Translated material
This is criticism
See the first episode here .
Michael Epstein
What is the place of literary criticism (not just online) in today's literary process?
Literary criticism and theory are components of the literary process itself. Just as there is experimental and theoretical physics, so there are experimental literature (fiction) and theoretical literature (criticism, literary criticism). One is unthinkable without the other.
The opportunity to influence artistic development with theoretical thought, to predict and even pave its path is attractive. I am closer to projective writing, the genre of manifesto or hypothesis as it relates to modern literature.
How legitimate is the question of network criticism? Does it exist as a phenomenon separate from paper criticism, has it found its own genre?
Texts on the Internet are read faster, and therefore written faster - more carelessly, counting on a fleeting glance, skimming across the page. It is still too early to judge to what extent this speed moves beyond the category of a semi-finished product ("half-hack") and acquires independent value traits, as a special genre of high-speed utterance. It seems to me that such a genre exit was outlined in the critical weekly journals of Vyacheslav Kuritsyn , in his quick runs from topic to topic, from figure to figure, in the flickering of links and linking of glimpses.
Is there a conflict between the Web and paper, or do they coexist peacefully?
The paper is left with something slow and durable, something that you want to look into, and not slide, as if on screen ice.
What figures and publications do you primarily associate with your idea of online criticism?
Primary network - "Reading Circle". Secondary network - "Magazine room".
How do you envision the future of online and paper criticism?
Options:
- paper criticism is doomed to extinction
- they will continue to complement each other in the future, and each will occupy its own niche.
- will online criticism be reduced to pure book announcements, and the actual critical functions of analysis and evaluation will go to paper?
- Your version of the development of events.
Paper publications will slow down their turnover, stretch out to a weekly or longer periodicity, because paper cannot keep up with the daily circulation of news, and it makes no sense to transfer forests to swelling stacks of newspapers, and then clog garbage chutes with them. Current, mercurial-evaluative criticism, as a force of rapid response, will join the Network, and the more monumental genres of review, problematic and theoretical articles, monographs will go to paper, simultaneously being posted on the Network. The network is more convenient not only for quick interventions, but also for tracking long-term trends, for a scientifically detailed search for the necessary topics and names, so the future of printing can be imagined as an all-encompassing network in which everything, both relevant and fundamental, is posted. Only a small sector of this network space will be printed on paper, namely, what is pleasant to caress with your eyes, hold in your hands, put next to you on a pillow, and consume not purely informationally, but “carnivorously”, in a materially comfortable form. A paper info-topos, in comparison with a screen one, is easier to embody, intertwined with hand movements, embedded in a pose, gestures, in a communication situation, in the peace of meditation, so poetry, prose, philosophy will have the best fate on paper, and the bulk of criticism is more likely to get stuck online.
Roman Arbitman
What is the place of literary criticism (not just online) in today's literary process?
Criticism occupies as many as three places in this process: it issues certificates (if the author deserves only to be placed in the right row), it works as a killer (if the author does not even deserve this), it works as a psychotherapist (if through the work being reviewed it is possible to overcome some -or public complexes). The fourth place - the place of a free advertising agent - is what stingy publishers try to impose on criticism, but this is rarely possible. An honest critic values his reputation, but a dishonest one does not work for free.
How legitimate is the question of network criticism? Does it exist as a phenomenon separate from paper criticism, has it found its own genre?
It is difficult to talk about any separate “network criticism” - as well as a separate “network literature” (unless, of course, we consider logorrhea in conferences as criticism, whose level rarely rises above kitchen chatter).
Is there a conflict between the Web and paper, or do they coexist peacefully?
Not very peacefully, but they coexist. The paper despises the Network, but is forced to recognize its efficiency. The Network looks down on Paper (ugh, last century!), but cannot help but recognize its own ephemerality (any technological disaster followed by a power outage turns the Network into something ghostly - while paper, pencil and book exist even with a torch).
How do the Web and paper influence each other?
They are drawn to each other - but where to go? The Network imitates Paper (they are trying to make e-books more and more like real books), and paper critics go online (not all of them yet and still cautiously, like going into space). Why careful? Because “networker” is still a label: the professional suitability of a person who works only for the Network is questionable.
What figures and publications do you primarily associate with your idea of online criticism?
Not with any publications. The Reading Circle section in Russian Journal is a normal, civilized paper publication that simply exists on the Internet. As for the figures: I vaguely remember one cheeky gentleman with a funny combination of first and last names: Cheetah Ponchikov? Tiger Pryanikov?.. No, I don’t remember exactly.
How do you envision the future of online and paper criticism?
Options:
- paper criticism is doomed to extinction
- they will continue to complement each other in the future, and each will occupy its own niche
- will online criticism be reduced to pure book announcements, and the actual critical functions of analysis and evaluation will go to paper?
- Your version of the development of events.
