Russian literature of the 18th century reflected changes in public life Russia, which are associated with the activities of Peter I. During this period, more books of scientific and journalistic content begin to be published. The Russian language includes many foreign words, which denoted concepts that were new to Russian people. At the same time, at the direction of the tsar, books began to be written not in Church Slavonic, but in the common Russian language.
Many genres literature XVIII centuries were borrowed from the 17th century: drama, story and virsch poetry. However, new living conditions give rise to new image literary hero, therefore the form and language of works written in these genres also change in accordance with the requirements of the time. New genres are also appearing, for example, love lyrics.
In the middle of the 18th century, Russian literature experienced the strong influence of classicism - a literary movement that developed in Western Europe and took as examples the works ancient Greece and Rome.
In accordance with the traditions of classicism, there are “high” and “low” genres of literature. The first included tragedies, odes and poems, the second - comedies, satires and fables. Works of each genre were created in accordance with clear principles; genre displacement was not allowed.
Works of “high” genres were written in an elevated language, they developed a certain range of themes that reflected significant events from history and mythology, and only rulers, famous historical figures and legendary characters could be heroes. In works of “low” genres, ordinary spoken language was allowed, the plots were closer to the common people.
Tragedy, which became one of the most common genres in the era of classicism, had to comply with the rule of “three unities”: place, time and action. The basis of the plot of a tragedy is always the collision of a strong personality with insurmountable obstacles, which ancient mythology personifies Rock, Fate. The tragedy usually ends with the death of the protagonist, but first he goes through trials in which his personal feelings and desires conflict with duty. According to the rules of the genre, duty always wins. The characters of classical tragedy are conventional and are the personification of a certain trait, either positive or negative.
The poem is epic work, which tells in poetic form about an important event in the life of kings or heroes.
An ode is a solemn poetic work that praises kings or generals, or is created in honor of victory over enemies.
Russian classicism, although it followed the basic rules of this literary movement, still had a number of features. Firstly, in the works of Russian classicists one can feel a close connection with modern reality. Secondly, in Russian classicism a significant place belongs to the genre of satire. Thirdly, many works of Russian writers of the 18th century were created on the basis of Russian subjects, which indicates an interest in native history.
To better understand what Russia was like at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, I want to quote the words of Leo Tolstoy from his letter to Nicholas 2 dated January 16, 1906. None of the historians described the situation in Russia of that era better.
Russia is in a position of increased security, that is, outside the law. The army and police (overt and covert) are increasing. The prisons are overcrowded. Even workers are now considered political prisoners. Censorship has reached the point of absurd prohibitions that it has never achieved before. Religious persecution has never been so intense. As a result, those 100 million on which Russia's power rests are impoverished. It is becoming so poor that hunger has now become a normal occurrence. Even 50 years ago, under Nicholas 1, the prestige of royal power was very high. Now it has fallen so much that even representatives of the lower classes criticize not only the government, but also the tsar.
Lev Tolstoy
Population
The first official population census (without economic implications) in the Russian Empire took place in 1897 and counted 125 million people in the country. The second census of 1914 recorded 178.1 million people (an increase of 53.1 million over 17 years). The rate of population growth was high and it was calculated that if Russia manages to reach the mid-20th century without external and internal shocks, then the population in the country will be about 350 million inhabitants.
Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was multinational country. The same 1914 census recorded the following composition of the population:
- Russians - 44.6%
- Ukrainians - 18.1%
- Poles - 6.5%
- Jews - 4.2%
- Belarusians - 4.0%
- Kazakhs - 2.7%
- Other nations - each no more than 2%
Official language Russian Empire early 20th century - Russian. At the same time, there was no oppression on the basis of language, and other peoples could use their language for communication.
Estates
Important characteristic Russian population the beginning of the 20th century - the preservation of classes. The bulk of the population are peasants, whose class made up just over 80% of the country's population. There were approximately 1.5% of nobles in Russia, but it was the leading class that consolidated power. The nobility was not united; it was divided into hereditary and personal.
The problem of the nobility was acute in Russia, since according to the reform of 1861, the nobles were formally deprived of all rights of exclusive land use. This was the starting point, after which the position of the nobility began to deteriorate, and with them the power of the Emperor became less and less strong. As a result, the events of 1917 happened.
A separate important class in Russia is the clergy. At the beginning of the 20th century it was divided into categories:
- Black (monastic). Monks who have taken a vow of celibacy.
- White (parish). Priests who are allowed to have a family.
Despite the important status of the clergy, the church continued to be under state control.
Autonomy
Autonomy is characteristic development of the Russian state. The Empire, annexing new lands into its composition, in most cases provided these lands with autonomy, preserving them national traditions, religion and so on. Finland had the most complete autonomy, which had its own parliament, legislation and money. I specifically emphasized this system of preserving autonomies, which was relevant at the beginning of the 20th century, so that you could compare how Russia annexed regions and how Western countries did it. Suffice it to remember that as a result of the colonization of North America by Europeans, the Indians ( indigenous people was almost completely exterminated, and the part that remained alive was placed in special reservations - pens for livestock, from which it was impossible to get out.
Autonomy was also granted to the Baltic peoples and Poland to the west. The autonomy of these regions was curtailed in terms of political freedoms, since, for example, the Polish population Always advocated the restoration of the Polish state, which means it actively fought underground against Russia.
The best indicator of maintaining the cultural integrity of autonomies was religion. Despite the dominance Orthodox Church(76% of the population), other religions also remained: Islam (11.9%), Judaism (3.1%), Protestantism (2.0%), Catholicism (1.2%).
Territory
At the beginning of the last century, Russia's scale was at its peak geographically, and naturally it was the largest country in the world. The western borders of the state were with Norway, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
The Russian state included: modern Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and partly Poland. I would like to note that the current capital of Poland, Warsaw, was part of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
We looked at the territory of Russia in Europe, since this was the theater where the main actions of that era took place. If we talk about Asia, Russia also included all the states that later joined the USSR.
Governance and laws
Russia at the beginning of the 20th century continued to remain a monarchy, when in the 1st article of the code of laws of the country it was written that “the emperor is an autocrat with unlimited power.” Power in the country was passed on by inheritance to the eldest in the family. In this case, preference was given to males.
Control system
The main figure in the country was the Emperor. He had the main functions in governing the country. The Romanov dynasty itself and all the people who belonged to it had influence on the emperor and influenced the politics of Russia. According to the laws of that time, only Orthodox Christians could be members of the ruling dynasty, so when representatives from other countries joined the dynasty, they were immediately baptized into the Orthodox faith.
Since 1810, the State Council functioned in Russia - an advisory body that provided legislative ideas to the Emperor, but the adoption of law was the sole function of the Emperor.
Executive power was concentrated in the hands of the Ministries. There was no government or prime ministers above the ministries. Each minister reported directly to the ruler (this is a feature of the imperial regime). The most important ministries of the Russian Empire of the late 19th - early 20th centuries: internal affairs, military, foreign affairs, finance and public education. Ministries created a huge number of officials. According to official statistics in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century there was 1 official per 3 thousand people. It was the largest bureaucracy in the world. A typical problem for tsarist officials was corruption and bribery. This was largely due to low wages. The obvious problem of the large apparatus of officials was the inability to accept important decisions fast.
Judicial functions
The highest judicial power in the country, since the time of Peter 1, belonged to the Senate. He performed the functions of the judiciary, supervisory authorities and interpretation of laws. The judicial power itself relied on the judicial reform of the 60s of the 19th century. Russia practiced equality, jury trials and openness. In practice, inequality still persisted, since numerous laws of the Russian Empire left many loopholes for lawyers. Whoever could hire them won in the courts.
Regarding the judicial system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, it is important to note that a special method of judicial proceedings was applied to political criminals (anyone could be classified as such if there was a strong desire). After the assassination of Alexander 2, the law “On the preservation of order and public peace” was adopted. According to him - in relation to political prisoners, the verdict was made not by the court, but by officials.
Local government
The local government system functioned on the basis of the laws of the 60s of the 19th century. Zemstvos were created locally, which resolved exclusively local issues (construction of roads, schools, and so on. By the beginning of the 20th century, the functions of zemstvos had changed somewhat. Now a bureaucratic apparatus was built over them, completely controlling all the functions of local authorities.
Self-government bodies were divided into:
- Urban. City Dumas were formed, to which only owners of houses in the city could be elected.
