |
| Katerina and Boris | ... She is attracted to Boris not only by the fact that she likes him, that he does not look like and in speech like the others around her; she is attracted to him by the need for love, which has not found a response in her husband, and the offended feeling of the wife and woman, and the mortal anguish of her monotonous life, and the desire for freedom, space, hot, unrestricted freedom. ... Boris is not a hero, he is far from being worth Katerina, she fell in love with him more in the absence of people .. ... There is nothing to talk about Boris: he, in fact, should also be attributed to the situation in which the heroine of the play finds herself. He represents one of the circumstances that makes its fatal end necessary. If it were a different person and in a different position, then there would be no need to rush into the water ... We said a few words about Tikhon above; Boris is the same in essence, only “educated”. | Pisarev does not believe in Katerina's love for Boris, arising "from the exchange of several views", nor in her virtue, surrendering at the first opportunity. “Finally, what kind of suicide is this, caused by such petty troubles, which are tolerated quite safely by all members of all Russian families?” |
| End of the play | ... this end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov's notions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable existence she is given in exchange for her living soul... ... Tikhon's words give the key to understanding the play for those who would not even understand its essence before; they make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and even some suicides! | Russian life, in its deepest depths, contains absolutely no inclinations of independent renewal; it contains only raw materials that must be fertilized and processed by the influence of universal human ideas ... ... Of course, such a colossal mental upheaval takes time. It began in the circle of the most efficient students and the most enlightened journalists... The further development of the mental revolution must proceed in the same way as its beginning; it can go faster or slower, depending on the circumstances, but it must always go along the same path ... |
Briefly describe the positions of N.A. Dobrolyubova and D.I. Pisarev regarding the play.
What was the purpose of the "real critics" in their analysis of the play?
Whose position do you prefer?
II. Genre of the play
1. Analyze the statement of the literary critic B. Tomashevsky and think about whether Ostrovsky's play can be called a tragedy.
“Tragedy is a form of heroic performance ... takes place in an unusual setting (in ancient times or in a distant country), and persons of exceptional position or character take part in it - kings, military leaders, ancient mythological heroes, and the like. The tragedy is notable for its sublime style, the aggravated struggle in the soul of the protagonist. The usual outcome of a tragedy is the death of a hero.
2. To date, there are two interpretations of the genre of Ostrovsky's play: social drama and tragedy. Which one do you find the most convincing?
Drama - “like comedy, reproduces mainly the private life of people, but its main goal is not to ridicule mores, but to portray the individual in her dramatic relationship with society. Like tragedy, drama tends to recreate sharp contradictions; at the same time, its conflicts are not so tense and inescapable and, in principle, allow for the possibility of a successful resolution ”(“ Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary ”).
Evaluation criteria:
"5" (3 points) - the answers are detailed and in full.
"4" (2.6-1.2 points) - the answers are given in full, but there are 1-2 inaccuracies.
"3" (1.2-0.8 points) - there is no answer to 1 question, the rest of the answers are given incompletely.
"2" (0.7-0 points) - no answers to 2 or more questions.
Independent work No. 4
Target: consolidation of the studied information by its differentiation, concretization, comparison and clarification in the control form (question, answer).
Exercise: make a test based on the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" and the standards of answers to them. (Annex 2)
It is necessary to draw up both the tests themselves and the standards of answers to them. Tests can be various levels complexity, the main thing is that they are within the framework of the topic.
The number of test items must be at least fifteen.
Execution requirements:
Study information on the topic;
Conduct its system analysis;
Create tests;
Create templates for answers to them;
Submit for inspection within the stipulated time.
Evaluation criteria:
Correspondence of the content of test tasks with the topic;
Inclusion in test tasks the most important information;
A variety of test tasks by difficulty levels;
Availability of correct response standards;
Tests are submitted for control on time.
"5" (3 points) - the test contains 15 questions; aesthetically designed; the content is relevant to the topic; correct wording of questions; test tasks were completed without errors; submitted for review on time.
"4" (2.6-1.2 points) - the test contains 15 questions; aesthetically designed; the content is relevant to the topic; insufficiently competent wording of questions; test tasks were completed with minor errors; submitted for review on time.
"3" (1.2-0.8 points) - the test contains less than 10 questions; carelessly designed; the content superficially corresponds to the topic; not quite competent wording of questions; test tasks are completed with errors; not submitted for review on time.
"2" (0.7-0 points) - the test contains less than 6 questions; carelessly designed; the content is not relevant to the topic; illiterate wording of questions; test tasks are completed with errors; not submitted for review on time.
Since 1858, the head of the literary-critical department of Sovremennik has become Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-186).
Chernyshevsky's closest associate, Dobrolyubov, develops his propaganda initiatives, sometimes offering even sharper and uncompromising assessments of literary and social phenomena, Dobrolyubov sharpens and concretizes the requirements for ideological content modern literature: the main criterion for the social significance of the work becomes for him the reflection of the interests of the oppressed classes, which can be achieved with the help of a truthful, and therefore sharply critical image of the "higher" classes, or with the help of a sympathetic (but not idealized) outline folk life.
Dobrolyubov became famous among his contemporaries as theorist " real criticism» . He put forward this concept and gradually developed it.
"Real criticism"- this is the criticism of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, brought by Dobrolyubov to classically clear postulates and methods of analysis with one goal - to reveal the social benefit of works of art, to direct all literature to a comprehensive denunciation of social orders. The term "real criticism" goes back to the concept of "realism". But the term "realism", used by Annenkov in 1849, has not yet taken root.
Dobrolyubov modified it, interpreting it in a certain way as a special concept. In principle, in all the methodological methods of "real criticism" everything is similar to the methods of Belinsky and Chernyshevsky. But sometimes something important was narrowed down and simplified. This is especially evident in the interpretation of the links between criticism and literature, criticism with life, and problems of artistic form. It turned out that criticism is not so much the disclosure of the ideological and aesthetic content of works, but the application of works to the requirements of life itself. But this is only one aspect of the criticism. It is impossible to turn a work into a “reason” for discussing topical issues. It has an eternal, generalizing value. Each work has its own, internally harmonized volume of content. In addition, the intentions of the author, his ideological and emotional assessment of the phenomena depicted, should not be relegated to the background.
Meanwhile, Dobrolyubov insisted that the task of criticism is to explain those phenomena of reality that affected a work of art. The critic, like a lawyer or judge, sets out in detail to the reader the “details of the case”, the objective meaning of the work. Then he looks to see if the meaning corresponds to the truth of life. This is where the exit into pure journalism takes place. Having formed an opinion about the work, the critic establishes only the correspondence (degree of truthfulness) to its facts of reality. The most important thing for criticism is to determine whether the author is on a level with those "natural aspirations" that have already awakened among the people or should soon awaken according to the requirements of the modern order of affairs. And then: "... to what extent he was able to understand and express them, and whether he took the essence of the matter, its root, or only the appearance, whether he embraced the generality of the subject or only some of its aspects." Dobrolyubov's strong point is the consideration of the work from the point of view of the main tasks of the political struggle. But he pays less attention to the plot and genre of the work.
The purpose of criticism, as stated, for example, in the articles "Dark Realm" And "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm", is as follows.
"Real criticism," as Dobrolyubov explained more than once, does not allow and does not impose "alien phenomena" on the author. First of all, let us imagine the fact: the author has drawn the image of such and such a person: “criticism analyzes whether such a person is possible and really; having found that it is true to reality, it proceeds to its own considerations about the reasons that gave rise to it, etc. If these reasons are indicated in the work of the author being analyzed, criticism also uses them and thanks the author; if not, does not stick to him with a knife to the throat, how, they say, he dared to draw such a face without explaining the reasons for its existence? ..
Real criticism treats the work of the artist in exactly the same way as it treats the phenomena of real life: it studies them, trying to determine their own norm, to collect their essential, character traits, but not at all fussing about why it is oats not rye, and coal is not a diamond.
