Translated material
This is criticism
Here are the questions that were asked:
1. What is the place of literary criticism (not just online) in today's literary process?
2. How legitimate is the question of online criticism? Does it exist as a phenomenon separate from paper criticism, has it found its own genre?
3. If yes, then name the main characteristic differences.
4. Is there a conflict between the web and paper, or do they coexist peacefully?
5. How do web and paper influence each other?
6. With what figures and publications is your idea of online criticism primarily associated?
7. 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.
Nikita Eliseev
1. I am a critic and therefore cannot answer the question about what place my activity occupies in any process. I cannot rise to such heights of defamiliarization. No, of course, I would like to say that criticism occupies a very important place in the modern literary process. But something is knotting my lips.
2, 3. To my shame, I do not know network criticism at all, but a priori I can assume that - of course - there is such a phenomenon as network criticism. Since there is online literature, then, of course, there must be online criticism. There are probably characteristic differences between paper and online criticism and literature. From my (amateur's) point of view, the fundamental difference is in... well, how should I put it... the arrangement of the text, or what? There is a return to literature in the form of a scroll. It’s one thing to have a book that you can leaf through, and quite another thing to have a scroll that unfolds, or a screen on which the text moves in jerks, like what I have now. The scroll and the screen are more endless than a book. However, we also read the literature that was once written down on scrolls. We're probably reading it wrong somehow. Maybe. Don't know. There is one more difference, but here I can get into big trouble. I could be wrong. A sociologist is needed here. The thing is that in online criticism and literature such a... mm... paradoxical combination of democracy and elitism cannot help but appear, or what? I understand that I’m going to blurt out now, but it seems to me that to get involved in the “world wide web”, the Network, you still need some income. After all, it is not true that everyone is included in this web. No, of course, very, very many people are engulfed by it, this very web, so there is a feeling that literature as a special kind of activity of individuals is disappearing. Is this kind of democracy emerging, or what? It can't help but arise. Well, there are also losses associated with this democracy. Harshness of tone, rollickingness, “DJism” in criticism, so? A very peculiar kind of democracy, I must admit. But the future belongs to him.
4. I don't know. Oddly enough, but in online criticism and literature there are much more people who are not very interested in the commercial success of their activities than in paper literature. Online criticism and literature strangely takes us back to a time when literature was an activity for amateurs. Or maybe a completely hoary antiquity is visible in this literature. Some anonymous folklore. Art for everyone and for everyone. Is there a conflict between "web" and "paper"? Don't know. Probably, every online author dreams of one day becoming not a screen, but a book. Or maybe not? Don't know. I don't even know if books will survive in the future, in the near future. Won't they become a luxury item for some, and for others... well, something completely out of the ordinary. I read it and threw it away.
5. In my opinion, online criticism now has a much stronger influence on paper criticism than paper criticism on online criticism. The tricks and tricks of the “networkers” also apply to the “wallets”, and not vice versa. However, perhaps I’m just very bad at network criticism. Perhaps it was the “networkers” who picked up the money from the “wallets”, and not vice versa.
6. "Russian Journal" - online magazine. Vyacheslav Kuritsyn is an online critic. Dog Korolenko - but he is not a critic, he is an online writer. Perhaps that's all.
7. I don’t have any development options. I'm not a futurist. I am a humble spy. I’m afraid that if things continue at this rate, then very soon paper criticism will be reduced to pure book announcements, and the actual critical functions of analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and the like will migrate to nowhere. Will go to Captain Nemo.
Inna Bulkina
What is the place of literary criticism (not just online) in today's literary process?
Marginal, though.
And, I would say, vanitative (from “vanitas”) - in the sense of all this premium-rating fuss, which she is mostly preoccupied with
How legitimate is the question of network criticism? Does it exist as a phenomenon separate from paper criticism, has it found its own genre?
This is a technological issue.
If the reader moves to the Web following the texts, then so does the critic. But we can talk about online criticism depending on the subject: if my subject is a website, then I am an online critic. A website is not the same as, say, a book. It has its own, again, technological differences.
There was an attempt at network criticism in Net-culture at one time, the project was called “Black Mark”, but, unfortunately, it folded. Probably due to lack of online critics
Is there a conflict between the web and paper or do they coexist peacefully?
Yes, there is no conflict. No peace, no war
How do web and paper influence each other?
To the extent that paper critics appear on the Internet, they try to adopt local habits and manners. Although it would be better the other way around. Excessive facial expressions, let’s say, which is characteristic of other online authors, are not suitable for all “paper” authors. Not becoming and beyond one's years
What figures and publications do you primarily associate with your idea of online criticism?
In a negative sense, that is, in the sense of “guest criticism” - there are heroes here, but I will not name them again. And besides, who said that foul language is criticism?
On the positive side, of course, this is the Reading Circle as it became under Kuzminsky. And then, under Proskurin, he changed, but it was very high-quality work. Much higher quality than most "paper publications".
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.
To be honest, I am much more pessimistic about the future of online criticism than the future of paper criticism. As long as RJ is viable and maintains a certain level, we will talk about it until then. If we wake up tomorrow and there is no RJ, which of us will move to some “Topos”?
Lev Anninsky
IS IT BURNING? DOES NOT BURN?
The glow of the screen is ephemeral. Paper is a more reliable material for preserving words.
It is convenient to search for this word using the screen and mouse. But it’s easier to read while holding the piece of paper in your hand. Or caressing (leafing through) a book like a beloved creature. If you don’t caress the announcement, let it flash on websites.
I think that for the foreseeable future we are assured of the coexistence of the screen and the sheet. No more peaceful, however, than the coexistence of files in a directory or literary critics in an editorial office.
Does the form of fixation influence the genre and style of criticism?
Affects.
Online criticism is like a slap on the head given in passing. Or being accidentally tripped in a running crowd. Or to slaughter in the dark.
Traditional criticism is closer to a tournament match. Or - in the conditions of a literary war - on the actions of regular army soldiers. Shooting on command and reporting casualties.
Since I have always preferred to act like a guerrilla: laying mines, organizing distracting sabotage, going to the enemy’s location with forged documents, the style of online criticism is not contraindicated for me. But still, I prefer tests bound on sheets of paper.
I myself went to the Internet a couple of times, read (including to myself) a bunch of barbs and fell away: due to the excessiveness of the pile that you can’t jump over, and (alas) the high cost of pleasure. Maybe in the future the pleasure will become cheaper, then I’ll return to the question.
For now I'll stick with paper.
The glow of the screen is unreliable: Chubais moved his finger and the screen did not light up.
Manuscripts don't burn either. But for a different reason.
Mich. Edelstein
Actually, I’ve written quite a lot about modern criticism lately, and everything I can say about this would be a kind of auto-plagiarism. Nevertheless, here it is.
1. Literary criticism is always in an ambivalent position in relation to the literary process. She obviously depends on him, on his condition, on the material he supplies, and at the same time, not without success, she tries to steer him. In my opinion, the latter is now quite clearly visible. Influential critics actively and not without success build the process, guided by their tastes and beliefs. It is easy to name several fairly well-known names of writers who are the product of critical PR in its purest form. I’m not sure that the influence of criticism on literature today is positive, since perhaps the main process taking place in current criticism is “inflated staff” and, as a consequence, a lowering of evaluation criteria. It should be noted that various critics (A. Latynina, I. Rodnyanskaya, S. Chuprinin, V. Novikov, etc.) have recently made attempts to seriously analyze the current situation, which from a historical perspective are undoubtedly more important than any kind of advertising campaigns, but they influence the literary situation, perhaps, less.
2-7. For me there is simply no difference between paper and online criticism. It’s just that it’s more convenient to put links in online publications. I have not read on the Internet (RJ, Topos, Babylon) anything that is fundamentally different in structure or genre from what I read on paper. Therefore, I can’t talk about either the conflict or the mutual influence of online and paper criticism. Moreover, it seems to me that in the future no special online criticism will arise, and it will continue to differ from paper criticism only in the method of publication.
Next Thursday, the answers of Anna Kuznetsova, Natalya Ivanova, Mikhail Epstein and Roman Arbitman will be made public.
The promotion will continue! There are plans to interview all current critics. Follow the publications.