This is criticism

This is criticism
Issue 18


Publication date: November 20, 2003

We continue to publish conversations with literary critics. Today the guest of the column is Igor Vinogradov .

---

Russian Magazine: Igor Ivanovich, how can you, the editor-in-chief of Continent , determine the specifics of your magazine? How do you see its place among other thick magazines?

Igor Vinogradov: The difference between Continent and other thick magazines is that it is not a monthly, but a quarterly. Accordingly, we cannot claim such a regular representation of the literary process as “ The Banner ” or “ The New World ”. That's why our art department takes up much less space than in other magazines.

As for prose and poetry, here we have our own selection criteria; we are guided by the tradition of classical literature - not so much in style, but in the sense of the seriousness of our attitude to the word. Fiction literature, literature as a structure, as an end in itself, does not particularly warm us. Although we are quite loyal to any searches and innovations, as long as it meets the main criteria of the magazine. Here we can mention, for example, the name of Yuri Maletsky , who writes quite “modernly”, using postmodernist techniques, postmodernist writing techniques. Nevertheless, he is a very significant novelist, with his own serious outlook on life, with a sense of responsibility.

But still, Continent is, first and foremost, a magazine of intellectual columns. Ours are, perhaps, richer than those of our colleagues. And here the fact that “Continent” is published four times a year gives us certain advantages. There are more opportunities to reflect the literary process in a critical mirror, more operational space for our most famous section - the Bibliographic Service of the Continent. There we give an overview of what is happening in prose, in poetry, what is happening in criticism. After us on Some other magazines followed our path, in particular “New World”...

RJ: Novomirsky reviews are fundamentally subjective, this is not just information, but also the point of view of Andrei Vasilevsky or Pavel Kryuchkov . Are your reviews any different in this regard?

I.V.: “Continent” tries to combine two approaches. We provide objective information, but reserve the right for the reviewer to make personal comments. And Evgeny Ermolin , and Maria Remizova , and Irina Dugina are all people with their own point of view on the literary process, and not just protocolists. Moreover, although they exist, as it were, within the same general journal concept, they often argue with each other and express opposing points of view on the same thing.

In addition, our reviews affect not only literature. We give an overview of the most interesting, from our point of view, publications in Russian periodicals concerning modern Russian life, religion, church life, and philosophy. As a result, each issue of the magazine turns into a kind of mini-encyclopedia of the intellectual life of Russia over the past three months.

RJ: You just mentioned religion and the Church. "Continent" differs from other "fat men" in its accentuated interest in religious issues. Is this a tradition that comes from the “old” “Continent”?

I.V.: When the first issue of Continent was published in Paris in 1974 , the title page read: “a literary, journalistic and religious magazine.” But today the religious component is expressed much more clearly in our country than in Maximov’s “Continent”. That magazine, after all, was primarily tasked with cultural and political opposition to the expansion of communist ideology, and therefore religious issues themselves did not occupy such an important place. But now spiritual issues are becoming increasingly important for our society, so this section is increasing from year to year.

In addition, the political aspects of Russian life are touched upon in a variety of magazines - both thick and glossy - here it is difficult for the quarterly to claim any exclusivity. Although we do not refuse political assessments. Let’s say, I really value the fact that Viktor Shenderovich began to publish regularly in the section “Russia and the World at the Turn of the Century” - we are very close to his view of what is happening in the political and social life of Russia. We have long been looking for a suitable form of quarterly response to the most important events, tried different options and finally settled on Shenderovich’s texts.

If we return to religion, then we must say that we constantly have large, serious publications on the problems of interfaith and interreligious dialogue, on topical theological issues - even, for example, to the discussion about what the “fear of God” is. In addition, we were the first in the Russian secular press to clearly talk about the apparitions of the Mother of God in Medjugorje, in Croatia. Previously, information about this leaked to us through various brochures published by charitable organizations abroad - our Church remains silent on this matter, since the phenomena occur in a Catholic parish, and not in an Orthodox one. Meanwhile, this is an event of global significance; there are up to one and a half million pilgrims there every year. We published a very large selection of the most important materials and factual information related to this topic, published an essay by Father Henri Martin as a witness who knows what is happening there, and gave a detailed analysis of the messages of the Virgin Mary. We intend to continue this topic - it is possible that we will even introduce a special section “Mezhdugorsk news”. In the next issue we plan to publish chapters from Sister Emmanuelle’s book “Intermountain: the Nineties.” This is a Catholic nun who has lived there for a long time, who was there the entire time the war was going on there, throughout the 90s, and her testimony is of exceptional interest. The events in Medjugorje can be viewed differently, but it is important for us that the Russian reader knows about them.

As for me, I certainly believe in the authenticity of these phenomena. And for me it is very important here that Pope John Paul II, whom I deeply respect and in whose wisdom and holiness I believe, takes the Mezhdugorod events extremely seriously. The Vatican has not yet officially recognized the phenomena that are taking place in Medjugorje, but this is in accordance with canonical rules: while phenomena of this kind continue, the Catholic Church does not make its judgment.

RJ: At the last press conference of the Booker jury, Irina Rodnyanskaya specifically mentioned Yuri Maletsky’s novel “ Physiology of the Spirit ” published in Continent, complaining that it was not nominated and was not longlisted. Why didn't Continent nominate this novel for the Booker Prize ?

I.V.: We’ll probably have to accept this reproach at our expense. We simply missed this point by not receiving information that we have the right to nominate our candidates. Of course, it’s worth paying more attention to premium stories, especially since, in my opinion, “continental” prose is quite competitive in its level. Another of our authors, Sergei Babayan , received the Ivan Petrovich Belkin Prize for the best story of the year two years ago. And Maletsky’s novel “Love” was once on the Booker shortlist. What happened this year was simply an oversight.

RJ: Publishing a thick magazine today is a compromise between the preferences of the editors and their ideas about the tastes of the audience, the potential reader?

I.V.: No, we don’t have to compromise. The editors of Continent make the magazine they want to make. Commercially, we are not reader-oriented and therefore do not cater to them. We simply create a certain cultural product in which our position is embedded. Those who are interested, who are close to us in their views and approach, read us. We still distribute our magazine free of charge to many libraries. As far as I know, "Continent" is in very high demand there. So we have a reader, and we try to be true to ourselves first and foremost. Probably, it is precisely this position that allows you to retain the reader.

RJ: Before the default, as far as I remember, the magazine was financed by Inkombank. Who is helping you create an independent magazine today?

I.V.: With your permission, I won’t talk about this now, for some reasons. As for the now defunct Inkombank, I would like to say that the period of our cooperation was a kind of example of an ideal relationship between new Russian capital and the magazine. There was never the slightest pressure put on us. They understood that our profession was to make a magazine, and they helped us financially. That's all. Unfortunately, we have not been able to find another such partner over the past five years.

RJ: In Nelly Biul-Zedginidze’s monograph “Literary criticism of the magazine “New World” by A.T. Tvardovsky (1958-1970)”, where a separate section is dedicated to you, the author talks about the mid-1960s. as about the period of your transition from real criticism to religious-philosophical criticism. To what extent is the tradition of Russian religious and philosophical criticism in demand today?

I.V.: It seems to me that this tradition, unfortunately, is now in minimal demand. There are people working in its vein, but they belong mainly to the older generation of critics. In the new generation, I don’t see authors who, in scale, in seriousness of approach, and simply in level, would be comparable, for example, to Renata Galtseva or Irina Rodnyanskaya . And this is all the more regrettable because, in my opinion, it is this type of criticism that is especially relevant today.

In general, each literary period corresponds to one or another type of criticism. Let's say that real criticism was absolutely organic during the "thaw". The era of semi-glasnost does not give the publicist the opportunity to speak directly, and literature, willy-nilly, takes on the function of informing about what is happening in the country. Nowadays the feeling of living modernity is given by the authors of detective stories, but back then this was done by serious writers. Therefore, the desire to talk about life over the head of literature was quite understandable. Literary material served as a reason for serious reflection on social issues.

In general, from my point of view, real criticism arises when a critic is able to be a publicist based on literary material. This does not mean that he should engage in political propaganda; no, we can talk about philosophical, and even purely aesthetic, cultural journalism. But if a critic does not have an integral worldview, if he does not have an individual view of the most important problems of existence, he cannot be a critic, turning into a simple expert-evaluator. Now is the time for such expert criticism. That is why magazine criticism today is not nearly as interesting as it was in the 60s. Yes, that criticism was one-sided, but it was conceptual. Therefore, the names of Vladimir Lakshin , Yuri Burtin , Igor Dedkov will remain in history.

RJ: Why do you think that the tradition of religious and philosophical criticism is especially relevant today?

I.V.: The fact is that with the advent of glasnost, literature had the opportunity to move away from serving society, to abandon the functions that journalism had assumed, and to focus on itself. But the departure from direct journalistic statements does not lower, but increases the requirements for fiction. Expert criticism agrees with this, but believes that we are talking only about the features of the style or the skill of plotting. Yes, of course, this moment is important, but it cannot be decisive, which is clearly seen in the example of modern poetry. After all, now almost everyone can write competent poetry. The level of versification, the level of literary education of most poets is very high; behind almost any selection there is an extraordinary intellectual baggage and extensive cultural experience. But there is no originality, no fresh outlook on life. It is not for nothing that demonstratively secondary irony, starting from some ready-made ideas, from cliches, from other people’s aesthetic systems, is so fashionable now in poetry. But phenomena on the scale of Pasternak or Mandelstam are not yet visible.