Such an approach is, of course, insufficient. After all, a work of art is not identical with the phenomena of real life, it is a “second” reality, conscious, spiritual, and it does not require a direct utilitarian approach. The question of the author's indication of the causes of the phenomena he depicts is interpreted too simplistically; these indications may be the reader's conclusions from objective logic. figurative system works. In addition, the transition of criticism to “its own considerations” about the causes of phenomena is fraught with a danger that “real criticism” could not always avoid, evading the subject aside, into a journalistic conversation “about” the work. Finally, the work is not only a reflection of objective reality, but an expression of the subjective ideal of the artist. Who will explore this side? After all, “I wanted to say” is related not only to the creative history of the work, but also to what “felt” the work in the sense of the presence of the author’s personality in the work. The task of criticism is twofold.
A characteristic technique of Dobrolyubov's criticism, passing from article to article, is the reduction of all the features of creativity to the conditions of reality. The reason for everything that is depicted is in reality, and only in it.
The consistently carried out “real” approach often led not to an objective analysis of what is in the work, but to a judgment on it from inevitably subjective positions, which seemed to the critic the most “real”, the most worthy of attention ... Outwardly, the critic, it seems, nothing imposes, but he relies more on his competence, his verification, and, as it were, does not fully trust the cognitive power of the artist himself as a discoverer of truths. Therefore, the “norm”, volumes, and angles of what is depicted in the works were not always correctly defined. It is no coincidence that Pisarev entered into a polemic with Dobrolyubov about the image of Katerina from The Thunderstorm, dissatisfied with the degree of civic criticism inherent in it ... But where was the merchant's wife Katerina to get him? Dobrolyubov was right in evaluating this image as a "beam" in the "dark kingdom".
"Real Criticism" theoretically took almost nothing on itself in relation to the study of the biography of the writer, the creative history of the work, the idea, drafts, etc. It seemed like an extraneous matter.
Dobrolyubov was right in rebelling against petty criticism. But at first he mistakenly attributed Tikhonravov and Buslaev to krokhoborov. Dobrolyubov had to revise his statements when he was faced with efficient factual and textual clarifications and discoveries.
Although theoretically the question of the analysis of the artistic form of works was posed by Dobrolyubov in insufficient detail - and this is the lack of "real criticism", - in practice, Dobrolyubov can establish several interesting approaches to this problem.
Dobrolyubov often analyzed the form in detail in order to ridicule the emptiness of content, for example, in Benediktov's "effervescent" verses, M. Rosenheim's mediocre "accusatory" verses, N. Lvov's, A. Potekhin's comedies, and M. I. Voskresensky's stories. In his most important articles, Dobrolyubov seriously analyzed the artistic form of the works of Goncharov, Turgenev, Ostrovsky. Dobrolyubov demonstrated how "artistry took its toll" in Oblomov. The public was indignant at the fact that the hero of the novel did not act during the entire first part, that in the novel the author evaded sharp contemporary issues.
Dobrolyubov saw the "extraordinary richness of the content of the novel" and began his article "What is Oblomovism?" from the characteristics of Goncharov's unhurried talent, his inherent enormous power of typification, which perfectly corresponded to the accusatory trend of his time. The novel is "stretched", but this is what makes it possible to describe an unusual "subject" - Oblomov. Such a hero should not act: here, as they say, the form fully corresponds to the content and follows from the character of the hero and the talent of the author. Reviews about the epilogue in Oblomov, the artificiality of the image of Stolz, the scene that reveals the prospect of a possible break between Olga and Stolz - that's all artistic analysis.And vice versa, analyzing only the activities of the energetic Insarov mentioned, but not shown by Turgenev in "On the Eve", Dobrolyubov believed that "the main artistic shortcoming of the story" lies in the declarative nature of this image. The image of Insarov is pale in outline and does not stand before us with complete clarity. What he does, his inner world, even love for Elena is closed to us. But the love theme has always worked out for Turgenev.
Dobrolyubov establishes that only in one point Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" is built according to the "rules": Katerina violates the duty of marital fidelity and is punished for it. But in all other respects, the laws of the "exemplary drama" in The Thunderstorm are "violated in the most cruel way." The drama does not inspire respect for duty, passion is not fully developed, there are many extraneous scenes, the strict unity of action is violated. The character of the heroine is dual, the denouement is random. But, starting from the caricatured "absolute" aesthetics, Dobrolyubov perfectly revealed the aesthetics that the writer himself created. He made profoundly correct remarks about Ostrovsky's poetics.
The most complex and not fully justified case of a polemical analysis of the form of a work we meet in the article Downtrodden People (1861). There is no open controversy with Dostoevsky, although the article is a response to Dostoevsky's article "Mr. Bov and the Question of Art", published in the February book "Vremya" for 1861. Dostoevsky reproached Dobrolyubov for neglecting artistry in art. Dobrolyubov stated approximately the following to his opponent: if you care about artistry, then from this point of view your novel is worthless or, in any case, is below aesthetic criticism; and yet we shall speak of it because in it there is a "pain about man" that is precious in the eyes of real criticism, i.e., everything redeems the content. But can we say that Dobrolyubov was right about everything here? If such a device could easily come off when applied to some Lvov or Potekhin, then it looked somehow strange in relation to Dostoevsky, already highly appreciated by Belinsky, and whose novel The Humiliated and Insulted, for all its shortcomings, is a classic Russian literature. One of the most fundamental questions for all "real" criticism was the search in modern literature of new heroes: Dobrolyubov, who did not live to see the appearance of Bazarov, only in Katerina Kaba-nova saw the signs of a person protesting against the laws of the "dark kingdom". The critic also considered Elena from Turgenev's "On the Eve" to be a kind, ready to accept significant changes. But neither Stolz nor Insarov convinced Dobrolyubov of their artistic veracity, showing only an abstract expression of the author's hopes - in his opinion, Russian life and Russian literature have not yet approached the birth of an active nature capable of purposeful emancipatory work.
Analysis: N.A. Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?”
In this article, Dobrolyubov demonstrated how "artistry took its toll" in Oblomov. The public was indignant at the fact that the hero of the novel did not act during the entire first part, that in the novel the author evaded sharp contemporary issues. Dobrolyubov saw the "extraordinary richness of the content of the novel" and began his article "What is Oblomovism?" from the characteristics of Goncharov's unhurried talent, his inherent enormous power of typification, which perfectly corresponded to the accusatory trend of his time: “Apparently, Goncharov did not choose a vast sphere for his images.
Stories about how the good-natured sloth Oblomov lies and sleeps, and how neither friendship nor love can awaken and raise him, is not God knows what an important story. But Russian life is reflected in it, it presents us with a living, modern Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness; it affected the new word of our community development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and without childish hopes, but with a full consciousness of the truth. The word is - Oblomovism; it serves as a key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life, and it gives Goncharov's novel a much more social significance than all our accusatory stories have.
In the type of Oblomov and in all this Oblomovism we see something more than just the successful creation of a strong talent; we find in it a product of Russian life, a sign of the times”). The novel is "stretched", but this is what makes it possible to describe an unusual "subject" - Oblomov. Such a hero should not act: here, as they say, the form fully corresponds to the content and follows from the character of the hero and the talent of the author.
Dobrolyubov's critical methodology is based on a kind of socio-psychological typification that separates the heroes according to the degree of their correspondence to the ideals of the "new man". The most frank and characteristic realization of this type for Dobrolyubov was Oblomov, who is more honest in his lazy inactivity, because does not try to deceive others with an imitation of activity. Commenting on the phenomenon of “Oblomovism” so negatively, the critic thereby transfers the responsibility for the emergence of such social vices to the social system he hates: “The reason for apathy lies partly in his external position, partly in the image of his mental and moral development. According to his external position - he is a gentleman; "he has Zakhar and another three hundred Zakharov," in the words of the author. Ilya Ilyich explains the advantage of his position to Zakhar in this way:
“Do I rush about, do I work? I don't eat much, do I? skinny or miserable looking? Am I missing something? It seems to submit, there is someone to do! I have never pulled a stocking over my legs, as I live, thank God!