- Rural. Village gatherings or “worlds” were formed.
Every year the role of local authorities became lower and lower, and new control organizations appeared above them.
Army and security
The Police Department (analogous to the current Ministry of Internal Affairs) dealt with internal security issues. The police network was extensive and, on the whole, did not cope with its functions well enough. It is enough to remember only the numerous attempts on members of the imperial house to be convinced of this.
The size of the army at the beginning of the 20th century exceeded 900 thousand people. The army continued to remain regular, formed on the principle of conscription. Conscription was universal, but benefits were provided. The only sons in the family, breadwinners, teachers and doctors were exempt from military service. Today there is a lot of talk about the fact that the army of the Russian Empire was the best in the world. You can definitely argue with this. It is enough to recall the Russo-Japanese War to understand that the problems in the army and in its administration were significant. The limitations of the command are also emphasized by the First World War, in which Russia entered practically without artillery (the command was convinced that this was a hopeless type of weapon). In reality, 75% of all losses in that war were from artillery.
Economy
The problems that characterized Russia at the end of the 19th century were reflected in the economic development of the country at the beginning of the 20th century. It is no coincidence that at this stage there are 2 revolutions and significant discontent among the population. There are 3 points of view on the economy of that era:
If we highlight the main features of the Russian economy of that period, we can highlight: the formation of monopolies, the preservation of a largely serf-based economic system, the complete dependence of the economy on the state, uneven economic development regions.
The state made attempts to solve the problem that had accumulated in the economy. For this purpose, Witte's reforms and Stolypin's agrarian reform were undertaken. These reforms did not radically change the situation, and at the beginning of the 20th century in Russia there was a decline in production and the standard of living of the majority of the population. This is where the social dynamite that exploded in 1917 lies.
The situation in the village
The events of 1893 are very important for understanding the situation in the Russian village at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. This year a law was passed limiting the community's right to redistribute land. Now the land was divided once every 12 years. What does it mean? Every 12 years the land was divided anew. That is, the community took a plot of land from one peasant and gave it to another. Some historians talk about the low significance of these events, but this is not so. The land issue has always been very acute in Rus' and most riots, uprisings and revolutions happened precisely because of the land issue. Subsequent events best represent the significance of the 1893 law. It is enough to add 12 years to convince of this. The following dates are obtained:
- 1905 (1893 + 12) - first revolution
- 1917 (1905 + 12) - February and beyond October Revolution
- 1929 (1917 + 12) - beginning of collectivization
Due to the nature of the redistribution, agriculture suffered greatly. There was no point in investing in land. Anyway, after 12 years this plot will be given to someone else. Therefore, it was necessary to squeeze out the maximum in 12 years, and then let another owner think about restoring the land’s productivity. And this point of view was widespread!
Once again I want to emphasize the years of land redistribution: 1905, 1917, 1929. This important years Russian history, and if they are considered without taking into account the specifics of the redistribution of land, it is impossible to understand the real events in the Russian village in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. After all, the overwhelming majority of the population were peasants, and they are fed by the land. Therefore, in the literal sense of the word, the peasants were ready to kill for the land.
International relationships
After the reign of Alexander 3, Russia was very often characterized as a powerful country, but too distant from European political processes. This was fully consistent with the interests of the Empire, and Nicholas 2 promised to continue this policy. This could not be done. As a result, Russia was drawn into a world war.
The early 20th century saw the rise of the German Empire, which grew stronger every year and showed signs of subduing Europe. If we consider this process objectively, Germany did not threaten Russia in any way, but Nicholas 2, who in words guaranteed the Empire’s path to isolation from European intrigues, was in fact afraid of Germany and began to look for allies. Thus began a rapprochement with France, and after the signing of the Franco-English treaty, the Entente was formed. I will not now describe in detail the idiocy of the behavior of Nicholas 2 (this topic is well discussed in the material about the First World War), but it was his fear of Germany that allowed Russia to be drawn into the war, where its Entente allies (France and England) did not help at all and more interfered.
Russia's traditional rival, the Ottoman Empire, was experiencing a clear decline, and questions were increasingly raised in Russian society about the need to take Constantinople away from Turkey. It is noteworthy that this should have happened (all documents were signed) after the First World War. This is where one of the reasons lies Western countries so quickly recognized the Russian revolution as legitimate
Central to understanding the uniqueness of the socio-literary movement of this era remained the question of the situation of the peasants and serfdom. The intelligentsia, especially the creative ones, were sympathetic to the problems of the people, although there was a wide range of opinions among them. The oppositional sentiments of this period are associated with the names of Belinsky and Herzen.
The end of the 40s is marked by the strengthening of the revolutionary movement in European countries and opposition sentiments in Russia. Salon-circle forms of communication between the intelligentsia were very popular. Political circles and organizations also arose on the basis of the salons.
In the mid-19th century there are two periods:
1840 – 1855 – the heyday of the Gogol school and prose genres. Formation of realism.
1855 – 1860 – the dominance of realistic principles of depicting reality.
Slavophilism as a social movement emerged in 1838-1839. In Russia, one of the prerequisites for Slavophilism was the unresolved peasant question: Slavophilism here acts as a form of opposition to the government of a certain part of the nobility. The anti-serfdom ideas and sentiments of the Slavophiles placed them in direct relation to the idea of Russian nationality. This camp includes A.S. Khomyakov, Ivan and Pyotr Kireevsky, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov, and Yu. Samarin.
The term Slavophiles was introduced by Belinsky (an opponent of the Slavophiles). They themselves called themselves natives. The Slavophiles did not have their own permanent publication. They were published in the magazine “Moskvityanin”, later in “Russian Conversation”.
Slavophiles contrasted the East with the West, Moscow with St. Petersburg, “St. Petersburg” literature with “Moscow” literature. They mistakenly believed that the penetration of ideas of Western education into Russia only contributed to the oppression of the Russian people, whose fate was exclusively the subject of their interests. Westerners are opponents of the Slavophiles. The inspirer of the movement is V.G. Belinsky. Turgenev, Panaev, Annenkov, Nekrasov were grouped around him. Westernism was not ideologically integral and organizationally formalized, although in St. Petersburg Belinsky and his like-minded people had at their disposal the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, Sovremennik, rather, it was implied: after all, they declared themselves as representatives of the natural school, which the Slavophiles did not accept.
In Belinsky's critical articles of the 40s and in the works of writers adjacent to him, the aesthetics of the natural school was formed. Gogol should be considered her father. The realistic literary traditions laid down by Gogol developed latently and explicitly in Russian literature, which is especially noticeable in the content of periodicals and collections of the 40s. The principles of the natural school were initially put forward by Belinsky in the article “On the Russian Tale and Gogol’s Tale,” in which he gives preference to “real poetry,” which recreates reality in its highest truth, as opposed to ideal poetry, which recreates reality in accordance with the author’s ideals. The most important principle of the natural school was the depiction of life in individual and typical characters, in which social and psychological fidelity was observed.
Main themes and images of the natural school:
Picture of a little man's life
Image of an extra person
Theme of emancipation
The theme of the peasantry
The school’s aesthetic program: an appeal to Russian reality, interest in everything national, literature as a conductor of public interests, the dominance of the negative direction, exposure of life’s contradictions.
The genre of a physiological essay is a description of a fragment of reality in its entirety.
Conflicts: ideological (2 characters face different views on the world related to modernity - for example, “ An ordinary story", "Who's to blame"), a retrospective study of existing anomalies (the actions of the characters are determined by the circumstances of their previous lives - "Who's to blame"), transformation - a radical change in the character's way of thinking, worldview, outwardly practically unmotivated, usually from romantic daydreaming to pragmatism ("Ordinary miracle").
Heroes - “little man”, “ordinary person”.
2ANALYZE the speech characteristics of the main characters of “The Inspector General”
Here in front of us is Anton Antonovich Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky - the mayor. This is a hypocrite who changes his methods of communicating with people depending on who he has to deal with. He is affectionate and respectful with the imaginary inspector Khlestakov, curries favor with him and flatters him. Addressing Khlestakov, he obsequiously says: “I wish you good health! My duty, as the mayor of our city, is to make sure that there is no harassment to those passing by and all noble people...” “Sorry, I’m really not to blame...” - he justifies himself to Khlestakov, who tells him how bad he is fed at the hotel. Curious about where the imaginary auditor came from, Anton Antonovich sympathetically asks: “Do I dare to ask where and to what places are you going?” He talks completely differently to the people subordinate to him. Where have his courtesy and politeness gone! Rudeness, intemperance, and insults pour out of the mayor’s mouth as if from a cornucopia. Addressing the tavern servant who brought Khlestakov’s bill, he rudely shouts: “Get out, they’ll send it to you.” Seeing how the landowner Bobchinsky falls, the mayor becomes angry: “We couldn’t find another place to fall! And he stretched out like hell."
But he is talking to the policemen - Derzhimorda and Svistunov: “These club-footed bears - they are knocking their feet! It just falls down, as if someone were throwing forty pounds off a cart. Where the hell is taking you?
The merchants, complaining to Khlestakov about the mayor, describe his actions this way: “He inflicts such insults that it is impossible to describe. He does not act by his actions. He grabs his beard and says: “Oh, you’re a Tatar!” This is the mayor, the “king” of this district town.
Gogol also painted the image of the postmaster very vividly. He draws his ideas about the world from other people's letters. However, his vocabulary is still poor. Here, for example, is a passage from a letter that seems especially beautiful to him: “My life, dear friend, flows in empirics; there are a lot of young ladies, music is playing, the standard is jumping.”
The image of Judge Lyapkin-Tyapkin, a very “educated man” who read five or six books and was distinguished by freethinking, is also very colorful. He always maintains a significant expression on his face and speaks in a deep voice, as if emphasizing his importance. However, Ammos Fedorovich's speech is incoherent, inexpressive, and incorrect.
Having learned about the arrival of the auditor, he “profoundly” says: “Yes, this circumstance... is extraordinary, simply extraordinary. Something for a reason...” Then follows an even stupider guess: “I think, Anton Antonovich, that there is a subtle and more political reason here. This means this: Russia... yes. wants to start a war, and the ministry, you see, sent an official to find out if there was any treason.”
In his immortal comedy “The Inspector General,” Gogol is a subtle master of speech characterization of the characters. The speech of each character, as if in focus, reflects the corresponding character.
Strawberry, the trustee of charitable institutions, is a weasel and a rogue. His speech is permeated with servility and helpfulness, but also poor and uncultured: “Since I took over the leadership, it may even seem incredible to you, everyone is getting better like flies!”
One cannot help but be surprised by the “eloquence” of Luka Lukich Khlopov, the superintendent of schools: “I was afraid, your blah ... preos ... will shine ... I sold my damn tongue, I sold it!”
However, the most striking, unforgettable image of the comedy is the rogue and rogue Khlestakov, who throws dust in everyone’s eyes, wanting to “shine among his own kind in complete mental and spiritual emptiness.” Accordingly, his speech is like this: incoherent, stupid, arrogant. Talking to the mayor’s wife Anna Andreevna, wanting to show his importance, he says: “I know pretty actresses. After all, I, too, are various vaudeville performers... I often see writers. On friendly terms with Pushkin. I used to often say to him: “Well, brother Pushkin?” “Yes, that’s right, brother,” he used to answer, “that’s how everything is…” Great original.” One lie more terrible than the other just rolls off Khlestakov’s tongue: “However, there are many of mine: “The Marriage of Figaro,” “Robert the Devil,” “Norma.” I don’t even remember the names.”
And what are his verbal “pearls” worth: “The soup in a saucepan came straight from Paris on the boat.” Or: “It’s interesting to look into my hallway when I haven’t woken up yet: counts and princes are milling around and buzzing there like bumblebees, all you can hear is: w... w... w... Sometimes the minister... »
His chatter is exquisitely implausible. The words come out of him with inspiration, finishing the last word of the phrase, he does not remember its first word: “They even wanted to make me vice-chancellor. What the hell was I talking about?
Gogol laughs and sometimes even mocks his heroes. And he does this largely through the speech characteristics of the characters. He shows that in contemporary reality, the human principle is perverted and suppressed.
Card
Thus, one of the greatest and at the same time mysterious works of the 19th century, Gogol’s poem, was greeted with bewilderment. Dead Souls" The genre definition of “poem,” which then clearly meant a lyric-epic work written in poetic form and predominantly romantic, was perceived differently by Gogol’s contemporaries. Some found it mocking. Reactionary criticism simply mocked the author's definition of the genre of the work.
But opinions differed, and others saw hidden irony in this definition. She-vyrev wrote that “the meaning of the word “poem” seems to us twofold... the word “poem” reveals a deep, significant irony.” But was it only because of irony that Gogol depicted the word “poem” in large quantities on the title page? Of course, Gogol’s decision had a deeper meaning.
But why did Gogol choose this particular genre to embody his ideas? Is it really that the poem is so voluminous and capacious as to give scope to all of Gogol’s thoughts and spiritual experiences? After all, “Dead Souls” embodied both irony and a kind of artistic sermon. Of course, this is where Gogol’s skill lies. He managed to mix the features inherent different genres, and harmoniously combine them under one genre definition of “poem”. On this basis, a controversy developed between V. Belinsky and K. Aksakov, who believed that “Dead Souls” was written exactly on the model of the “Iliad” and “Odyssey”. “In Gogol’s poem that ancient Homeric epic appears to us, in it its important character, its dignity and wide-ranging size appear again,” wrote K. Aksakov. Indeed, the similarities with Homer’s poem are obvious; they play a big role in defining the genre and revealing the author’s intention. The title itself suggests an analogy with the wanderings of Odysseus.
To the fierce protests of censorship against such a somewhat strange title - “Dead Souls” - Gogol responded by adding another one to the main title - “The Adventures of Chichikov”. But the adventures, travels, wanderings of Odysseus were also described by the great Homer. One of the most striking analogies with Homer’s poem is the appearance of Chichikov at Korobochka. If Chichikov is Odysseus wandering around the world, then Korobochka appears before us, albeit in such an unusual form, as the nymph Calypso or the sorceress Circe: “Eh, my father, you, like a hog, have your whole back and side covered in mud! Where did you deign to get so dirty?” With these words Korobochka greets Chichikov, and also meets the companions of Odysseus Circe, turning them into real pigs. After staying with Korobochka for about a day, Chichikov himself turns into a hog, devouring pies and other dishes.
But it is not only in the descriptions of the landowners that we find similarities with Homer’s poem. The episode at customs is also interesting, which is like a continuation of Odysseus’ cunning plans. The idea of transporting lace on rams was clearly taken from the ancient author, whose hero saved his life and the lives of his comrades by tying people under the sheep. There are analogies in the composition: a story about Chichikov’s past affairs is given at the end of the work - Odysseus tells Alcinous about his disasters, already near his native Ithaca. But in the poem this fact is like an introduction, and the story itself constitutes the main part.
This rearrangement of introductions, conclusions and the main part is facilitated by another interesting fact: both Odysseus and Chichikov travel as if not of their own free will - they are both gradually drawn in by the elements, which control the heroes as they wish. The similarity of the elements is noteworthy: in one case it is formidable nature, in the other it is the vicious nature of man. So, we see that the composition is directly related to the genre of the poem and analogies with Homer are of great importance. They play a large role in defining the genre and expand the poem to the “dimensions” of a “small kind of epic.” This is directly indicated by unusual compositional techniques that make it possible to cover a significant period of time, and inserted stories that complicate the plot line of the work.
But it would be wrong to talk about the direct influence of the ancient epic on Gogol’s poem. Since ancient times, many genres have undergone a complex evolution. To think that in our time an ancient epic is possible is as absurd as to believe that in our time humanity could again become a child, as Belinsky wrote, polemicizing with K. Aksakov. But Gogol’s poem, of course, is much more philosophical, and some critics see here the influence of another great work, albeit from the Middle Ages - Dante’s Divine Comedy.
In the composition itself, some similarities are visible: firstly, the three-part principle of the composition of the work is indicated, and the first volume of “Dead Souls,” conceived as a three-volume set, is, relatively speaking, the hell of a Dantean comedy. Individual chapters represent circles of hell: the first circle is Limbo - Manilov's estate, where sinless pagans are located - Manilov with his wife and their children. Sinners of the caliber of Korobochka and Nozdryov inhabit the second circle of hell, followed by Sobakevich and Plyushkin, possessed by Plutos, the god of wealth and stinginess.
City of Dit – provincial town, and even the guard at the gate, whose mustache appears on his forehead and resembles the horns of the devil, tells us about the similarity of these vicious cities. While Chichikov is leaving the city, the coffin of the late prosecutor is carried into it - these are the devils dragging his soul to hell. Through the kingdom of shadow and darkness, only one ray of light peeks through - the governor’s daughter - Beatrice (or the heroine of the second volume " Dead souls"Ulen-ka Betrishcheva).
Compositional and textual analogies with Dante's comedy indicate the comprehensive and all-destroying nature of Gogol's work. With one comparison of Russia to hell in the first volume, Gogol helps the reader understand that Russia must perk up and go from hell to purgatory, and then to heaven. Such somewhat utopian and grotesque ideas, all-destroying and truly Homeric comparisons could have been gleaned by Gogol from Dante’s poem, mystical and unusual in its plot.
The fact that Gogol was unable to fully realize his creative plan, which consisted in the “creation” of purgatory and paradise (the two subsequent volumes), is Gogol’s aesthetic tragedy. He was too aware of the fall of Russia, and in his poem the vulgar Russian reality found its not only philosophical, but also devilish, satanic reflection. The result was something like a parody, combined with an exposure of the vices of Russian reality. And even the revival of Chichikov conceived by Gogol carries within it a shade of a certain quixoticism.
Another possible prototype of Gogol’s poem opens before us - the so-called “reborn” chivalric romance (such is, for example, “Don Quixote” by Cervantes). The basis of the degenerated (travested) chivalric novel (otherwise known as the picaresque novel) also lies in the genre of adventures. Chichikov travels around Russia, dealing with scams and dubious transactions. acceptance, but through the search for material treasures the path of spiritual perfection is visible - Gogol gradually leads Chichikov onto a straight path, which could be the beginning of a revival in the second and third volumes of Dead Souls.
The degeneration of a genre, such as the degeneration of a chivalric romance into a picaresque romance, sometimes leads to folklore elements playing a role. Their influence on the formation of the genre originality of “Dead Souls” is quite large, and the work of Gogol, who was a Ukrainianophile, was directly influenced by Ukrainian motifs, especially since travestying turned out to be the most widespread in Ukraine (for example, I. Kotlyarevsky’s poem “The Aeneid "). So, before us appear the usual heroes of folklore genres - heroes, depicted by Gogol as if in an inverted form (in the form of anti-heroes without souls). These are Gogol's landowners and officials, for example Sobakevich, who, according to Nabokov, is almost the most poetic (!) hero of Gogol.
The image of the people also plays a large role in the poem, but these are not the pitiful Selifan and Petrushka, who, in fact, are also internally dead, but the idealized people of lyrical digressions. Not only is this used here folk genre like lyrical folk song, but also, one might say, the deepest in artistic and ideological sense genre - artistic sermon. Gogol himself thought of himself as a hero who, directly pointing out its shortcomings, would educate Russia and keep it from further decline. He thought that, by showing the “metaphysical nature of evil” (according to Berdyaev), he would revive the fallen “dead souls” and with his work, as a lever, would turn their development towards revival. This is indicated by one fact - Gogol wanted his poem to be published together with Ivanov’s painting “The Appearance of Christ to the People.” Gogol presented his work with the same ray that promotes insight.
This is Gogol’s special intention: the combination of features of different genres gives his work the comprehensive didactic character of a parable or teaching. The first part of the planned trilogy was written brilliantly - only Gogol was able to show the ugly Russian reality so clearly. But later the writer suffered an aesthetic and creative tragedy; the artistic sermon embodied only its first part - censure, but did not have an end - repentance and resurrection. A hint of repentance is contained in the genre definition itself - it is the lyrical digressions, with which a real poem should be filled, that point to it, although they remain, perhaps, the only feature of a real lyrical-epic work. They give the entire poem an inner sadness and highlight irony.
Trace the content and direction of the creative evolution of A. S. Pushkin in the process of creating “Eugene Onegin”, drawing on not only the text of the novel, but also other works of this period.
The evolution of Pushkin's creativity correlated with literary process V
Russia in the first third of the 19th century. pretty hard. Pushkin’s relationship with the literary movement of his time was built qualitatively heterogeneously over the decades: in the 1810s, when he entered literature, studied literary crafts and was, so to speak, one of many; in the 1820s,
When he was recognized as the first Russian poet, and in the 1830s, when criticism of that time announced the decline of Pushkin’s influence on modern literature. The historical and literary quality of Pushkin’s early poetry should be determined by the “school of light poetry” to which he belonged at that time and which was in its own way an excellent school for the young poet, who found in it not only the harmonious precision of style, but also the optimistic clarity of the Enlightenment view of life. life. This mood did not exclude more fundamental free-thinking and lofty themes - therefore, in his early work
Pushkin, one can also feel a stream of high classicism (“Memoirs in Tsarskoye
Sele", "Alexandru", "Licinia"), and a satirical, primarily literary-parody, orientation. In the mid-1810s. Elegiac motifs invade Pushkin’s lyrics. But it is characteristic that, enriched by these motives, Pushkin’s poetry remains true to its beginnings. It is curious that Pushkin’s southern poems caused almost no critical rebuff: they did not encroach on classicist genres, already belonging to a different - romantic - genre system. But the main debate on the problems of romanticism in Russian criticism unfolded precisely in connection with southern poems - and since then, under the direct influence of Pushkin, the genre of the romantic poem has been established for a long time as the leading genre in Russian literature. To assess the literary situation of the first half of the 1820s. The question of the creative relationship between Pushkin and the Decembrist writers was of fundamental importance.
The romantic period of Pushkin’s creativity - with its peak, poems
“Desert Sower of Freedom” and “Demon” - was extremely swift
(1821-1823) and, in essence, was a consequence of the crisis of the poet’s educational ideals, convinced by the example of the suppressed national liberation movements of the 1820s. in the unattainability of immediate implementation of the precepts of Reason and disillusioned with contemporary
an “enlightened” generation, selfishly divided and poisoned by skepticism.
The apogee of Pushkin's lifetime fame falls in the first years after the poet's return from exile. In the second half of the 1820s. Nineteen Pushkin editions are being published out of thirty-four published during his lifetime. Many of Pushkin's works appeared at this time in a second edition.
(and the poem “The Fountain of Bakhchisarai” is even the third). In his work, Pushkin moved rapidly forward, but in the literary consciousness of that time he remained a romantic, and at the time of the final consolidation of the romantic tendencies of Russian literature associated with the spiritual crisis that Russian society was experiencing in the post-Decembrist era, Pushkin is seen as the undisputed leader of the literary movement. In "Literary Dreams"
(1834) Belinsky, expressing the general opinion, wrote: “Pushkin reigned for ten years: ..Boris Godunov” was his last great feat; in the third part of the complete collection of his poems, the sounds of his harmonic lyre froze.
In literary criticism, an attempt has been made more than once to challenge Belinsky’s sharp contrast between the Pushkin and Gogol periods of Russian literature. But the fact remains: in the 1830s. Pushkin ceased to be the ruler of thoughts. More precisely, living significance at that time was recognized only for romantic works poet, primarily for his poems (in the interpretation of Belinsky and other critics of the mid-19th century, poems were also considered
“Boris Godunov”, and “Eugene Onegin”) After 1825, Russian literature entered the era of the heyday of romanticism, and romanticism of a new quality, the so-called philosophical, based on aesthetic systems
Schelling, Fichte, Hegel. Pushkin's creativity did not escape this general movement: one cannot fail to notice from the end of the 1820s. until the second Boldino autumn
(1833) complications of Pushkin’s realistic system with romantic motifs.
Card
Identify the main stages of the “natural school” activity in Russian literature and characterize each of them
The natural school is the conventional name for the initial stage of the development of critical realism in Russian literature of the 1840s, which arose under the influence of the work of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol.
The “natural school” included Turgenev and Dostoevsky, Grigorovich, Herzen, Goncharov, Nekrasov, Panaev, Dahl, Chernyshevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin and others.
In the early 40s, Russian literature was going through a difficult period. The death of Lermontov in 1841, Koltsov in 1842, Gogol’s long silence after the publication of the first volume of Dead Souls in 1842 were heavy losses. At the same time, the growth of public self-awareness and social problems raised by time could not but lead to an intensification of the process of new ideological and artistic quests, to the formulation in literature of the most important social problems. Despite the fact that in the 40s they did such interesting poets, like F.I. Tyutchev, A.A. Fet, K.S. Aksakov, Ya.P. Polonsky and others, yet the leading place in the literary process was occupied by prose, in which the principles of critical realism were affirmed. It is characteristic that Turgenev, Herzen, Goncharov, Saltykov began their creative careers as poets, but then switched almost exclusively to prose. Even Nekrasov in the 40s, in terms of the volume of his writing, was more a prose writer than a poet (although his talent manifested itself primarily in the field of poetry). This group of young writers was called the “natural school” (Dostoevsky, Panaev, Grigorovich, Grebenka, etc. also joined it).
The “Natural School”, which was a natural stage in the development of Russian realism, assimilated and developed creative principles Gogol. This school began to take shape in 1842 in connection with the controversy that arose around “Dead Souls” and under the influence of the speeches of Belinsky, who at that time had already firmly moved to the position of revolutionary democracy. The heyday of the school dates back to 1845 - 1848. After Belinsky’s death, in the context of the “gloomy seven years,” the school essentially ceased to exist.
The term itself natural school" was first used by Bulgarin in order to humiliate the new direction. But Belinsky picked it up and, polemically rethinking it, designated it as the work of young writers who strived for the most truthful reproduction of reality. In the magazines “Domestic Notes”, and from 1847 in “Sovremennik”, on the pages of the books “Physiology of St. Petersburg” (1845) and “Petersburg Collection” (1846), published by Nekrasov and which were manifestos of a new literary direction, numerous stories and novellas appeared , physiological essays depicting the life and customs of the St. Petersburg poor, petty officials, urban
grassroots In the works of the participants of the “natural school,” new spheres of Russian life opened up for the reader. The choice of subject matter testified to the democratic basis of their creativity. They exposed serfdom, the crippling power of money, and the injustice of the entire social system that oppresses the human personality. The question of the “little man” grew into a problem of social inequality.
In the early stages of the existence of the “natural school,” the character and fate of a person were perceived only as a consequence of a certain social structure. In accordance with this, all the blame for a distorted personality was placed on objective conditions independent of the person. In the future, the understanding of the relationship between man and the environment becomes more complicated. In the works of Dostoevsky of the 40s, for example, the question is raised that in human nature itself there are deep contradictions that are not always explained by the direct influence of unfavorable reality. Among other representatives of the “natural school” (Nekrasov, Saltykov), criticism begins to extend not only to the environment, but also to the individual, who becomes the object of closer reflection in terms of its dialectical interaction with the outside world.
Since the second half of the 40s, the “natural school” has increasingly turned to depicting the peasantry. In the works of Grigorovich (“Village”, “Anton the Miserable”), in Turgenev’s “Notes of a Hunter”, the works of Herzen, and the poems of Nekrasov, images of serfs imbued with deep sympathy appear, endowed with high moral qualities and contrasted with cruel, depraved, ignorant landowners. This trend in Russian literature was immediately supported by Belinsky, polemicizing with the ideological opponents of the “natural school.” In one of his articles, he conveyed the essence of opposing points of view in dialogue: “What kind of desire is there to flood literature with men? - exclaims an aristocrat of a certain rank... - Isn’t a man a man? - But what could be interesting about a rude, uneducated man? - Like what? “His soul, mind, heart, passions, inclinations, in a word, everything is the same as in an educated person.” These thoughts of the critic became the program for the entire subsequent development of Russian democratic literature.
2The question is repeated. See above about the symbols in “Dead Souls”)
Story by A.S. Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter" tells about historical events of the late 18th century. Russia is engulfed by the Pugachev uprising. But the main thing forThe author not only tells about this event, but also shows how people who find themselves in a difficult situation behave. It is no coincidence that Pushkin chooses the famous proverb as the epigraph of the story: “Take care of your honor from a young age.” Some of the heroes of the story follow these words all their lives and choose death instead of betrayal, while others are ready to sacrifice ideals and principles for the sake of salvation own life. The main characters around whom the plot of the story is built are Grinev and Shvabrin. By following their destinies, we will be able to understand what an officer’s honor and human dignity are. Young officers Pyotr Grinev and Alexey Shvabrin are characters whose characters and views are completely opposite. This is evidenced by how differently they behave in everyday life, in critical situations, and in love. And if you feel sympathy for Grinev from the very first pages of the story, then meeting Shvabrin evokes contempt and disgust. The portrait of Shvabrin is as follows: “... a young officer of short stature, with a dark and distinctly ugly face.” His appearance matches his nature - evil, cowardly, hypocritical. Shvabrin is capable of dishonorable acts, it costs him nothing to slander or betray a person for his own benefit. This person cares most about his “selfish” interest. Shvabrin is an officer who defected to Pugachev’s side. His image in the story is clearly negative. According to Grinev, any officer who violates the oath and noble duty is a criminal and a villain. Pushkin emphasizes that Shvabrin is a rich nobleman, a brilliant guards officer (“discharged from the guards for a duel”), of which there are many. He is “not very stupid”, but “very superficially educated”, he has a social gloss, but he is extremely spoiled and is used to having all his wishes come true. If obstacles arise in the way of his whims, he can easily resort to deception and slander. Shvabrin is envious, vindictive, cowardly and at the same time arrogant. He is a selfish, unprincipled careerist, dishonest and treacherous. His moral ugliness is reflected in his “absolutely ugly” face. Grinev was raised in the family of a retired military man and became an officer himself. Petrusha is a gentle and conscientious young man, filled with the most rosy dreams. For him, the height of human well-being is service in the guard. However, life itself dispels his illusions. He is characterized by such character traits, at least one of which is now very difficult to meet, which suggests that in our time people with heroic qualities collected together do not exist. Grinev embodies and proves throughout the story his loyalty and devotion. It would seem surprising, where did this bright feeling come from? After all, the French teacher did not teach Peter this, since he himself “was not an enemy of the bottle,” and, for sure, was far from high matters. It turns out that his parents (especially his father) raised Petrusha in such a way that he cannot even imagine betrayal. Since childhood, he was surrounded by devoted people, and it is difficult for the young man to understand how easily Shvabrin goes over to Pugachev’s side, because he himself, having already sworn allegiance to the empress, cannot even think about treason. Pushkin's story has a happy ending. Nobility and honesty overcome baseness and betrayal. Grinev was released from prison, and in the finale he marries Masha. Pushkin does not write about the fate of Shvabrin, but, apparently, he was executed for participating in the Pugachev rebellion. This is a fair punishment for such an insignificant person. By comparing these heroes, I can judge what a real officer should be like. He will never lose his good name, will not betray his Motherland. This is exactly what noble people have done at all times.
Help me write a conclusion
Help me please.1.What position does Sophia occupy in Prostakova’s house?
2. Why is Prostakova forced to teach Mitrofan?
3.What are Mitrofan’s life goals?
4.Which of the comedy heroes says
aphorism: “Good behavior gives direct value to the mind.” Without him clever man- a monster?”
what is its meaning?
5. What is the denouement of Fonvizin’s comedy?
6.What is known about Starodum’s past?
7.Which of the heroes of the comedy claims Sophia’s hand and heart?
8.For what purpose does Pravdin come to the Prostakovs’ estate?
9.Which of the comedy heroes can be classified as reasoning heroes and why?
10. What are Prostakova’s initial plans for Sophia and how do they change?
during the action?
11.Describe literary direction, according to the laws of which the play was written
Fonvizina?
12.Why did Starodum go to Siberia?
13. Thanks to whom does the Prostakovs’ intrigue fail?
14.What dream does Mitrofan tell Mother?
15. Why does Skotinin want to marry Sophia?
16. How does Milon end up at the Prostakovs’ estate?
17.How is Prostakova punished at the end of the comedy?
18. Why does Mitrofan quarrel with Skotinin?
19.What is known about future fate Mitrofan?
20. What telling name at the beloved Sophia? Tell us about the hero.
21. What does Prostakov accuse the tailor Trishka of in the first act of the comedy?
22.What is Prostakova’s maiden name?
23..For what purpose does Starodum arrange an impromptu exam for Mitrofan?
24.What sciences are taught to the main character of the comedy?
