CC BY
14УДК 82.09
“Large-volume” Magazine at the Boundary of the ХХ-ХХ! Centuries: Ideological Diffusion and Gnoseological Core
Yulia A. Govoruhina*
Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041 Russia 1
Received 6.09.2011, received in revised form 14.09.2011, accepted 20.09.2011
The purpose of the article is to find out the gnoseological reference points causing the reasons for literary criticism of a “large-volume” liberal magazine at the boundary of the ХХ-ХХI centuries. The necessity of such a research is obvious in a situation of the loss of gnoseological core of magazines. The criticism ceases to be perceived as a field of ideological struggle, and in the late 90-s and the beginning of the XXI century the opposition process diffuses. The analysis of typology in the field of gnoseological installations of the literary criticism of the separate “large-volume” magazines allows us to draw a conclusion that in the literal criticism, which latent opposition is represented in different directions of gnoseology still takes place. Nowadays, a “large-volume” magazine, in our opinion, possesses implicit mechanism of pressure and orients the critics gnoseologically.
Keywords: literary criticism, «large-volume» magazine, gnoseology, literary process, crisis, metacriticism, «October», «Banner», «ne New World».
Point: At the boundary of the XX-XXI centuries a «large-volume» magazine endures structural transformation. It is especially seen in its history when the criticism defined a direction, and a magazine - a core. Still, in the 1950s, the beginning of the 1960s and in the second half the 1980s - the beginning of the 1990s magazines participated in the sharpest ideological struggle which caused literary critical thinking, hierarchies of values and estimations. The criticism was the center of public attention, literary articles caused the same response as literary works, and «large-volume» magazines endured the boom. In the 1990s, according to the critics, the criticism ceases to be perceived as a field of ideological
struggle, magazines lose former unity of position, and in the late 90s - the beginning of the 2000s opposition process becomes the process of diffuses. To the middle of the 1990s, according to N. Ivanova, «all the arguments about changes in the former ideological items have been settled <...>, quarrels concerning mutual ignoring came down. Separate groups of adherents competed for the role of the reader, for social recognition and success, but experienced almost autistic isolation towards each other» (Responsibility., 2009). A.Vasilevsky fixes the change in the reference point of the «large-volume» magazines: «... the modern large-volume magazine is considered to be a magazine» with the trend «which is created
* Corresponding author E-mail address: yuliya_govoruhin@list.ru
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
first of all by criticism and publicism. I believe that today the situation has changed. Publications in the large-volume literary magazine can not (for many reasons) become a public event. For example «The New World» magazine does not state of any ideas or concepts which express “the magazine’s point of view», how an analyst would say. A good analytics would give it as much coverage as possible» (Critic., 2007).
In the last years’ discussions one of the reasons of the magazines’ decline is ideological publication (in the wide meaning) of different publicist and literary-critical texts. Conservatively focused criticism in the 1990s overcomes the original law of critical development concerning only «its» products, and liberal criticism in the second half of the 1990s practically ceased to be aggressive towards the opponents in fierce debates and discussions. Political character of the critical disputes changes to the literary ones, discussions get «a round table» format and represent different points of view on the set of problems. These changes indicate about abandoning of a semantic field of the concept of «criticism» and the use of «argue».
According to M.U. Berg, texts of the «large-volume» magazines which were published in 1990s years in don't possess the cultural capital, which may be attractive for «a writer - a reader» exchange and symbolic and social transformations of the cultural capital in (Berg, 2000. P. 265). The researcher calls «large-volume» magazines the modern analog of an underground, a field of work with group functions of recognition and dedication.
This visible diffusion coincides with alternation of generations. The most part of critics of the «thaw» period when selfidentification process assumed basically on social and ideological self-determination stopped their literary careers. The young generation works under other circumstances and the wish to act «as
a group» is not so peculiar to them, but and they display «egoism» more vividly.
Liberal magazines lose their ideological core. In many terms this fact identifies gnoseological reorientation of criticism. Postmodernism brings doubts in authoritativeness and finality of judgment and that neutralizes the claim that a critical judgment is the unique one and confirms the idea of plurality of sights as a norm. The criticism fixes the absence of an ideological and esthetic reference point of a magazine. However, in the first half of the 1990s esthetic «pantophagy» receives sharply negative estimation (as the notion about the crisis of «large-volume» magazine. So, A.Vasilevsky notes: «There is a process of slow diffusion between «patriotic» and «liberal» spheres in places of their contact. This diffusion has different forms. We may say, after the bibliographic reviews of the magazine «Continent» that the art prose is considered as a uniform field, without special division on the right and the left, patriots and democrats. There is nothing to tell about my heading «The periodical» in «The New World» - it is alternately the right and the left. And, nevertheless, in the December issue of «The New world» two articles were printed: Solzhenitsyn's article - about Vasily Belov's prose and Linor Goralik’s - about fans communities. It is clear that there was nothing forbidden in Solzhenitsyn’s and Goralik’s articles - either in subjects, or in «the message». But it is even more important that they write in different languages: the one, as we can say, is from Mars, another one is from Venus. The languages are incompatible, unjoinable» (Responsibility., 2009). In the second half of the 1990 this tendency is defined by the esthetic policy of a magazine.
The crisis of «large-volume» magazine is endured against a variety of other forms of the existing literary criticism. The question about the competitiveness of the format of «large-volume» magazine becomes one of the most discussed.