Will I worry? from what to me? .. And to whom did I say this? Haven't you followed me since childhood? You know all this, you saw that I was not brought up clearly, that I never endured cold or hunger, I did not know the need, I did not earn my own bread and in general did not do dirty work. And Oblomov speaks the absolute truth. The whole history of his upbringing confirms his words. From an early age, he gets used to being a bobak due to the fact that he has both to file and to do - there is someone; here, even against his will, he often sits idle and sybaritizes. “... Oblomov is not a creature, by nature completely devoid of the ability to voluntarily move. His laziness and apathy are the creation of upbringing and surrounding circumstances. The main thing here is not Oblomov, but Oblomovism.
Further in his article, Dobrolyubov makes artistic analyzes of the artificiality of the image of Stolz (“Stoltsev, people with an integral, active character, in which every thought immediately becomes an aspiration and turns into action, is not yet in the life of our society (we mean an educated society that has access to higher aspirations in the mass, where ideas and aspirations are limited to very close and few subjects, such people constantly come across.) The author himself was aware of this, speaking of our society: “Behold, the eyes woke up from slumber, brisk, wide steps, lively voices were heard ... How many Stoltsev must appear under Russian names!
There must be many of them, there is no doubt about it; but now there is no ground for them. That is why, from Goncharov's novel, we only see that Stolz is an active person, he is always busy about something, runs around, acquires, says that to live means to work, etc. But what does he do, and how does he manage to do what anything decent where others cannot do anything - this remains a mystery to us"), about the ideality of Olga's image and her usefulness as a model for the aspirations of Russian women ("Olga, in her development, represents the highest ideal that she can now a Russian artist can be called out of present-day Russian life, because she, with the extraordinary clarity and simplicity of her logic and the amazing harmony of her heart and will, strikes us to the point that we are ready to doubt her even poetic truth and say: “There are no such girls.” But, following her throughout the novel, we find that she is constantly true to herself and her development, that she represents not the maxim of the author, but a living person, only such as we have not yet met. one can see a hint of a new Russian life; one can expect a word from her that will burn and dispel Oblomovism ...”).
Further, Dobrolyubov says that “Goncharov, who knew how to understand and show us our Oblomovism, could not, however, fail to pay tribute to the general delusion that is still so strong in our society: he decided to bury Oblomovism and say a laudatory tombstone to it. “Farewell, old Oblomovka, you have lived your life,” he says through the mouth of Stolz, and is not telling the truth. All of Russia, which has read and will read Oblomov, will not agree with this. No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready for our services. A significant part of Oblomov sits in each of us, and it is too early to write a funeral word for us.
Thus, we see that, paying such serious attention to the ideological background of literary creativity, Dobrolyubov does not exclude the appeal to individual artistic features works.
Real criticism- one of the most active critical movements of the 1840s - 1860s. Her method, like the aesthetics of realism itself in literature, was prepared by V.G. Belinsky, although his critical work does not fully fit into the contours of real criticism.
Principles that are related, but also shared by V.G. Belinsky with future real criticism.
V.G. Belinsky established the basic principles, which in general will adhere to real criticism in the future.
- 1) The public role of art stands out as its main purpose. Art is conceived as optics, serving the knowledge of people's life. The ability of art to observe and reflect reality is the most important criterion of artistry.
- 2) Criticism is conceived as a means that enhances the "optics" of literature and, most importantly, controls its fidelity.
- 3) Literature is sovereign as a sphere of spiritual life and cultural activities, but it is closely coordinated with social life, since the artist is included in it and, reflecting reality, cannot remain outside its problems and needs. Therefore, literature is aimed at social goals. However, it achieves them by its own specific means.
In the work of V.G. Belinsky has developed the system of categories on which the method of real criticism is based. First of all, this categories reality, type, pathos.
Reality- the reality of the human world in social form. Simply put, this national life like a living, moving system. The category "reality" is opposed by an abstract representation of the world in generalized, eternal, unchanging categories (human in general, beauty in general, etc.), free from historical, psychological, national specificity. In the poetics of V.G. Belinsky denies the scheme, normativity, canon, some special "correct" narrative code. The writer in his work must follow reality, not trying to idealize it in accordance with artificial ideas about the "norm" of literary.
Paphos is a category with which V.G. Belinsky denoted the sovereignty and specificity of literature. Philosophy and science are also striving for the knowledge of the world (reality), as well as literature. But the specifics of philosophy, according to V.G. Belinsky, consists in the idea, and the specificity of art - in the pathos. Paphos is a holistic emotional perception of reality, marked by the individuality of the artist, while the idea in philosophy is analytical and objective (this is discussed in detail in the fifth "Pushkin" article).
In the category of pathos, Belinsky reinforces the idea of the importance of the aesthetic, intuitive (and subjective) principles in art. Works that do not have a high degree of aesthetics and artistic individuality (expressiveness and integrity of pathos), V.G. Belinsky took them out of the scope of literature as such, referring them to artistic "fiction" (the works of V. Dahl, D. Grigorovich, A. Herzen, and others). Paphos is a generalizing category, it connects art with generalization, enlargement, selection of the integral “main” from the variety of observed phenomena, and in this respect it correlates with the category of type.
A type is an image taken from reality and revealing its main tendencies, foundations, the essence of the processes taking place in it. Using the verbal formula of M.Yu. Lermontov, a type is a “hero of his time”. The typical is the non-random, its opposite is the exceptional, the accidental, the kurtosis.
It is easy to see that the category of type grows out of the comparison and opposition of the romantic and realistic principles of representation and therefore was very effective for analyzing the literature of the coming time, the flourishing of realistic prose. However, she will interfere with V.G. Belinsky evaluate early works F.M. Dostoevsky. But even if the type is not universal as a model for describing and cognizing literature (there are no universal models), then the scope of its “relevance” is very wide. Not only the literature of classical realism can be described in terms of typification, the typical, but also the work of writers of the twentieth century, such as S. Dovlatov, V. Aksenov, A. Vampilov, and even L. Ulitskaya or V. Pelevin.
Thus, literature cognizes (reflects) reality by its own specific means - depicting social types, organizing the observed material of reality through the creative power of the artist's personality, who expresses his involvement in the moving reality in the pathos of his creativity.
Consequently, the task of the critic turns out to be, on the one hand, to assess how true the work is to national reality, to judge the accuracy of artistic types; on the other hand, to evaluate the artistic perfection of the work and the pathos of the author as a result of the creative assimilation of reality.
Metalanguage of criticism by V.V.G. Belinsky is not yet separated from the language of those disciplines and spheres of thought, of which, not so far from V.G. Belinsky time, literary criticism stood out. You can see how your own is formed the metalanguage of criticism by V.G. Belinsky on the basis of "adjacent" languages.
— The improperly critical terminology includes V.G. Belinsky's concepts of aesthetics and aesthetic, public, social development, progress.
— At the next stage in the development of the metalanguage, the concepts of adjacent language subsystems are transposed into the sphere of literature, where they acquire a more specialized, although not yet special, meaning: but on the basis of the concept of progress, an idea of literary progress is formed, on the basis of the concept of history, an idea of the history of literature. It is no coincidence that in the first part of the article “A Look at Russian Literature in 1847” V.V.G. Belinsky precedes his judgment of the progress of literature with a discussion of the concept of progress as such.
“Finally, there is also a metalanguage of criticism of its own. So, the term rhetorical originally means “related to rhetoric”, but V.G. Belinsky uses this term in the special sense of "one of the periods in the development of Russian literature"; word real vg Belinsky uses in a special sense "modern literary direction» is a real school. Similarly, in the system of concepts V.G. Belinsky take their place terminologically reinterpreted words nature, type, typical, etc.
Genre and text
The main genre form of V.G. Belinsky is a lengthy journal article in which the analysis of a literary work is preceded and interspersed with excursions of a philosophical, polemical, journalistic nature. A constant accompanying goal of critical articles by V.G. Belinsky was the construction of the history of Russian literature, we can say that in his criticism of V.G. Belinsky is a historian who seeks to periodize Russian literature in accordance with its, literature, internal laws, principles of artistic construction. In connection with the publicity of articles by V.G. Belinsky is their emotionality. V.G. Belinsky considered pathos to be a generic property of literature, and his own articles are characterized by the desire to create pathos, internally striving towards the main subject of the text - a literary work. Because of this, V.G. Belinsky can at times seem excessive in both his positive and negative assessments.
"Large form" magazine critical article in the work of V.G. Belinsky changed her original philosophical orientation to a journalistic one, and thus the classic form of a journal article was found, which later will be used by both “realist” critics and their opponents, and which still remains relevant. The journalistic publicistic literary-critical article is the main genre and the main form of literary criticism, which has become an independent professional value. Its place in the system of genres of criticism coincides with the center, the dominant of the genre field. According to its fair state, one can judge the state of criticism in general.
N.G. Chernyshevsky and the development of real criticism
The method created by V.G. Belinsky, developed in the work of his followers mainly along the path of deepening his central provisions on the connection between literature and reality, on the social functions of literature. This allowed real criticism to strengthen the tools for analyzing the text and the literary process, to significantly bring together literary and social issues in their critical practice. At the same time, literature was increasingly made dependent on non-literary goals (social enlightenment and social struggle), the sovereignty and specificity of art was questioned, and aesthetic criteria were withdrawn from criticism.
This dynamic of the method was most facilitated by the social situation mid-nineteenth century - the social movement of the 1850-60s, the abolition of serfdom, the activation of the public and the high politicization of the social life of that time. It is also significant that under conditions of censorship, political journalism and party ideology were forced to mix with literary criticism and existed immanently in its composition. Almost all representatives of "real" criticism supported the ideas of revolutionary democracy and the corresponding social movements.
Features of real criticism on mature stage its development can be found by comparing the criticism of N.G. Chernyshevsky and V.G. Belinsky:
- 1) If V.G. Belinsky demanded from the writer a living involvement in reality, then according to Chernyshevsky, art serves reality, responds to its requests and needs.
- 2) Presentation by V.G. Belinsky about brilliant subjectivity, which affects the specificity of art, develops into the category of a subjectively built ideal. The ideal, however, was conceived in terms determined by nature, that is, objective contours - this is the "natural", given by nature state of man and the human world - "reason, universal labor, collectivism, goodness, freedom of each and all". Thus, real criticism (in the model of N.G. Chernyshevsky and his direct followers) considers it good to impart objectivity to art, to moderate or exclude subjectivity, the individuality of the creative act.
- 3) If V.G. Belinsky spoke of the non-partisan nature of literature and found the specifics of literature in pathos, and not in the idea, then Chernyshevsky finds it in the idea, believing that artistry is a true, progressive idea.
- 4) Chernyshevsky sees as the correct aesthetic attitude not the transformation of the material of reality, but the copying of reality. Even typification, according to Chernyshevsky, is not the writer's subjective work: life patterns themselves are already "naturally" quite typical.
- 5) If V.G. Belinsky did not assume the participation of art in politics, then according to N.G. Chernyshevsky - it must express a specific social idea, directly participate in the social struggle.
Chernyshevsky's fundamental historical and literary works are built on a predominant interest in "external" literary phenomena, processes that link artistic literature with social and literary life.
« Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature"(1855-1856) can be regarded as the first major development of the history of Russian criticism in 1830-1840. Positively evaluating the work of Nadezhdin and N. Polevoy, Chernyshevsky focuses on the activities of Belinsky, who, in the opinion of the author of the cycle, outlined the true routes for the progressive development of Russian literature. Following Belinsky, Chernyshevsky recognizes the critical image of Russian life as the key to literary and social progress in Russia, taking Gogol's work as a standard for such an attitude to reality. Chernyshevsky puts the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls unconditionally higher than Pushkin, and the main criterion for comparison is the idea of the social effectiveness of the writers' work. Chernyshevsky's optimistic faith in social progress compelled him to see processes of progressive development in literature as well.
Responding in 1857 for the publication of "Provincial Essays", the critic gives the palm to Shchedrin in the matter of literary accusation: in his opinion, the novice writer surpassed Gogol by the ruthlessness of sentences
and generalization of characteristics. The desire to demonstrate a change in social needs can also explain the harsh attitude of Chernyshevsky
to the moderate-liberal ideology that originated in the 1840s: the journalist believed that a sober and critical understanding of reality at the present stage is not enough, it is necessary to take concrete actions aimed at improving conditions public life. These views found expression in the famous
article "Russian man on rendez-vous"(1858), which is also remarkable from the point of view of Chernyshevsky's critical methodology. Turgenev's short story "Asya" became the occasion for large-scale journalistic generalizations of the critic, which were not intended to reveal author's intention. In the image of the protagonist of the story Chernyshevsky
I saw a representative of the widespread type of "best people" who, like Rudin or Agarin (the hero of Nekrasov's poem "Sasha"), have high moral virtues, but are incapable of decisive action. As a result, these heroes look "cheesier than a notorious villain." However, deep accusatory
the pathos of the article is directed not against individuals, but against reality,
which produces such people.
Methodology, genre, text
Criticism of N.G. Chernyshevsky was not a complete projection of his theoretical program, especially since the creative manner of criticism underwent significant changes at the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, during the split in Sovremennik. The organizing moment of Chernyshevsky's method and methodology was the conviction that art depends on reality. But this does not exclude in his practice a deep and masterful analysis of the text, albeit abstracted from the main issues of aesthetics and poetics. In the later criticism of N.G. Chernyshevsky, his practice becomes more radical. During this period, his literary-critical attitudes almost completely recede before journalistic ones (the real method was vulnerable to such distortions). Artistry is reduced to ideological, and consequently, poetics is reduced to rhetoric, the only role of poetics is not to interfere with the expression of the idea; art loses its own sovereign tasks and becomes a means of public propaganda. Literary work treated as a public act; the only aspect of the work.
The late activity of Chernyshevsky as a publicist outlines the path along which the real method is able to go beyond the limits of literary criticism. In this version of him, the only aspect of the work that is discussed is its social action, otherwise the critic's effort is aimed at the reality reflected in literature.
Criticism of N.A. Dobrolyubova
ON THE. Dobrolyubov should be named, along with V.G. Belinsky, the creator of not only real criticism, but also a certain timeless model of a critical and journalistic judgment about literature in a social context. The critic occupied this historical place thanks to his original position within the framework of the real method, which turned out to be more universal and less "partisan" than the position of N.G. Chernyshevsky.
The philosophical basis of the critical system of N.A. Dobrolyubov was the anthropologism of L. Feuerbach, in particular, the doctrine that the harmonious state of a person is his natural state, the balance of qualities inherent in him by “nature”. From these provisions, N.A. Dobrolyubov brought out the thesis about the paramount value of artistic observation of reality, its state, its deviations from nature.
Unlike Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov…
- a) considers the main criterion of artistry not the ideological nature of the author and the book, but the truthfulness of the created types;
- b) connects the success of the work with the personal intuition of the writer (which equates to talent), and not with an objectively correct ideological setting.
In both of these points, N.A. Dobrolyubov is closer to V.G. Belinsky than N.G. Chernyshevsky.
ON THE. Dobrolyubov leaves the writer mainly the role of the ingenious creator of the text as an "empty form"(we use the expression of W. Eco). The meaning of this form is filled by the reader with the correct interpretation settings. That is, with a strong and correct system of presuppositions. This reader is a critic.
However, the writer, of course, assumed some interpretation of his own text, N.A. understands. Dobrolyubov. - It happens that a writer even interferes in the process of reading and, arguing with a critic, indicates how his book should be understood (for example, I.S. Turgenev in a dispute with N.A. Dobrolyubov about the novel “On the Eve”). This is a contradiction of N.A. Dobrolyubov resolves in favor of the critic. He introduces into his metalanguage and conceptual system a pair of concepts of world outlook and belief. Worldview, according to N.A. Dobrolyubov, there is a living, intuitive, integral sense of reality that guides the writer in his work. The worldview is reflected in the typification, in the whole artistic power of the works. And beliefs are purely logical in nature, and they are often formed under the influence of social context. The writer does not always follow his own convictions in his work, but always follows his worldview (if he is a talented writer). Therefore, his opinion about his own creativity is not the ultimate truth. The critic's judgment is closer to the truth, as it reveals the ideological significance of the truthful images created by the writer. After all, the critic looks from the outside both at the work and at the writer as an interpreter of his own work.
Here is how N.A. himself says about this. Dobrolyubov: “It is not abstract ideas and general principles that occupy the artist, but living images in which the idea manifests itself. In these images, the poet can, even imperceptibly to himself, catch and express their inner meaning much before he determines it with his mind. Sometimes the artist may not at all reach the meaning of what he himself depicts; but criticism exists in order to clarify the meaning hidden in the artist's creations, and, analyzing the images presented by the poet, it is not at all authorized to become attached to his theoretical views ”(“ The Dark Kingdom ”).
It was N.A. Dobrolyubov laid the foundation for the doctrine of the "subjective" (author's) and "objective" (imputed by a systematically thinking critic) meaning of a work. Later this idea was developed by Marxists and canonized by the Soviet school. It provided a mechanism for opportunistic recoding and tendentious ideological interpretation of works of literature. However, these later speculations should not cast a shadow on the work of N.A. Dobrolyubov, in the highest degree professional and, as a rule, perfectly correct in interpretation.
The reader can and should have his own strong and "true" ideological codes and be independent of the author's ideological intentions. If the reader himself does not possess the necessary ideological system to "correctly" read the book, the critic helps him to do this. If, according to N.G. Chernyshevsky, the critic teaches the writer, then, according to N.A. Dobrolyubov is more of a reader.
This point allows us to say that the criticism of N.A. Dobrolyubova left the writer more freedom than the views of Chernyshevsky or D.I. Pisarev, and even more so the later concepts of the Marxists and G.V. Plekhanov. Dividing the intentions of the artist and the critic, N.A. Dobrolyubov left the artist the freedom of creative expression, assuming that the work is good precisely in the form that the artist's ingenious inspiration will give it. And any violent transformation of this form will interfere with the objectivity of reflection, artistic truth. In this regard, the method of N.A. Dobrolyubova assumed a rather high internal status of the aesthetics and poetics of the work, respect for its organic integrity. True, these opportunities were not always fully realized by N.A. Dobrolyubov.
Methodology
According to N.A. Dobrolyubov, the work of a critic is to analyze the artistic reality of a work and interpret it in the light of his prevailing knowledge of the reality of non-artistic - social life and its tasks.
The writer observes the phenomena of reality and, on the basis of observation, creates artistic types. He compares artistic types with the social ideal present in his mind, and evaluates these types in their social functioning: are they good, how to correct their shortcomings, what social vices have affected them, etc.
The critic, in this case, evaluates everything that the artist has done, based on his own (critic) ideal, expressing his attitude both to the subject (book) and to the subject of the book (reality); and to the literary type, and to the social type, and to the ideals of the artist. As a result, the critic acts as a literary and social educator, expressing to literary criticism social ideas. The critical (severe, negative) view of reality was considered by real criticism to be the most fruitful and most in demand by modernity.
N.A. himself said this best of all. Dobrolyubov: “... the main features of the artist's worldview could not be completely destroyed by rational errors. He could take for his images not those facts of life in which a certain idea is reflected in the best way, he could give them an arbitrary connection, interpret them not quite correctly; but if his artistic instinct has not betrayed him, if the truth is preserved in the work, then criticism is obliged to use it to explain reality, as well as to characterize the talent of the writer, but not at all to scold him for thoughts, which he, perhaps, also didn't have. Criticism should say: “Here are the faces and phenomena that the author brings out; here is the plot of the play; but here is the meaning which, in our opinion, the life facts depicted by the artist have, and here is the degree of their significance in public life. From this judgment it will appear by itself whether the author himself looked correctly at the images he created. If, for example, he tries to elevate some person to a general type, and criticism proves that it has a very particular and petty meaning, it is clear that the author has damaged the work by a false view of the hero. If he puts several facts in dependence on one another, and on examination of criticism it turns out that these facts are never in such a dependence, but depend entirely on other causes, it is again self-evident that the author has misunderstood the connection of the phenomena he depicts. But here, too, critics must be very careful in their conclusions.<…>
Such, in our opinion, should be the attitude of real criticism towards works of art; such, in particular, should they be to the writer when reviewing his entire literary activity.
Genre and text
Articles by N.A. Dobrolyubova are lengthy texts designed for a thoughtful like-minded reader who does not save time on reading criticism. A distinctive feature of the criticism of N.A. Dobrolyubova was her developed publicism. How the “real” method in the Dobrolyubov version contributes to this, the article often deviates from text analysis to journalistic reasoning “about” the text. The critic, stating the professionalism of the writer as a recorder of the phenomena of life, discusses not so much the book as the social symptoms recorded in it. In addition, N.A. Dobrolyubov, being a conscious sociologist to a greater extent than many of his contemporaries and predecessors, understands the need for a serious scientific basis for a solid judgment, therefore his articles contain purely theoretical digressions into sociological reasoning. Sociology as a science at that time was not yet developed in Russia, so N.A. Dobrolyubov conducts his "amateur" analysis of the psychology of social classes in order to explain from it the types he finds in literature.
Metalanguage real criticism of N.A. Dobrolyubova and N.G. Chernyshevsky is characterized by a decrease in philosophical terminology (compared to V. G. Belinsky) and generally terminological restraint. This is a feature of all journalistic criticism of the "Dobrolyubov type" (not excluding criticism of our days), which cares about the comprehensibility of the text for a wide range of readers. Even terminology literary sphere only generally understood words are used - the words literature, literature, criticism, writer, names of genres. Moreover, sociological terminology is not too specialized.
But if it is necessary to build a conceptual apparatus, real criticism boldly (and often successfully) creates special verbal formulas, giving them a metalinguistic character. So. Chernyshevsky created the term dialectics of the soul, N.A. Dobrolyubov is the term real criticism. It is symptomatic that some of these formulas were in the nature of social rather than literary definitions (for example, the dark kingdom in N.A. Dobrolyubov). The journalistic nature of real criticism was also reflected in the fact that all these terms were created on the basis of poetic metaphors.
A brilliant example of real criticism are Dobrolyubov's own articles on Goncharov's novel Oblomov (article "What is Oblomovism?" 1859), Ostrovsky's plays (the articles "Dark Kingdom" 1859 and "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" 1860), Turgenev's story "On the Eve" ("When Will the Real Day Come?" 1860) and Dostoevsky ("The Downtrodden People" 1861). These articles can be regarded as a single metatext, the pathos of which boils down to proving the inferiority of the Russian socio-political system.
Collecting individual features and generalizing them into one complete image of Oblomovism, Dobrolyubov explains to the reader the life phenomena that are reflected in the artistic type created by Goncharov's fantasy.
Dobrolyubov compares Oblomov with a whole gallery of his literary ancestors. Russian literature is well known for the type smart person who understands the meanness of the existing order of life, but is unable to find application for his thirst for activity, his talents and desire for good. Hence loneliness, disappointment, spleen, sometimes contempt for people. This is the type of clever uselessness, according to Herzen, the type extra person, certainly vital and characteristic of the Russian noble intelligentsia of the first half of XIX century. Such are Pushkin's Onegin, Lermontov's Pechorin, Turgenev's Rudin, Herzen's Beltov. The historian Klyuchevsky found the ancestors of Eugene Onegin in more distant times. But what can be in common between these outstanding personalities and the couch potato Oblomov? All of them are Oblomovites, in each of them there is a particle of his shortcomings. Oblomov - their ultimate value, their further and, moreover, not fictional, but real development. The appearance in literature of a type like Oblomov shows that "the phrase has lost its meaning; the need for a real deed has appeared in society itself."
Thanks to Dobrolyubov's criticism, the word Oblomovshchina entered the everyday speech of the Russian people as an expression of those negative features that progressive Russia has always struggled with.
Its definition in the article "Dark Kingdom". [Nedzvetsky, Zykova p. 215]
Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov - second largest representative real critics in the 1860s. D himself invented the term real criticism.
In 1857, Dobrolyubov became a permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine.
Dobrolyubov signed under the pseudonym "Mr. Bov", and he was answered under the same pseudonym. Literary position D was determined in 1857-1858. in articles " Provincial essays... from Shchedrin's Notes" and "On the Degree of Participation of the People in the Development of Russian Literature", its completion in the major works "What is Oblomovism", "Dark Kingdom", "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", "When will the new day come?" and Downtrodden People.
Serial Ally H:
1) D is a direct ally of Chernyshevsky in the struggle for the "party of the people in literature", the creation of a movement that depicts Russian reality from the position of the people (peasantry) and serves the cause of liberation.
2) Just like Ch, he fights with aestheticians on the role of art and the main subject (according to Ch, the role of art is serving the idea, the political nature of the idea is necessary, the main subject of the image is not the beautiful, but the person). He calls aesthetic criticism dogmatic, dooming art to immobility.
3) It relies, like Ch, on the legacy of Belinsky (Speech on criticism of Belinsky) [for more details, see Question 5, 1) a)]
The originality of Dobrolyubov: materialism is not ideological, but anthropological. (Following the anthropological materialists of France in the 17th century: Jean-Jacques Rousseau). According to Feirbach, the anthropological principle has the following requirements of human nature, nature, nature: 1) a person is reasonable, 2) a person strives for work, 3) a person is a social, collective being, 4) strives for happiness, benefit, 5) is free and freedom-loving. A normal person combines all these points. These demands are rational egoism, that is, egoism subdued by reason. Russian society has nothing to do with this. Conflict of nature and human social environment.
1) Understanding the significance in the act of creativity of the artist's direct feelings in addition to the unequivocal ideological nature of the artist Chernyshevsky. Belinsky called it " the power of direct creativity, those. the ability to reproduce the subject in its entirety.
Ch and D reproached Gogol for not being able to rise to the level of an ideological struggle despite his enormous "power of direct creativity." D in the analysis of Ostrovsky and Goncharov indicates how their main advantages are the strength of talent, and not ideological => inconsistency of the ideological requirement. The "feeling" of the artist may come into conflict with the ideology.
Example
The analysis of Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is no vice" (BnP) is indicative.
A) Chernyshevsky in his review article "Poverty is not a vice"[not listed, for those who haven't read it] brief retelling] mocks Ostrovsky, calling almost fools those who put Shakespeare and the BNP on a par. The BNP is a pitiful parody of “Our people - let's settle”, it seems that the BNP was written by an imitator-half-educated. The introduction to the novel is too long, the characters act somehow at the will of the author, and not really, everything is unnatural (Tortsova writes a letter to Mitya, reading poetry and Koltsov are obvious inconsistencies). And the main scourge - bad idea chosen by Ostrovsky! Abundantly shit with bricks from the images of mummers - a clear example of decrepit antiquity, no progressiveness. A false thought bleeds even the brightest talent. A little inferior all the same: "some characters are distinguished by genuine sincerity."
boo Dobrolyubova otherwise: article "Dark Realm"
[abstract]
Not one of the modern Russian writers has been subjected, in his literary activity, to such a strange fate as Ostrovsky. 1. One party was made up of the young editors of The Moskvityanin, 3 who proclaimed that Ostrovsky "created four plays folk theater in Russia" ["Own people - let's settle", "Poor Bride", "BnP" and other early plays]. Ostrovsky's praisers shouted that he had said new word nation! Mostly admiration for the image of Lyubim Tortsov. [gives completely over-sweetened comparisons with Shakespeare and other intoxicating crap] 2. "Notes of the Fatherland" constantly served as an enemy camp for Ostrovsky, and most of their attacks were directed at critics who extolled his works. The author himself constantly remained on the sidelines, until very recently. Thus, the enthusiastic praisers of Ostrovsky [bringing to the point of absurdity] only prevented many from directly and simply looking at his talent. Each presented his own demands, and at the same time each scolded others who had opposite demands, each without fail used some of the merits of one Ostrovsky's work in order to impute them to another work, and vice versa. Reproaches are opposite: in vulgarity merchant life, then in the fact that merchants are not disgusting enough, etc. Hairpin in Chernyshevsky: not only that - he was even reproached for the fact that he devotes himself too exclusively to the correct depiction of reality (i.e., performance), not caring about idea their works. In other words, he was reproached precisely for the absence or insignificance tasks, which other critics recognized as too broad, too superior to the means of their very implementation.
And one more thing: She [criticism] will never allow herself, for example, such a conclusion: this person is distinguished by attachment to old prejudices
Conclusion: Everyone recognized in Ostrovsky a remarkable talent, and as a result, all critics wanted to see in him an advocate and conductor of those convictions with which they themselves were imbued.
The task of criticism is formulated as follows: So, assuming that readers know the content of Ostrovsky's plays and their very development, we will only try to recall the features common to all of his works or most of them, to reduce these features to one result, and from them to determine the significance of the literary activity of this writer. [Find out what the author wanted from himself and how he successfully / unsuccessfully achieved this].
Real criticism and its features:
1) Recognizing such demands as quite fair, we consider it best to apply criticism to Ostrovsky's works real consisting in a review of what his works give us.
2) There will be no demands here, such as why Ostrovsky does not portray characters like Shakespeare, why he does not develop comic action like Gogol ... after all, we recognize Ostrovsky as a wonderful writer in our literature, finding that he is himself , as it is, is very good-looking and deserves our attention and study ...
3) In the same way, real criticism does not allow the imposition of other people's thoughts on the author. Before her court are the persons created by the author, and their actions; she must say what impression these faces make on her, and she can blame the author only if the impression is incomplete, unclear, ambiguous.
4) Real criticism treats the work of an artist in exactly the same way as it does the phenomena of real life: it studies them, trying to determine their own norm, to collect their essential, characteristic features, but not at all fussing over why it is oats - not rye, and coal is not a diamond.
5) Postulates about Ostrovsky
Firstly, everyone recognizes in Ostrovsky the gift of observation and the ability to present a true picture of the life of those classes from which he took the plots of his works.
Secondly, everyone noticed (although not everyone gave her due justice) accuracy and loyalty vernacular in Ostrovsky's comedies.
Thirdly, by the agreement of all critics, almost all the characters in Ostrovsky's plays are completely ordinary and do not stand out as anything special, do not rise above the vulgar environment in which they are staged. This is blamed by many on the author on the grounds that such faces, they say, must necessarily be colorless. But others rightly find very striking typical features in these everyday faces.
Fourthly, everyone agrees that in most of Ostrovsky's comedies "there is a lack (in the words of one of his enthusiastic praisers) of economy in plan and in the construction of the play" and that as a result of this (in the words of another of his admirers) "dramatic action does not develop in them consistently and continuously, the intrigue of the play does not merge organically with the idea of the play and is, as it were, somewhat extraneous to it.
Fifth, everyone does not like being too cool, random, denouement of Ostrovsky's comedies. In the words of one critic, at the end of the play "as if a tornado were sweeping across the room and turning all the heads of the actors at once" 30 .
6) outlook artist - general, reflected in his works. His own view of the world, which serves as the key to characterizing his talent, must be sought in the living images he creates.
About the feeling of the artist: it is considered dominant. the importance of artistic activity in a number of other areas of public life: the images created by the artist, collecting in themselves, as in a focus, the facts of real life, greatly contribute to the compilation and dissemination among people of the correct concepts of things [greased up to Chernyshevsky].
But a person with a more lively susceptibility, an "artistic nature", is strongly struck by the very first fact known kind presented to him in the surrounding reality. He does not yet have theoretical considerations that could explain this fact; but he sees that there is something special, worthy of attention, and with greedy curiosity peers into the very fact, assimilates it.
7) About truthfulness: The main advantage of the writer-artist is truth his images; otherwise there will be false conclusions from them, false concepts will be formed, by their grace. General concepts the artist's ideas are correct and in complete harmony with his nature, then this harmony and unity are reflected in the work. There is no absolute truth, but this does not mean that one must indulge in exceptional falsehood bordering on foolishness. Much more often he [Ostrovsky] seemed to retreat from his idea, precisely out of a desire to remain true to reality. The "mechanical dolls" that follow an idea are easy to create, but they are meaningless. U O: fidelity to the facts of reality and even some contempt for the logical isolation of the work.
ABOUT OSTROVSKY'S PLAYS
8) About heroes:
1st type: let's try to peer into the inhabitants inhabiting this dark realm. Soon you'll see that we didn't call it for nothing dark. senseless reigns tyranny. In people brought up under such dominion, a consciousness of moral duty and the true principles of honesty and law cannot develop. That is why the most outrageous fraud seems to them a meritorious feat, the most vile deceit a clever joke. Outward humility and dull, concentrated grief, reaching the point of complete idiocy and the most deplorable depersonalization, are intertwined in the dark kingdom portrayed by Ostrovsky with slavish cunning, the most vile deceit, the most shameless treachery.
2nd type; Meanwhile, right next to it, just behind the wall, another life is going on, bright, neat, educated... Both sides of the dark kingdom feel the superiority of this life and are either frightened by it or attracted to it.
Explaining the play in detail "Family Picture" Ostrovsky. Ch. the hero is Puzatov, the apogee of tyranny, everyone in the house treats him like a simpleton and does everything behind his back. He notes the narvous stupidity of all the heroes, their treachery and tyranny. An example with Puzatov - he knocks on the table with his fist when he gets bored of waiting for tea. Heroes live in a state of permanent war. As a result of this order of affairs, everyone is in a state of siege, everyone is busy trying to save themselves from danger and deceive the enemy's vigilance. Fear and incredulity are written on all faces; the natural course of thinking is changed, and in place of sound concepts come special conditional considerations, distinguished by their bestial character and completely contrary to human nature. It is known that the logic of war is completely different from the logic of common sense. "This," says Puzatov, "is like a Jew: he will deceive his own father. Right. So he looks everyone in the eye. But he pretends to be a saint."
IN "His people" we see again the same religion of hypocrisy and fraud, the same senselessness and tyranny of some, and the same deceptive humility, slavish cunning of others, but only in a greater ramification. The same applies to those of the inhabitants of the "dark kingdom" who had the strength and the habit of doing things, so they all from the very first step embarked on such a path that could by no means lead to pure moral convictions. A working person has never had a peaceful, free and generally useful activity here; barely having time to look around, he already felt that he somehow found himself in an enemy camp and must, in order to save his existence, somehow cheat his enemies.
9) On the nature of crime in the dark realm:
Thus, we find a deeply true, characteristically Russian feature in the fact that Bolshov, in his malicious bankruptcy, does not follow any special beliefs and does not experience deep mental struggle except for fear, as if not to fall under a criminal ... The paradox of the dark realm: To us, in the abstract, all crimes seem to be something too terrible and extraordinary; but in particular cases they are for the most part performed very easily and explained extremely simply. According to the criminal court, the man turned out to be both a robber and a murderer; seems to be a monster of nature. But look - he is not a monster at all, but a very ordinary and even good-natured person. In a crime, they understand only its external, legal side, which they justly despise if they can somehow get around it. The inner side, the consequences of the committed crime for other people and for society, do not appear to them at all. It's clear: the whole morality of Samson Silych is based on the rule: the better it is for others to steal, it's better for me to steal.
When Podkhalyuzin explains to him that “what a sin” can happen, that, perhaps, they will take away the estate and drag him through the courts, Bolshov replies: “What to do, brother; you will go." Podkhalyuzin replies: "That's right, sir, Samson Silych," but, in essence, it's not "accurate," but very absurd.
10) About what I wanted to say We have already had the opportunity to notice that one of the distinguishing features of Ostrovsky's talent is the ability to look into the very depths of a person's soul and notice not only the way of his thoughts and behavior, but the very process of his thinking, the very birth of his desires. He is tyrannical because he meets in those around him not a firm rebuff, but constant humility; cheats and oppresses others because it only feels like this to him comfortable, but unable to feel how hard it is for them; he decides to go bankrupt again because he has not the slightest idea about public importance such an act. [No typing! A look from the inside with an understanding of nature, and not horror from the outside!]
11) Female images, about love: faces of girls in almost all Ostrovsky's comedies. Avdotya Maksimovna, Lyubov Tortsova, Dasha, Nadya - all these are innocent, unrequited victims of tyranny, and that smoothing, cancellation human personality, which life has produced in them, has an almost bleaker effect on the soul than the very distortion of human nature in rogues like Podkhalyuzin. She will love every husband you need to find someone for her to love her." This means - indifferent, unrequited kindness, exactly the kind that is developed in soft natures under the yoke of family despotism and which tyrants like most of all. For a person not infected with tyranny, all the charm of love This is the fact that the will of another being merges harmoniously with his will without the slightest compulsion.That is why the charm of love is so incomplete and insufficient when reciprocity is achieved by some kind of extortion, deceit, bought for money or generally acquired by some external and by outside means.
12) Comic: So is the comedy of our "dark kingdom": the thing itself is simply funny, but in view of the tyrants and the victims, crushed by them in the darkness, the desire to laugh disappears ...
13) "Don't get off your sleigh"- again analyzes the images in detail ..
14) "Poverty is not a vice"
Selfishness and education: And to give up tyranny for some Gordey Karpych Tortsov means to turn into complete insignificance. And now he amuses himself over everyone around him: he pricks their eyes with their ignorance and persecutes them for any discovery of knowledge and common sense by them. He learned that educated girls speak well, and reproaches his daughter for not being able to speak; but as soon as she spoke, she shouted: "Shut up, you fool!" He saw that the educated clerks were dressing well, and he was angry with Mitya that his coat was bad; but the little man's salary continues to give him the most insignificant...
Under the influence of such a person and such relationships, the meek natures of Lyubov Gordeevna and Mitya develop, representing an example of what depersonalization can reach and to what complete incapacity and original activity oppression brings even the most sympathetic, selfless nature.
Why victims live with tyrants: The first of the reasons that keep people from resisting tyranny is - strange to say - sense of legitimacy and the second is the need for material support. At first glance, the two reasons we have presented must, of course, seem absurd. Apparently, quite the contrary: it is precisely the lack of a sense of legality and carelessness regarding material well-being that can explain the indifference of people to all the claims of tyranny. After all, Nastasya Pankratievna, without any irony, but, on the contrary, with a noticeable shade of reverence, says to her husband: "Who dares to offend you, father, Kit Kitsch? You yourself will offend everyone! .." Such a turn of affairs is very strange; but such is the logic of the "dark kingdom". Knowledge here is limited to a very narrow circle, there is almost no work for thought; everything goes mechanically, once for all routine. From this it is quite clear that here children never grow up, but remain children until they mechanically move to the place of their father.
The word “review” is of Latin origin and in translation means “viewing, reporting, evaluating, reviewing something”. We can say that a review is a genre, the basis of which is a review (primarily critical) about a work of fiction, art, science, journalism, etc. In whatever form such a review is given, its essence is - express the attitude of the reviewer to the work under study. The difference between a review and other newspaper genres lies primarily in the fact that the subject of the review is not the direct facts of reality, on which essays, correspondence, sketches, reports, etc. are based, but informational phenomena - books, brochures, performances, films, TV shows.
The review, as a rule, considers one or two works and gives them an appropriate assessment, without setting itself other, more complex tasks. In the same case, when a journalist, on the basis of a deep analysis of a work, puts forward some socially significant problems, his work will rather not be a review, but a literary-critical article or an art study (remember “What is Oblomovism?” N. Dobrolyubova, “Bazarov” D. Pisareva).
The question of what to review is of paramount importance to the author's anger. It is clear that to cover with one's attention all the phenomena of cultural or scientific life the reviewer is simply not able, and this is impossible due to the limited capacity of the media. Therefore, as a rule, the most outstanding performances, books, films are reviewed, including “scandalous” works, that is, those that have touched the attention of the public. The review, of course, should pursue some practical goal - to tell the audience about what really deserves its attention, and about what is unworthy of its attention, to help it better understand the issues of the area that the reviewed work concerns.
The review should be clear in content and form, accessible to the category of readers, listeners, viewers to whom it is addressed. To do this, the reviewer needs to deeply study the work under review, taking into account the principles and rules that guided the writer, scientist or artist, be able to use analysis methods and be fluent in the language of the work under review. But the main task of the reviewer is to see in the work under review what is invisible to the uninitiated. And this is difficult to do without having special knowledge in a certain field of activity (literature, theater life, art, etc.). This knowledge cannot replace ordinary life experience or intuition. The more specialized knowledge the author has, the more chances he has to prepare a truly professional review. comment publication genre review
The basis of the review is the analysis, so it is necessary that it be comprehensive, objective. The author must be able to notice in the analyzed work something new that can become a “center” around which his thoughts and judgments will “revolve”. Very often, reviewers focus on retelling the plot lines of the work, characterizing the actions of the characters. This should not be an end in itself. Only if such a retelling is organically woven into the fabric of the analysis does it become justified. This way of reviewing will be especially unsuccessful when the audience knows the work in question well.
During the review, the author can analyze only one side of the work - the theme, the skill of the author or performer, the work of the director, etc. However, he can also expand the subject of his research, consider in a complex a set of problems associated with the work under discussion, in including those that go beyond the scope of its content. As V. G. Belinsky wrote about this, “every work of art must certainly be considered in relation to the era, to historical modernity, and in relation to the artist to society; consideration of his life, character can also often serve to elucidate his creation. On the other hand, it is impossible to lose sight of the strictly aesthetic requirements of art. Let's say more: determining the degree of aesthetic merit of a work should be the first task of criticism. Indeed, the artificial narrowing of the scope of analysis in a number of cases sharply reduces the social weight of the review.
When preparing a publication, the reviewer can actively involve elements of historical, psychological, sociological analysis, which will undoubtedly make his speech more relevant and weighty.
Regardless of which way the reviewer goes, the basis of his speech will be some very specific thought (idea). Therefore, the review in a certain sense is a demonstrative reasoning, argumentation of the main idea of the author. At the heart of this reasoning lies the framework for external evaluation, which was already discussed at the beginning of this book. Recall that the external assessment is built according to the type of the following statement: “A is good because it helps to achieve B...”. When discussing the work of an artist or writer, the reviewer can evaluate it as good or bad, based on certain consequences that such a work has. These consequences can be very different, for example: the creation of a misconception about reality, the formation of bad taste in the reader, the viewer, the excitation of base interests, etc. All such consequences are the very “B” that is present in the logical scheme of external evaluation. The first part of the external assessment “A is good...” can be called the main thesis of the review, and the second part: “because it helps to achieve B” is the argument in its favor. The validity of the main thesis depends on the completeness, sufficiency, and reliability of the argument. What can be an argument in a review? This is the knowledge, experience, life observations of the author; the content of the work under review, excerpts from it and its form; the attitude of other people, specialists, experts to this work; logical consequences of the publication of the work.
So, the primary element of the review is the thesis disclosed in the publication. It is also called the main thesis, if the reasoning has enough complex shape and includes some additional (secondary) theses. The content of the theses is the result of the research conducted by the author of the review. At the same time, they reflect the worldview of the author, and his awareness of this issue, understanding it. Not all abstracts are usually expanded, filled with new meaning, not all of them can even be perceived as abstracts, since the text contains the main thesis for which all the rest “work”. Because of this, additional theses can act as arguments in relation to the main one.
Knowing that abstracts need to be substantiated, reviewers often use rich illustrative material for this. It would seem that this is very good - the richer the illustrations, the more substantiated the ideas of the author, the more interesting the review itself. In fact, too much illustration can be detrimental to a review, as it can “eclipse” the ideas that the author intended to convey to the audience.
Reviews can be combined into certain typological groups for one reason or another. Here are examples of this typology:
a) Based on their length, reviews can be divided into large (“grand reviews”) and small (“mini reviews”). A large, detailed review is the “nail” of a newspaper or magazine issue ~ the prerogative, first of all, of specialized publications. A large volume gives the author the opportunity to cover the topic under study in sufficient depth and comprehensively. Such reviews are usually prepared by venerable critics who have authority with the public and have stable socio-political, philosophical and moral views. Mini-reviews are currently much more widespread than expanded ones. Usually up to one and a half typewritten pages, such a review is a concise, rich analysis of a particular work and is read in one breath. A small volume does not allow the author to turn around, leaves no room for digressions, personal impressions, memories - everything that in a grand review serves primarily as a means of “presenting” the personality of the writer. In a mini-review, the thought of criticism should be short, concise, as accurate as possible.
b) According to the number of analyzed works, all reviews can be divided into “mono-reviews” and “poly-reviews”. In publications of the first type, one work is analyzed, although the author, of course, can make some comparisons and mention other works for this purpose. But the amount of comparative material in the mono-review is very small. In a polyreview, two or more works are analyzed, they are usually compared one with the other, and such an analysis takes up quite a lot of space. In mono-reviews, the author usually compares the analyzed new work with the one already known to the audience. The polyreview is underway comparative analysis newly created works that are not known or little known to the audience.
c) According to the topic, reviews are divided into literary, theatrical, film reviews, etc. Recently, along with the types of reviews already well known to the public, reviews of a new type are published - reviews of animated and non-fiction films, television reviews, reviews of advertising and other clips, This is due to the fact that the volume of animated and documentary films, television programs full of dramatic conflicts, life content, as well as a sharp increase in advertising products, has grown significantly.
Preparing a review of one type or another involves overcoming difficulties of varying degrees. One of the most difficult types of reviews is film and theater reviews. So, if in a review of a literary or pictorial work the critic deals only with this work itself, the skill of its author, then in the theater, in cinema, on television, in concert, directors, actors, musicians, designers, etc. The work of the performing team as a whole and of each author separately should be assessed in this case by a review. IN similar works stands before the critic difficult task-- to combine a purposeful analysis of the author's and director's intentions with a description of the creative embodiment. The matter becomes even more complicated when the author of the review makes it his task to compare the literary source with the film adaptation or theatrical staging. It can be very difficult to agree on all three or even four “layers” of such a review - the original source, the play based on it, the director's interpretation of the play, embodied in the performance, the author's performance - it can be very difficult.
Creation of a good review of works of synthetic genres (theatre, cinema, performing arts) is always determined by the professional ability of the critic to evaluate all aspects of the work. Often success is predetermined by the right choice of any one aspect. So, for example, it makes no sense to “spread thoughts along the tree”, evaluating the content of Griboedov’s play “Woe from Wit”, because it has already survived dozens of generations of viewers and its content is known to any schoolchild. But to evaluate the director's intention, the actor's embodiment of this play, say, in the Moscow Art Theater is much more important and interesting for the reader (spectator), and for the authors of the analyzed works themselves, and for critics, for the theater in general.
An unequivocal answer to the question “For whom are reviews written?” No. On the one hand, critical analysis is needed primarily by the artist in order to help him compare his idea of his own work with the opinion of a person from the outside, which the reviewer may seem to him. On the other hand, the reader and viewer also want to understand what the artist offers him. As experience shows, writing for the reader and viewer is one thing, but for the author or for other critics is another matter. Detailed professional analysis is often uninteresting and incomprehensible to the general public. And an analysis of a work aimed at the general public may turn out to be too superficial for a professional critic (and even for the author of the work). The ability to write simply about the complex, is interesting for a wide audience, and for critics, and for the authors of the analyzed works, is acquired only on the basis of deep special knowledge and experience in the criticism and popularization work of the reviewer.
According to many leading cultural figures modern Russia, recently critics do not write anything that would give rise to new ideas, reviews are often dressed in a harsh ironic form, they are more personal opuses than professional publications. At the same time, the credibility of criticism is achieved primarily by a principled attitude to the work being reviewed, the desire for an objective, reasoned analysis, which a young journalist must remember.