25..Who pronounces the last line of the play: “These are worthy evils
fruits.” Comment on its meaning.
26..Tell me about Mitrofan’s teachers.
27. What is the meaning of Prostakova’s last remark: “I’m completely lost!”
Instructions
for those who are going to answer any question,
associated with the characterization of the situation in modern literature
1. Who needs this instruction and why?
As there are more and more media in the world (which is not least due to the growing popularity of the journalistic profession - especially when there is less and less news), there are more and more people in the world who it makes sense to interview. And, if the sphere of literary artistic creativity has not yet rested in peace, then it sometimes falls under the attentive gaze of journalists.
There is nothing more conservative than the procedure for the exercise of two of the oldest professions - prostitution and journalism, where little has changed over the centuries. And since we will not talk about the first, but about the second, let us recall that the most popular form of a journalist addressing a particular person of interest is an interview. And the more media there are, the more established writers are required, as well as new writers who will be “discovered” to the public by one or another media outlet, the more people will have to speak from the platform of one or another media outlet - as a writer, literary critic or an expert - answering questions from journalists. One of the favorite questions of journalists in such cases, in addition to the question of creative plans, about writing yourself and your friends under the guise of heroes, as well as the question about the relationship between personal life and creativity, is a question concerning the modern situation in literature. It has many forms and appears under different guises, but its meaning is approximately the same: How would you characterize the situation in modern literature? What is modern literature? What place do you see for yourself in modern literature? etc. Previously, everyone, at their own peril and risk, got confused in the answer to this question, wandering in a dark room of an unknown house, wandering blindfolded and stumbling upon tricky implications hidden in the questions of journalists. But today, when there are more and more journalists, and less and less background, as well as more and more of those who are forced - whether he wants it or not - to answer questions of this kind, we decided to fill this glaring gap, somewhat standardizing the procedure.
The following instructions are intended to make it easier to answer the question about the current literary situation. We advise those who will be interviewed tomorrow to read it in order to be well prepared for the answer. We advise those who have already answered this question to familiarize themselves with their past answer in order to avoid typical mistakes in the future. We advise those who are already a writer, but who have not yet been interviewed, to read the instructions, because an interview can be taken in the most unexpected and original place, taking you by surprise. We also advise those who are not yet writers to read the instructions, because they can become writers in a completely unexpected and original situation - the more media there are, the greater the need to recognize writing achievements for less and less relevant literary activity achievements. In general, you should be on your guard. We hope that our instructions will close this glaring gap in the existing state of affairs of the modern literary situation, and you will always be ready to answer a journalist’s question concerning it, even if he sneaks up on you in the middle of the night to get from you an answer that you yourself cannot answer. counted.
It should be clarified that sometimes journalists ask not about the situation in literature in general, but about a specific situation (in a city, village, club, etc.). Despite the fact that our instructions are designed more for answers about the situation in general, nevertheless, with proper attention, it can also be used to answer specific questions. However, the procedure for specifying the answer in accordance with the question is not part of the purpose of this instruction. We remind you that, in any case, general answers can be given to each specific question.
2. Structure of this manual
This instruction consists of two parts. In the first part, which should be considered explanatory, we will tell you how to use the second part. In the second part, which should be called practical, we will give several ready-made answers to the question about the situation in modern literature. Accordingly, the first part explains how these answers can be used depending on the need, situation, temperament, character, time, place, climate, gender, age, sexual orientation, height, foot size, eye color, length of nails and hair, tone of voice and his various intonations, etc.
I. Explanatory part of the instructions
I. I. What and how should you refuse in case of the best answer
Anyone who would like to begin to answer the question about modern literature, in the best In this case, he would have to take care - before the answer itself - to understand what modernity, literature is, and what their situation may be.
This should be done regardless to the huge abundance of information, articles and books about modernity in its two senses (modernity and contemporary), about their differences from each other (in the sense, for example, that modernity is the proper name of a historical era that has already ended, and contemporary is that the era that is currently underway, regardless of what it is called). Don't look This abundance is quite simple - for this you can simply not read all of it. The matter is complicated by the fact that there are people for whom it is easier to read than not to read. But even in this case, they can overcome themselves; it is enough to attend the anniversary of relatives, visit their parents, buy a house in the village or a domestic car, as well as contact the appropriate services, which will always find something to keep you busy so that you don’t read these books about modernity in its various senses.
You should also understand the question, despite the common knowledge that is always ready for our services ( common to the extent universal recognition) the meaning of “modernity”, the unclear outlines of which (and with everything common, the outlines are always vague) vary, meanwhile, what's heard(on the eye, on the tongue, on other places of the human body), so what's fashionable And what are they talking about that it is modern and that that it’s clear that this is modern, but this is not. And, if books about what modernity is can still be ignored without reading them, then it is not so easy to get rid of the common idea of modernity, not to mention the impossibility of its banal “ignorance” (“disregard”). Why? Because it belongs to us much less than we belong to it.
IN best case scenario(when the best answer) we are not talking about deliberate denial, ignoring, destruction, but only about own understanding modern literature and her situation to those who are going to speak out about her. But it may seem that your own understanding is somehow destructive ( refuse from this, Not looking at something else is all denial), and therefore a positively minded person can try to answer the question without this destructive understanding. Let's call the non-understanding answer positive.
I. II. ABOUT positive And truly positive answers
Let's try to tune in to a positive wave. To understand is, as you know, from the word “to catch”, and also very close to “to accept”. The recipe for a positive response is very simple: we take something from popular belief and present it as our answer, and then a scheme operates that, in terms of the persuasiveness of its positive attitude, is equal to Descartes’ formula: if I said this, then that’s what I understand.
This approach sometimes gives amazing results, because most often you can hear from yourself something like “wow! and I never thought that I always thought that way.” Is this not automatic writing, in whose magical method some writers of the first half of the twentieth century so relied?
However, for a completely positive answer, you shouldn’t raise the bar of intellectual requirements so much by introducing some conditions for catching a positive wave ( if I said it, it means I understood). Genuine positivity is unconditional and direct like a baby, it does not have to think, much less use this scheme of implication (if-then). When true positivity the respondent immediately proceeds to describe and characterize the modern literary situation, skipping as “for granted” the understanding that what exactly is this?? In this case, the journalist is flattered by the fact that he, the one asking the question, is credited with complete understanding by the answerer, and therefore, most likely, he will not clarify the question with additional tricks. Example: “what do you say about the modern literary situation?”, answer: “everything is bad” or “everything is wonderful,” and then you can proceed to the next question).
Thus, our instructions end for those who are ready to answer positively and truly positively to the question about the modern literary situation (which, by the way, explains its small circulation).
Please note: understanding what it actually is - the modern literary situation - does not presuppose the only correct answer for all times and for all people, however, it assumes that the interlocutor understands the question, which means: there is something that is being asked about, and responder understands this. Thus our instruction returns to those who wish to understand what he is talking about.
I. III. What is understood is always unrecognizable to those who understand
To understand a question means to do it great job by understanding the subject of the question, which, first of all, does not consist in finding something, accepting it and retelling it as one’s own. To understand is, at a minimum, to understand that we something is always already accepted, And we always ready to mindlessly reproduce something, either being aware of this or not (positive and truly positive cases of response, see paragraphI. II. this manual). And to understand means to understand that the thoughtless reproduction of what we have already accepted much easier than your own understanding. That is: easier to answer complex issue than think about the answer to it.
Thus, to understand the question yourself is, first of all, be able to question accepted by us without our consent in advance and ready to fall from our lips as an answer. The understood person, therefore, always has an appearance unrecognized by anyone - first of all, unrecognized by the understander himself.. It’s quite simple to check: when we discover something new for ourselves, and hesitantly express it among our friends, then among them there will always be someone who will say that “this is already clear” (and so much so that it was not worth mentioning even talk), and the other will say that this is all you always talked about, and therefore it is unclear why you are now so unsure of yourself; It’s another matter that a journalist must pretend that he is someone you know who is interested in any word that comes out of your lips, even a curse.
I. IV. The difference between responsibility for a statement and reporting for it
When positive the answer to the question of the literary situation lies only in the person conveying the popular idea report that he is passing it on, but there is no responsibility;
When truly positive answer to the question about the literary situation, neither the report nor the responsibility lies with the one conveying the popular idea, since he truly positive
Responsibility for a statement appears where the question of the source of the statement is raised not as a third party to the speaker himself (then he is only a transmitter), but about yourself as this very source - regardless of whether anyone said so before or not.
I. V. About how important it is after reproducing a banality to add “IMHO”
Hundreds and hundreds of people say banal things that they do not understand (neither them nor what they are talking about) - and because how exactly they say, it’s clear how much they don’t understand What They say. These positive responses characterize them not only as interview subjects, but also as writers - they truly positive. When they say these things, they pass them off as their thoughts: “I think so,” “at least I think so,” or, in a much more laconic form: “IMHO.” However, in this case, this false closure of the popular and only opinion you convey is precisely a clear indication that the source of my statement is not me, and, nevertheless, the same clear indication that this source is felt, and, moreover, has the amazing power to endow the owner with the status of a Creative Personality. The higher the degree of banality of the statement, under which the words “I think so” are placed, the stronger the connection to the sacred circle of Creative Personalities, very close to the circle of truly positive people.
You can also go the opposite way: find out what Creative Personalities have already said and pass it on as your own words. Chances are good that their words spoken by you will be recognized as your own, and you will become known as Creative Personality. In this case, no copyrights are violated, since it is no less likely that their words, which you read and took for yourself, they also already read somewhere and also took for themselves. In addition, if the journalist already knows that these words are not yours, then he will be all the more imbued with respect for you, since you pronounce those words that only real Creative and truly positive people say, and pronounce them as your own.
I. VI. Some long sentence
which we did not understand, but in which we are talking about literature,
and, in addition, there is a logical transition to the further,
and therefore we decided to leave it in the instructions,
separating it into a separate paragraph
After all that has been said, you should turn to what will take practical part of the instructions: to common assumptions and opinions, from which they proceed as obvious (and the more easily they spread in their ill-conceivedness and incomprehensibility - in fact, if “this is so,” then why even think about it?), but which - to those who want to give best answer - one should question it: not in order to make something of one’s own in spite of everyone, but at least in order to begin to recognize the complexity - no, not of the literary situation in modern times, and not of modern literature today, but - of itself literary affairs.
I. VII. Characteristics of the list of practical parts
These supposedly obvious premises of most of the unaccountable statements conveying the “general opinion” are given in the second (practical) part of our instructions without any systematization and without pretensions to completeness. The only criterion accessible to our understanding that we could find in this list is following from greater prevalence at the very beginning to more casual use at the end of the list, although this is very conditional.
Initially, the list contained more than a thousand items, but for the sake of compactness of this instruction, we limited ourselves to only one hundred items. For those who find this not enough, they can begin - after reading the hundredth position - to read the first, or choose them at random - until they remember them by heart. Even before this moment, the reader’s mind will begin to automatically form more and more new points, and here it will be necessary to regret not so much the incompleteness of the list on paper, but its excessiveness in one’s own head.
This list does not serve the purpose of any “exposure”. We recommend that anyone who discovers them try to question them. Pay attention to this soft form: “we recommend trying,” because it is very difficult to really question them; at first it will seem that the doubter has found himself in an unknown forest, in a world without signs, and he will immediately want to escape from it, which many “trying” will do right away, saying to themselves: “well, yes, it’s not clear why these provisions are called prejudices in this instruction - after all, that’s how it is.”
In fact, who would prefer the discomfort of responsible understanding to the sterile (and in a truly positive case, completely vague) transmission of various kinds of banalities, in which one is already comfortable?
I. VIII. A digression on the ability of doubt
We remind you that doubt is not exposure, and serves only the purposes of one’s own understanding. In addition, the discomfort of genuine doubt cannot be fully experienced by everyone, because if each of us is ready to doubt everything, anything, then not everyone is ready to doubt themselves. And it is precisely from this - from the fact that I am already ready to consider as mine what does not belong to me, and therefore I should doubt that it is easier for me to pass off as mine, this is precisely where it all begins. And therefore it will seem that doubt in these elements, which are so easily found, means self-destruction and the loss of all possible coordinates. But what actually looks like self-destruction is actually a cleansing of what is alien to oneself and an attempt to approach oneself for the first time. But who needs him himself if he can do without him? Moreover, if you are a writer, and you can easily and painlessly question everything around you, and instead of yourself, always give truly positive answers, recognizable by journalists and fitting you into the circle of Creative Personalities?
I. IX. Reminder of the subject of this manual
Each of the prejudices outlined in the practical part of the instructions has many protagonists. As it becomes clear from our instructions, some of these protagonists are truly positive people, some are people who are self-aware and therefore positive, some even belong to the host Creative People. However, we do not name them, since none of these opinions and assumptions that guide the answer to the question about the modern literary situation is not any of these people's own understanding. After all, one of the signs of true understanding is the formulation of a question and the impossibility of covering the entire subject area of the question with one statement. If we were to list here the names of the most famous protagonists, then, after what has just been said, it would look as if we wanted to reproach them for misunderstanding. But is this really a reproach? A bad deed, an intolerable character, a garlicky smell from the mouth (why exactly that?), sticky palms are reproached, but who reproaches others for the fact that a person chose not to understand something? Or even that a person did not understand, that he chose not to understand where he should have understood? In the matter of understanding, the presumption of innocence works better than in criminal proceedings.
In addition, do not forget that we are interested in item- the modern literary situation, the subject, not the people. This subject, however, engages people only to the extent that they themselves (or think that they themselves) specifically talk about it, undertake to teach others, and still manage to earn symbolic capital from this. The reasons for this phenomenon are discussed in detail in clause 1 of this instruction, where it is obvious to everyone that writers are not the only ones to blame for the existence of this subject.
I. X. Understanding means changing the situation
I. XI. Other people's words about the same thing
Maybe by mistake, or maybe out of laziness, there will be those positive people who, having read our instructions to this point, will immediately ask a counter-question: “how can this understanding help?” and they will immediately give a truly positive answer to it: “after all, it is obvious that whether you understand or not, everything remains the same.” We will use their own weapons here, and quote someone else’s words from the Nobel speech delivered in 1989 by Camilo José Cela:
“And if we want to be free, we will build our world in much the same way as if we were already free.”
Anyone who does not understand how understanding can help us does not yet understand what understanding is, although he acts and speaks like this, as if everything is already clear. Our instructions are intended to save its attentive reader from this unnecessary “as if”.
I. XII. Methods of use practical parts
There are four ways to use practical parts of this instruction, according to which four types of readers can be distinguished. We call the first two methods - in accordance with the classification adopted in this instruction - positive, the second two - understanding. In addition, there is also special way concerning the invention manifestos.
I. XIII. Positive ways to use practical parts
1. When reading quickly, fluently, arm yourself with one, several or all provisions practical parts. The method of such reading is typical for the “pig” type, since this animal is omnivorous, but, in the presence of better options, the pig, like any other intelligent animal, will prefer what most matches its inner world and what it wants most now.
2. Read all the points in a row and conclude that modern literature, like the situation in it, is polyphonic, multicultural, etc. The method of such reading is typical for the “light bulb” type, since moths beat against it at night different types, but to her these moths remain like themselves, that is, like a light bulb. The light bulb illuminates everything around, but with the same success it can illuminate anything else around.
I. XIV. Understanding ways to use practical parts
3. Read all the points in a row and think about the fact that the conversation about modern literature and the situation in modern literature, which occurs with the use of all these and similar points, no longer makes sense, that it cannot continue in the same way - and abandon it forever, declaring, at the very least, that “everything is complicated” and “I am not ready to answer this question.” So the respondent already begins to realize that What they ask him. This will be much better preparation for an interview than mindlessly repeating items from a list or the like. This way of reading corresponds to the type of “player” - avoiding the answer with reference to the complexity of the situation, “I don’t play like that anymore.” The player refuses to play where they cheat, where it is obvious that there are inconsistencies in the rules of the game, party affiliation and other things, which you can get an impression of from reading the list practical parts can be done without much difficulty.
4. Read carefully practical part, stopping at each point and trying to extract the subject - the situation of modern literature - in application to each of them, namely, refusing to accept and understand this situation as these theses suggest. If the subject - the situation of modern literature - is not extracted in this way, then you should try to understand it yourself, or forever recognize its emptiness - and bury it under the rubbish of these “generally accepted positions”. We remind you that in this case, in parallel with carefully reading these points, work will be done to extract myself, buried under the rubbish of these - and countless others - “generally accepted provisions.” Such work most corresponds to the preparatory and accompanying stage of any literary activity, and therefore we will call this method of reading “writer’s”.
I. XV. Special way usage: make a manifesto
The following points can also be used to compose literary manifestos. In this case, you need to choose from the list what you like - it will be basic position, and then - all other provisions that do not contradict the main one ( traditional manifesto) or those that contradict it ( vanguard manifesto). This way of reading corresponds to a type so truly positive that we can simply call him “insane,” like everyone else who still writes manifestos literary groups and still haven’t realized that literature is always case one person, even if he creates the whole world. Quite the contrary: only one person can create an entire world. The unification of people in literature has never created something that would be smaller than each of them.
I. XVI. Developer Promises
The developers of this manual acknowledge the somewhat outdated nature of its paper form and apologize for the fact that it should be read and, worse, thought. However, they hope that this flawed nature of the instruction will be excused by the fact that it closes the most important gap in the modern literary situation. In turn, they threw all their energy into programming an automatic generator of answers to questions about the modern literary situation, which will be available in all mobile devices without exception, including office calculators, players, car navigators and even taxi meters, since ( see point 1 of this instruction) the question about the current situation in literature can be asked at any time and by anyone, and our goal is to protect the unprepared mind of modern writers, critics and experts from the furious information attack of third parties. If someone thinks that we have approached the matter too formally, and the automatic generator will issue irresponsible answers, then the developers responsibly declare: this is precisely their goal ideally, because the question about the modern literary situation should receive truly positive answers, so that the modern literary situation becomes better and better every day.
II. Practical part instructions
1. There is no such thing as “modern literature”.
2. Modern literature is worse than past literature.
3. Modern literature is much more significant than the literature of the past.
4. The modern situation is very different from the situation of past times, and therefore modern literature is very different from past literatures.
5. Modern literature is no different from any other.
6. The literature of the past cannot help modern literature in any way.
7. Modern literature borrows everything - from beginning to end - from the literature of the past.
8. Modern literature must seek its own path, only then will it enter into dialogue with tradition.
9. All that modern literature has at its disposal are the resources of the literatures of the past, from which it - in free play - forms itself.
10. Modern literature has developed (is developing, will certainly develop soon) its own special style, which we will call “the style of modern literature” or even “the style of the era.”
11. Modern literature has its own inimitable style, even if it does not know it.
12. Modern literature does not have any style - do not consider the motley mixture of styles of previous literature as such, the eclecticism of modernity is not a style.
13. Modern literature is dead, because no one reads it and no one needs it.
14. Modern literature is more alive than all living things, it is on the verge of flourishing and its unprecedented surge - an era of literary triumph will soon await us.
15. The situation of modern literature is characterized by unprecedented freedom - in themes, plots, methods of writing, everyone can do what they want, an unlimited flow of creativity.
16. Modern literature is very strictly limited in its scope by the achievements of past eras, and therefore it is forced to uncreatively repeat the past, endlessly remixing, paraphrasing, composing and making remakes - in relation to its great predecessors.
17. Modern literature is very strictly limited in its framework by the achievements of past eras, and therefore it is forced to look for its own Self, albeit narrow, limited, but its own, because its own is when it is not someone else’s.
18. Modern literature must reflect social reality and convey it correctly.
19. Modern literature does not owe anyone anything and it is a free flight of imagination, creativity and only, at best, entertains the tired, serious people of our world.
20. Modern literature must respond to the socio-political challenges of its time, exposing stupid conformism, corruption and irresponsibility of the authorities, outdated foundations, past and now false values.
21. Modern literature must respond to the socio-political challenges of its time, exposing those who expose stupid conformism, corruption and irresponsibility of the authorities, outdated foundations, former and today false values.
22. Modern literature must respond to the socio-political challenges of its time, supporting and praising the true forces of our time: cozy conformism, readiness for dialogue and humanity of the authorities, unshakable traditions and enduring values.
23. Modern literature must respond to the socio-political challenges of its time, providing examples, teaching, and guiding its readers.
24. Modern literature must respond to the socio-political challenges of its time, that is, first of all, entertain its readers.
25. Modern literature coexists among others contemporary arts- photography, cinema, computer games etc. - and therefore is forced to take into account their achievements, assimilate in order to be - yourself, recognized, competitive, sane, just be, etc.
26. Modern literature must confront modern arts.
27. Modern literature should ignore modern arts.
28. Modern literature is not modern.
29. Modern literature can only be national, since we live in an era of globalization, and literature is a means of forming the identity of a people, its historical memory.
30. Modern literature can only be international, since we live in an era of globalization, and literature is a means of forming the identity of a people, its historical memory.
31. Modern literature is literature in electronic formats; it is read differently and written differently than the previous one.
32. Modern literature is literature in electronic formats, and therefore it is free from copyright: the author has long been dead, and now the book carrier has also died.
33. Modern literature lives only because it has not yet switched to electronic format and values the paper book most of all.
34. Modern literature is experimental and avant-garde.
35. Modern literature is conservative in nature.
36. Modern literature requires fast reading, because now is the time for high speeds.
37. Modern literature is designed for the sophisticated intellectual and erudite, for the level of education is now higher than ever before.
49. Modern literature is a fiercely competitive environment, but only for itself, and ordinary people don’t care about it.
50. Literary awards show the best in modern literature and work for it.
51. Literary awards are not at all an indicator of modern literature and serve some outside interests.
52. Words such as artist, creativity, work and others from the set of pathetic vocabulary of the century before last are unacceptable in modern literature; Now the time has come for art objects and performances. projects, not to mention hypertexts.
53. The situation of modern literature is characterized by the fact that we again hear such important words as artist, creativity, work and others, and it is good that all these art objects and performances have become a thing of the past. projects, not to mention the hypertexts of the last century.
54. Modern literature is no longer made by writers, it all - quite often - consists of ordinary people, trying themselves in the field of writing.
64. Modern poetry is completely unrhythmic, does not rhyme, and therefore any kind of rubbish can be passed off as literature.
65. Modern poetry is completely unrhythmic, does not rhyme, and therefore you can no longer pass off any kind of rubbish as literature.
66. If someone read modern literature aloud, he would be convinced of its inconsistency.
67. If someone read modern literature aloud, he would be convinced of its superiority.
68. Modern literature is characterized a huge amount frankly graphomaniac works, and therefore it is very easy to single out several outstanding works against this background.
69. Modern literature is characterized by a huge number of openly graphomaniac works, and therefore it is completely impossible to single out any special book, or even a trend.
70. In the modern literary situation, everything has been captured by several clans in the capital, and the province is dying without government subsidies.
79. Today, in modern literature, there has been a rejection of all postmodern abstruse methods, and, most importantly, no more art for the sake of art, this is decadence, leading to the liquefaction of the brain, and now everything should be said simply, sincerely.
80. Modern literature has finally abandoned the ghosts of soulfulness and simplicity, and today we see the flowering of what was once called art for art's sake, not least thanks to postmodernism.
81. Modern literature is me.
82. Modern literature is anyone, but not me.
83. In modern literature, as in all sectors of our society, the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy of homosexual officials dominates.
84. Today our literature is not visible, since the information space is cluttered with books by foreign authors, perhaps good ones, but not ours.
85. Today, our literature has finally come out ahead in translation - of the foreign authors, only the classics are sold en masse.
86. There can be no talk of any modern literature, because noteworthy circulations have ended with the collected works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.
87. Modern literature, like everything modern, has lost authenticity, a sense of presence, and in it only Mind games yes erudition.
88. Modern literature, if it is truly modern, is comics, anime and computer games.
89. Modern literature does not please the gods, but neither do the gods please modern literature.
90. Modern writers are far from what could constitute the essence of modern literature.
91. Modern literature is a banana peel on the road modern society: even if it hurts, it’s funny.
92. Most often, modern literature is a way to declare the psychological deviations of the writers themselves.
93. Read Leo Tolstoy.
94. Don't read Leo Tolstoy.
95. Modern literature is nothing more than an alternative version of something that in itself cannot have alternatives, and, as you see, its situation is hopeless.
96. Modern literature is an oxymoron, the same as: Pelevin is a writer.
97. Modern literature is a sane path to madness.
98. Modern literature is a crazy path to health.
100. We need to think about it.