If we leave aside the dubiousness of the term “network criticism,” then option 2 is most realistic.
Anna Kuznetsova
The place of criticism in the literary process is instrumental. With the help of criticism, the life of literature is logical, cause-and-effect relationships are established in it, without which it would not have a pronounced dynamic of existence, a form of process. Criticism deals with the examination of literature in time, the design of its procedural code, updated with each new generation of writers. It is through criticism that the literary process is structured into the forms it takes.
The most significant phenomenal difference between online criticism and paper criticism, which provides it with a brilliant future, is maximum ease of use. Criticism is a tool that needs to be used, and the economy of movement that the hypertext system provides is invaluable in this regard: in order to collect criticism on a text of any age, you do not need to go to the library reading room and leaf through newspaper files. The genre difference is also associated with the hypertextuality of online criticism: it lies in the presence of actual contexts of existence of each individual text, in the inevitable and obvious connection of some texts with others. Paper criticism does not have such a possibility of prompt polemical response. Articles in magazines exist in the form of isolated statements, articles in newspapers are also rather monological. Network criticism is a living, coherent polylogue, and the Network itself is the most convenient testing ground for polemics.
In my opinion, there is no conflict between the Web and paper. There was a Cold War, while paper criticism and online criticism were not taken seriously for understandable reasons. But when the online one absorbed the paper one - almost all serious critical statements are duplicated on the Internet - and the paper one, becoming part of the online one, increased its cultural level and status - edged weapons were transferred to plowshares.
It is unlikely that paper criticism is doomed to extinction - if only because sometimes you want to hold your publication in your hands, or even give it to someone. It happens that you want to read something like this in transport, if there is no other time for it. In short, a real thing has some advantages over a virtual one.
And why should online criticism suddenly be reduced to announcements, if it does not have a space limit - the main scourge of paper publishing? It happens that you have to remove important ideas from a magazine article simply because it was made up into sixteen pages instead of the twelve allotted to you. No, I think that all this will coexist in all its richness of forms, intertwine and echo.
I cannot name significant figures of purely online criticism; all the personalities that interest me came to the Network from offline. But the publications are welcome: RJ, “Maxim Moshkov’s library”, “Topos”, “Nemzereski”, “Catalog” by Oleg Korostelev, “Russian Thought”, publishing websites.
Natalia Ivanova
There is no unity in literary criticism today, and therefore there is no general position. Lying down - or standing - or sitting - each in its own way. The criticism is very heterogeneous, capricious, divided by role, and not just by habitat. (Place merges with role - most often.) Trade criticism writes smartly in newspapers and weeklies, raising and lowering prices. Attracting, informing. Or pushing away. It, apparently, should somehow influence the circulation, the sales of the book (it does not influence. Here, in Russia). It shapes seasonal fashion, a kind of pret-a-porte, shows and imposes - or subverts - new brands. It is more convenient for her to operate in certain formats (for example, serial) of publishing. It is close to public advertising (banter, intellectual complexes, sadomasochism). He often lies. That is, he writes for the author whose book he reviews without reading (I haven’t read it, but I’ll tell you). Sometimes without opening it. If it “omits” it is for some of its own, alas, extra-literary reasons. And so - he praises more, promoting the brand (author, publishing house). True, the question creeps in: is this criticism?..
The other - expert, in thick magazines, some weeklies - tries to get to the essence, acting analytically with the help of complex tools, using a system of evidence and arguments. She works with literature not only as a commodity, but also as a product of higher aesthetic activity, which in principle can also be bought, but there is not enough money.
The third is on the Internet, free. Not limited to any other task (except to inform). She can act without regard to the saleability of the product and not really worry about the evidence of the expressed assessment.
In fact, both the first and the third spun off from traditional genres - in the first case from the annotation, in the third - from the columnist's column.
I'll change the angle.
Criticism today is like Robinson. The ship of Russian literature, in the opinion of some of my colleagues, was wrecked; according to others, ran aground. And the critic Robinson drags various tools, nails, boards from the ship to the island - everything will fit in the household. And with the help of these simple tools he builds a hut, builds a fence, makes a pen for livestock, etc. In fact, he makes literature (as he understands it) from scrap materials.
Criticism today is like Othello. Having finished off Desdemona (that is, the beauty of the great Russian literature), having previously accused her of violating conventions, he now cries and laughs over her corpse.
Criticism today is Hamlet. Walks and walks, mutters and mutters: to be or not to be? that is the question. Lost in thought, he does not understand that the only response to such fluctuations will be death - both of criticism and of literature itself...
Criticism today - Sancho Panza. And literature - Don Quixote. Don Quixote keeps tilting at windmills, while Sancho enjoys life and takes care of his poor knight. They cannot part.
I'll change my perspective again.