E. Podbelsky in the article «Twilight genre? The modern criticism: pro's and con's» writes: «the academicians of «large-volume» magazines remained with «thick skinned», they utter slow, but they are not heard and nobody listens to them» (Podbelsky, 2009). According to N.A. Sergunina's, the criticism of the «large-volume» magazines «continues to pour new wine in old bottles - to estimate products according to the system which today has lost actuality of the art values. For this reason from the beginning to the middle of the 1990s the Russian literary criticism doesn’t have new serious name» (Sergunina, 2006. P.52). Analyzing a literary situation in 1994 magazine «Banner» gave the sharp judgment about the editor of magazine «Bookcase» U. Kuvaldin: «The magazines that published «scoops» have died. And misunderstanding that we still have «The New orld», «Banner», «October» and other magazines has not been realized by the collectives of these editions yet. Large-volume magazines aren't mobile, manuscripts are read long, and they are bureaucratical, apathetic and haughty. In one period of time they personified free-thinking, then, in the soviet time - the extreme measure -industrial and party-social, in the other period -in avant-garde - postmodernism» (To the literary situation, 1995. P. 181).
According to the editors of the new magazines who participated in discussion, magazines work to increase the reader's audience and to survive. It is noteworthy that at their own platform, editors of the new magazines and publishing houses operate contrary according to the tradition of «large-volume» magazines. So, for example, the editor of the «Solo» A. Mihajlov declares that his magazine «always publishes debutants. But there are those, who will be not printed in the «large-volume» magazines» (To a literary situation, 1995. C.178). «The bulletin of the new literature», according to its editor M.U. Berg, unlike «large-volume» magazine, «is guided by the (enough
narrow) reader. <...> Tolstoy publishes «the literature for everything», «the literature for all tastes» at the original department stores» (To a literary situation, 1995. 075-176).
Example: Thus, «large-volume» magazines function in circumstances of the loss of their core and item unity. Such opinion seems to be not unequivocal. In the given article the features of the literary criticism of a «large-volume» magazine on the material of the liberal magazine criticism from the gnoseological reference points are found out.
It was found out that in the metacritics on the boundary of the XX-XXI centuries the negative critics was identified, and as a consequence, it was characterized as «exposing» of the interpretative strategy. If «The New world» and «Banner» published metacriticism within all the decades, «October» published it only in the second half of the 1990s - the beginning ofthe 2000s. Only in the articles written in 1995, examples in the negative self-identification are observed. «The new criticism», mainly in newspapers (categorical), without any doubts, as it was critically estimated, was focused on business technologies (Ivanizkaja, 1995; Orlova, 1994). It reveals a problem of all the metacritical judgments during this period. In the 2000 in the metacritic of the «October» magazine, self-identity is researched through the critical judgement of the negative critics, which have been generated by the modern social and literary situation.
The second reference point, which is defined during the analysis of articles and became its main object, is public consciousness. The statistical analysis of the articles of the given group has allowed to draw a conclusion that public consciousness is the object of great «interests» to the critics of the «Banner» magazine. The most part of the articles, united by the same object, are published in «The New World» and «Banner» in the period from 1991 to
1993, then for the decade magazines published one or two articles of sociological character. As it was shown in the research of works of the given group, recession has appeared inversely proportional to the strengthening of analytism and «to the approach to the fictional text». «October» published the similar articles only in 2000 - 2001. The small amount of works is devoted to the public problems, there is little sociological critics in this magazine, it is generally orientated on reception of a literary situation and a separate literary phenomena. The public consciousness and contemporary psychology as the object of attention are defined in the articles of «October» in 2000 - 2002. Each time a push to a reflection is situation of destruction of the traditional scheme «a reader - a writer», loss of the former status of the literature for the reader. Critics use correcting and analytical interpretative strategy in judgment of this situation. The researches study criticism of «October» in of search a determinant in the field of sociology and policy. Sphere of social is very actual. So, O. Slavnikova interprets a problem of not reading as social and psychological. Besides the obvious reasons of not reading are covered in the literature (writers don't read each other’s works and write mainly for themselves), in circumstances of publishing, it has other reasons, which concerns psychological transformations in consciousness of a reader, caused by new social-cultural circumstances (Slavnikova, 2000).
It is impossible to say that a person chooses a certain complex of lines of consciousness from the magazines and investigates only them. At the same time in «Banner» the larger interest to research of postmodernist type of thinking of the modern person is observed.
The third reference point comes to light with the critics focused on judgment of the newest literary practice. It is possible to speak about foreshortening preference of a magazine. The
criticism of «Banner» confirms S. Chuprinin's and I. Rodnjanskaja's statement that the literary criticism comes from the developed analyses of the separate works of art. S. Chuprinin writes about replacement of «the conversation about certain texts to the conversation about a literary situation» (Chuprinin, 1995. P. 187). I. Rodnjanskaja sees the reason for «philosophical intoxication» in the critics’ activity: «It [intoxication] ideally corresponds to that type of the critical writing which began to force out traditional analyses and reviews» (Rodnjanskaja, 1993). From considered group of articles of «Banner» (55 articles) are devoted to one product - 0; to the group of products - 7 (four of seven are written to the first half of the 1990s); to the consideration of this or that tendency accompanied by the reference to the works of art as an illustration - 21; articles in the type of survey which, as a rule, call only products and united in groups - 19. In «The New World» from 48 considered articles 9 are devoted one product; 7 - to the group of products; 26 - to tendencies; articles of the survey type - 6. In «October» magazine from 47 articles 21 are devoted one product; 3 - to the group of products; 11 - to tendencies; articles of the survey type - 12.
Thus, in the 1990s in the critic of «Banner» and «The New World» prevails the wide foreshortening of vision of the literary practice. It is impossible to say that from a reality of the critic problem article - a rarity in 1990th years passes to problematical character. «October» «is more attentive» to the separate text/author. One of the reasons specified above is a quantitative difference in comparison with the other magazines is, in our opinion, the professional status and interests of critics. Reflections on separate texts write in the majority or writers (O. Slavnikova, B. Kolymagin, J. