Museum wax figures. Pushkin.
The question posed in the title is by no means idle. When from time to time I happen to work at a school and teach my favorite literature, even high school students can be sincerely surprised by, for example, the fact that I point out modern writer only year of birth. “Is he still alive?” - they ask. The logic is that since he’s alive, why are they studying it at school? The concept of a “living classic” does not fit in their heads.
And really – which of those living today can be considered living classics? I’ll try to answer offhand: in sculpture – Zurab Tsereteli and Ernst Neizvestny, in painting - Ilya Glazunov, in literature - already mentioned, in music - Paula McCartney. A similar term is also used in relation to them - “ living legend " And although, strictly speaking, a legend is a story about “things that happened long ago” days gone by“, in the context of today, the legend has become significantly “younger”. There is nothing to do - you put up with this circumstance...
There is a point of view according to which only what was created before the beginning of the twentieth century should be considered a classic. There is logic in this statement. Artistic culture of the past, using Pushkin’s formula, “awakened” “good feelings” in people, sowed “ reasonable, kind, eternal" (N.A. Nekrasov). But already in the second half XIX century the picture began to change. The first art form to be affected by “damage” was painting.
Appeared french impressionists. They have not yet completely broken with realism, although it is difficult to call them true modernists. But for the first time, the defining moment of art was the subjective in And the artist’s attitude, his mood and state, his impression of the world around him.
Further - more. Instead of the usual landscapes, still lifes, battle paintings, animal painting, portraits the public sees spots of color, curved lines, geometric shapes. Modernism is moving away from objective world. And the abstractionism that follows him even signifies that the Spanish thinker H. Ortega y Gaset called " dehumanization of art».
As for our " silver age”, then there were a lot of “broken and deceitful gestures” (S. Yesenin). Posturing, “life-building”, shocking, experiments with words and sound. And, as it turns out later, there are very few genuine artistic discoveries. And even those were not discoveries in the full sense of the word - both Blok, and Yesenin, and, each in their own way, absorbed and assimilated the classics of the “golden age”, creatively rethinking them and embodying them anew.
And the phrase “ soviet classics", as well as " Soviet intelligentsia"In a sense, this is nonsense. Yes, brilliantly written novel A., only the author himself defined its main idea as “the reforging of human material.” What does “human material” sound like, think about it?!
I'm not for giving up anything and throw 'off the ship of modernity“—that’s enough already, we’ve passed... But if we draw a dividing line between “that” classic and the newest one, of course, I’ll choose that one. And I will recommend it to others. How much has been written by Soviet writers on the topic of the day! What now? These opuses are of interest, perhaps, to literary historians, as a document of the times. " Cavalier of the Golden Star" by S. Babaevsky, "Russian Forest", "Whetstones" by F. Panferov. The list is easy to continue and will take more than one page. But why?
« Pure art" Feta passed through decades and centuries. Thoroughly tendentious N. Chernyshevsky's novel “What to do?” firmly forgotten. Only those works where there is love and compassion for man, where the living word glows, where thought is read, are timeless classics.
Pavel Nikolaevich Malofeev ©
Contemporary literature or classics?
Many have the same point of view - of course it’s a classic! It would seem, what can you think about here? But no, there’s something to talk about. Let's figure it out, which is better? Classic... deep thoughts, real feelings, realism of what is described. We grow on it, learn to think, it gives us spiritual food - we understand through the classics what good is and what evil is. We understand ourselves through the experiences of the heroes, look deep into our souls and understand: this is how it happens, this is what real feelings are, this is what Honor, Duty, Homeland means. Classics bring up in us a Man with a capital letter. Its merits are undeniable. But the classics educate us for the most part during the period of growing up, the spiritual formation of our “I” as an individual, it gives us, in essence, the experience that real life We have not yet purchased due to our age. Of course, there is no limit to perfection. But we can improve only when they are created for us certain conditions: availability of free time, desire to read and reflect on problems that have worried and concern humanity, etc. etc. Objectively, such conditions are not present in the lives of each of us. Let's make a disclaimer at this point. I take the average person of the middle class and average income; I do not take into account people for whom spiritual food is akin to material food. So, the average person, as a rule, has his head occupied with something completely different than the desire to read the classics: how to feed himself and his family, how to raise children, how to enter/finish university. The average person comes home after work/school exhausted from the day. How many of these average people will sit by the fireplace, or just in an armchair with a volume of Dostoevsky in their hands? Hardly. What does this person want? Is it possible to think, improve and expand your horizons? No. The reality is that such a person often wants to be distracted, forget himself and not think about anything. Here modern literature comes to our aid in all its diversity, represented by all genres and literary movements. Let's take modern fantasy as a basis, which is like literary direction on modern stage most successful and popular among readers. Open any fantasy novel and look for deep thoughts there. Will you find many of them? Don't think. I'll make a disclaimer. I'm not saying that all fantasy is easy reading. But most of the books in this genre undoubtedly do. And let’s ask ourselves the next question: is there a need for deep meaning? Is the average person, tired during the day, looking for deep thoughts and moral dilemmas, opening another novel about the adventures of the next / next hit / hit? Don't think. So writers do not strive to put into their books that very thoughtfulness inherent in the classics, since the modern reader simply does not look for it there. Demand creates supply. Therefore, perhaps there is no need to condemn writers modern literature: they only reflect the demand that you and I, the readers, generate. Modern literature gives us the opportunity to escape from the problems that worry us and plunge into a world where all problems are insignificant and can be easily solved with a wave of a hand or a magic wand. We are immersed in a world in which everything is easy, clear and simple. One - and you are rich, two - you are famous, three - you already rule, if not the world, then certainly your empire. Everything is easy to understand and there are no moral dilemmas. Let's summarize. On the one hand, this kind of literature dulls our mind, but on the other hand, we find in it relaxation and the realization of our desires, which we often cannot get in life. Thus, modern literature is both negative and positive. Classic... Classic was, is and will be. And that says it all. So, dear readers, do not look for deep meaning in literature that is intended for relaxation and do not make high demands on it. Better read the classics. And don’t look for entertainment in the classics, because then they are no longer classics.