I have never separated literary criticism from literature itself - this is its difference from the history and theory of literature. Criticism, wherever it appears - on the Internet, in a newspaper, in a magazine, is relevant, and therefore its main place of residence is any periodical. And “Russian Journal” has been doing its job for several years now, developing the “Reading Circle” in a critical direction. It does more in criticism than Topos, or Russian Binding, or Babylon. Online criticism reacts violently to magazine criticism (if it is significant). There are more opportunities for self-realization in online criticism. And it is happening at an accelerated pace. Well, how many statements can a critic have in a magazine in a year? And for the network one - the same amount in a month, there would be enough considerations.
In a magazine, however, criticism behaves more responsibly - evidence and argumentation are needed here. Unlike other colleagues, I do not consider either criticism or literature in general to be dying. I know many readers (and I myself am one of them) who start reading magazines from the end. Criticism is a special device of the literary brain, which perceives both literature and life as a text, without separating one from the other. Both filtering out and evaluating signs of change.
There can be neither strictly sociological nor only aesthetic (etc.) criticism; at some moments it simply emphasizes its different functions. Nowadays, literary criticism is hampered by its dependence on the premium calendar: it reacts to premium subjects; her life is squeezed into someone else's schedule. This is partly convenient - and therefore even more harmful. Criticism gets used to the fact that it already knows in advance what event will happen (but a prize is not an event, an event is the birth of a new text). This is wrong - because now is the time when new infusions go through the capillary vessels. Captivated by the development of premium stories, criticism runs the risk of overlooking a lot of things.
Criticism decodes literature and reality, and - in a sophisticated way - itself. But there is also such an important, and perhaps the first, function of criticism as evaluation. Here are the most violent contradictions, here is lobbying, and sometimes there is injustice that is offensive to literature as a whole. However, a critic is by definition subjective - otherwise he is boring to read.
The most curious thing is that, when reading criticism on the Internet, I sometimes catch myself thinking that this is a kind of zoo for me. And everything is in cages. I am watching. Sometimes it's funny. Sometimes it's touching. Sometimes it's sad. Well, I won’t speak out on every occasion! Now, if something is printed on paper, it’s hard for me to stop myself (even if I understand that I’m speaking to my detriment, that I’m violating conventions).
Network criticism - if it is criticism - does not exist in isolation, as a thing in itself: The network and paper, if both are the result of professional literary activity, are mutually permeable, especially since network criticism reacts to paper books and magazines, and only then - on the actual online opinions about them. The initial assessment of the text on the Internet is expressed clearly and unambiguously, without internal or editorial “censorship”, without the straw that critics in magazines often try to spread.
That's why she can be ruder and more irresponsible. But it has advantages: speed. The text has not yet had time to cool down - and here is a rollicking opinion about it. Haste is also a quality, although not a very good one. The difference between online criticism is its peremptory nature: neither Inna Bulkina nor Mikhail Edelshtein simply “squeeze” their hesitations and doubts into a given format.
As for the genres of online criticism, they are the same as in a newspaper: brief review, review, annotation, essay (statement). Only livelier. A personal mark, a cheerful photograph, a quick pen...
What’s bad: online critics, as a rule, don’t know much (or don’t know at all) the context, the credit history of the author, publication, history of relationship development, etc. In fact, online criticism is a teenager. There is a computer with a database, but there is no such computer in our heads. And wake up a magazine critic at night... and he will give you the credit history of any active (or no longer active) writer.
Such a profession.
Such a way of life.
And one more thing: network critics are only conditional. Because they are not influential. And not an influential one - just an author of reviews and reviews.
There is no conflict, some tension is felt, and this is good. Online criticism, which does not exist independently (and never will), pulls paper criticism by the coattails. Online criticism does not have the beauty of an integral literary statement - there is no finishing. In general, online literature is impossible to read: streams of graphomania that has not been selected by anyone. But with online criticism the situation is different: it is professional and organized.
So far the Network has little influence on paper: paper criticism rather keeps the Network in mind, as a kind of indicator of the level of consciousness of certain literary groups.
The paper influences the Network towards greater accuracy and responsibility of statements. And if the critic is real, he is interesting everywhere, like Vladimir Gubailovsky , Inna Bulkina, Dmitry Bavilsky , Mikhail Edelstein, Oleg Dark and even the dashing Sergei Soloukh , although he doesn’t seem to be a critic!
"Russian Journal" - "Reading Circle". I read constantly - I don’t want to single out anyone in particular yet, but I can name many. I really appreciate Rebekah Frumkina . I watch “Russian Binding”, “Topos”, “Babylon” (from time to time).
They will complement each other, oppose each other, search for genres. Only pseudos are doomed to extinction . The pseudo is always there, but it fades away pretty quickly.
But in general, in any place - genre - type of activity - everything is determined by only two things: talent and temperament. And their absence cannot be compensated for by anything. No place of residence - be it paper or the Internet.
Next Thursday, in the “This is criticism” column, an article by Dmitry Bak will be published on the issues discussed.