In fact, if the need for political education is removed from literature, then claims to its existential level increase. In recent years, we have been primarily occupied with issues of socio-political self-determination of Russia. But what is happening in Russia is only part of a global process, which, to use an expression from one of the messages of the Mother of God of Mezhdugorsk, is that humanity is increasingly building a civilization without God. A new perspective is needed to comprehend this process in order to understand the role of culture in a changed world. Alas, in Russian literature today we do not see any serious, significant examples of reaching this level of spiritual issues. And this is where criticism is needed, based on the tradition of philosophy, religious philosophy as well.

RJ: But maybe this is not the fault of criticism, but its misfortune? If criticism is a dependent phenomenon, then isn’t the dominance of expert criticism related to the lack of writers ready to take on big topics?

I.V.: Yes, criticism is often viewed as a secondary phenomenon, dependent: “Shadow, know your place.” In fact, the relationship between literature and criticism is a two-way process. Criticism depends on literature as its material, but at the same time influences it. And if criticism is limited to genre or stylistic analysis, then it does not realize its potential as a completely independent form of social consciousness. I repeat: criticism is journalism in the broad sense of the word, it is a discussion of topical problems of our time related to literature and art. And if you look at it this way, then literature turns out to be no longer so much a master as, perhaps, a servant. Although all such formulas are inaccurate. In fact, literature and criticism are interconnected, but not in a relationship of hierarchical dependence.

RJ: Why have you yourself acted less as a critic in recent years?

I.V.: As a regularly active critic, my last appearance was at the beginning of perestroika in Moscow News, where I wrote a literary column. I wrote there mainly about returned literature: about Dombrovsky , about Pilnyak , about Lydia Chukovskaya . I must say that I am grateful to fate over these years, because in my youth I was formed as a magazine critic, wrote large conceptual articles, and collaboration in MN was the first experience in my life of regular work in a newspaper format. I then had to learn to do a lot all over again.

Today I have certain plans related to modern literature. For example, I have long been planning to write an article entitled “The Return of Solzhenitsyn”, to try to evaluate what he did as a writer after moving to Russia. There are some other ideas too. But now I’m more interested in ideas related to the classics, Dostoevsky , and Russian philosophy. But criticism is a young thing. And it seems to me that my colleagues at Continent, who follow modern literature, live by it, do their job very well.

---

PS (Mikhail Edelshtein)

Today, Tvardovsky’s “New World” no longer seems such a monolithic formation as it looked in the eyes of readers of the 60s. It became obvious that Andrei Sinyavsky , even in his New World years, was very little like Vladimir Lakshin, and Chingiz Aitmatov does not have much in common with Alexander Solzhenitsyn . The author of the fundamental monograph “Literary criticism of the magazine “New World” by A.T. Tvardovsky (1958-1970)” published several years ago, Nelly Biul-Zedginidze convincingly demonstrated how the leading authors differed from each other both in manner and in their views critical department of the famous monthly. And if the same Lakshin, for example, remained within the framework of the New World paradigm for the rest of his life, then Igor Vinogradov over ten years of collaboration in Tvardovsky’s journal evolved strikingly, moving further than almost all of his colleagues from the one-dimensional Thaw sociality of the late 50s - early 60s.

N. Biul-Zedginidze, speaking about I. Vinogradov, describes his path as a transition from “ethics and aesthetics of revolutionary-democratic anthropology” to “that faith, to that philosophy of life and to that social activity arising from this philosophy that were the truth and life destiny of Russian religious philosophers... - Vl. Solovyov, N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, S. Frank and others." Already by the mid-to-late 60s, the critic was working in the coordinate system within which his current “plans associated with the classics, with Dostoevsky , with Russian philosophy” are developing. It is no coincidence that some of Vinogradov’s later Novomir articles were included by him 20 years later in the book “On the Living Trail. Spiritual Quests of Russian Classics.”

Now about the published interview. One of the provisions formulated in it by I. Vinogradov puzzled me. It has always seemed to me that in modern criticism, for all its philology, there is a strong lack of dispassionate experts who know how to keep their political preferences and religious beliefs to themselves, or at least separate them from an objective assessment of the merits and demerits of a particular work. And suddenly it turns out that there are only experts around, and critics who are “capable of being publicists on literary material” are just not enough ... They say that if some phenomenon is scolded from two opposite positions at once, then it seems to be proved His vitality. With what I am modern criticism and congratulations. Now nothing prevents her from feeling like a golden middle.

Nevertheless, this incident naturally provokes a continuation of a conversation about journalistic criticism, in particular about the criticism of the Twardowski "New World", and its ratio with the current cultural situation. It does not seem appropriate and possible to start such a conversation here and now, so I will allow myself to offer only a few comments on the topic.

First about the obvious. Real, wider - journalistic criticism (political, philosophical, religious - all the same), are suitable for those eras when "literature ... concentrates almost the entire mental life of the people, and therefore there is a duty to engage in such interests that in other countries have already passed, so to speak, into a special institution of other areas of mental activity ”(the words of N.G. Chernyshevsky , cited by Vinogradov in one of his first Novomir articles). In the current situation, everyone who wants to write about politics or public issues can write about them directly, without needing literature as an excuse. Moreover, it is extremely unprofitable to use literature even as illustrative material today: the country knows much better than the heroes of the modern, and perhaps classical literature. It is better to take examples from the series - it will be more intelligible.

Here is an occasion for the envy of today's critics to their colleagues of the legendary 60s who wrote in those days when their heroes were known to everyone. The current critic does not dare to dream of the audience of Yuri Burtin or Igor Dedkov, as the current poets do not dare to dream of the stadiums of Yevtushenko-Voznesensky. Is it worth dreaming about it and how justified envy is - the question is different. For example, I see for her at least four reasons.

The critics of the 60s were hard. They could not work without looking back at censorship, they had to disguise themselves under the fighters for socialism with a human face, their articles were cut on the living. Critics of the 60s were easy. That world was black and white, the main colors were determined once and for all, it was impossible to confuse their own with a stranger.

We knew for certain -
Which days
We are misfortunes, and they are honored.
For we were we,
And they - they,
And others - so they do not count!

It is significant, by the way, that in the 90s, when the real picture of the free world turned out to be much more complicated than the one that seemed to the sixties in sub-Soviet dreams or in the Emigrant far away, many of them were confused. Almost none of them accepted new Russia - neither Yuri Burtin, nor Andrei Sinyavsky, nor his eternal opponent, the founder of the Parisian “continent” Vladimir Maksimov . The sympathies of I. Vinogradov to Gorbachev and his skeptical attitude to the reforms of Yeltsin-Haidar are also quite obvious .

Well, here,
Among the fiery darkness,
Where and shadows live in the shade,
We sometimes get lost:
Where are we?
And from which side - are they?

But we will continue the conversation about envy. Representatives of journalistic criticism are actually more difficult. If criticism of the expert needs only a qualitative philological education, then the critic-publicist needs at least a whole worldview, and as a maximum, the original system of philosophical views. Simply put, journalistic criticism is much denser than expertly tied to criticism. But on the other hand, the "publicists" are again easier. They are much less than "expert experts" depend on the quality of current literature. The article by I. Vinogradov “The Point Point” was read at the end of the 50s not only with fans of Mikhail Beliya’s novel “The Golden Ring”, which the novel in that work was a formal subject of attention of criticism. Moreover, I suspect that Vinogradov’s article was then read by much more people than this is the most “golden ring”. That is, in journalistic criticism it is interesting "what", and not "about what." And in expert criticism, on the contrary. Well, or at least equally. Therefore, the expert critic, as a rule, leaves with his object, and it is extremely important for him to choose this object correctly. In this sense, expert criticism is a gender of lottery, a gambling lesson for people with a strong nervous system.

The most attractive feature for me that model of criticism that I. Vinogradov offers is its maximalism. The current observers too often take the state of literature for the norm and underestimate the plank, comparing the authors of the "new world" with the authors of the banner and back, as if to oppose these plots and there are no mention of any land. That elementary fact that - we will not disturb the vain and Leo Tolstoy - next to Sasha Sokolov or John Kutzee , almost all domestic luminaries of recent years look somewhat pale, it is considered a bad tone. Against this background, Vinogradov’s proposal without outlines to ask the writer that he can tell me about the indigenous problems of being, it looks very pretty.

Finally, on the side of the sixties, Russian history. As long as it develops cyclically, their articles will not be out of place. It is no accident that today in a different way than in the blessed 90s, the old thoughts of I. Vinogradov about the "free sovereign person", about the right to freedom of choice, that there are no universal decisions suitable for all situations. Already now these provisions do not seem like several years ago, naive and outdated. Judging by the dynamics of the development of our state, tomorrow they will look even more relevant.