On November 21, a discussion on the topic “Modern literature: when literature becomes a classic” took place at the Novosibirsk State Regional Scientific Library. It took place as part of the festival " White spot" Heavy snowfall and traffic jams prevented several invited literary stars from reaching the venue, but the conversation still took place. However, two people had to “take the rap for everyone” - writers Peter Bormor (Jerusalem) and Alexei Smirnov (Moscow). Lada Yurchenko, director of the Institute of Regional Marketing and creative industries— it was she who became the host of the event. In addition to the invited writers, readers and librarians themselves came to discuss the classicism or non-classicity of modern literature. And, judging by the fervor of their statements, this topic excited them seriously. In general, the discussion turned out to be lively and not devoid of humor.
The participants tried together to find the answer to the question of what is the line when modern literature becomes a classic and whether works written in our time can be considered classics. It’s no secret that “The Lord of the Rings”, “Harry Potter” and some other books that were written relatively recently are already being considered classics. What is "classic"? Through joint efforts, a number of criteria were proposed.
Firstly, the writer has talent. And this is very logical, because without talent you cannot write a good work.
Secondly, as Alexey Smirnov said, often a classic begins with a joke, a game - and what was originally intended as entertainment for oneself and friends becomes a universally recognized classic. Alexey Evgenievich spoke about this using the example of the story of Kozma Prutkov. And if we were talking about Prutkov, as a joke, such a criterion as a successful choice of a writer’s pseudonym was also mentioned.
The resonance of the work in society plays an important role. Sometimes it can even be a resonance, bordering on a scandal, as has already happened with some famous writers. And this is also true, because a book that does not evoke any response from the audience will go unnoticed and will definitely not become a classic.
A writer who claims to be a classic must create some new image in literature, and even better - a whole gallery of images. This is what the poet Valentin Dmitrievich Berestov thought, and his words were quoted by Aleksey Evgenievich to the discussion participants. Lada Yurchenko added: “It is desirable that the author creates... new world, new myth and so that in all this there is some position, some theme, and the theme should be understandable throughout the centuries.”
Circumstances and luck are also important. After all, a lot in the world depends on them.
An excellent criterion was suggested by one of the participants in the hall: the publishing and sales of the author’s books. In this regard, Lada Yurchenko asked Peter Bormor a question: is a paper book significant for an author who publishes on the Internet? After all, Peter began to post his works on the World Wide Web. Pyotr Borisovich answered this question with his signature humor: “It wasn’t me who needed the book. The publisher said that many people would like to hold it in their hands. A person needs to see the letters, smell the paper... I said, “Well, look at the screen and smell the newspaper.” But no - it must be property... He wants to have it for himself.”
They tried to find some truth in the common phrase “To become a classic in Russia, you have to die.” Here Peter Bormor noted that what is new in different countries they perceive it differently: somewhere talent is assessed and recognized immediately - for example, in Italy, but in Russia you have to prove your genius for a long time.
The opinion was also expressed that each genre has its own classic: yes, “Harry Potter” does not pretend to be a classic of realism, but it is quite capable of becoming a classic of fantasy. In addition, the very concept of classics is relative - if we take the global history of literature of all millennia and measure it by the highest standard, then there will only be a few of the most talented authors. And if we consider this concept more broadly, then even the authors of one, but masterpiece, work can be considered classics.
And yet main criterion The transition of a work to the status of a classic is a test of time. This idea was best expressed by one of the participants in the conversation: “The classics are the books that the second and third generations will come to. And for them it will be just as important and just as interesting.” Absolutely everyone agreed with this definition. But how can you write a book over which time will have no power? Peter Bormor said this: “It seems to me that the author should immediately aim for this when writing. Ask yourself “Will my grandchildren read this? Will they call it classic work? You need to think about it and everything will work out by itself.”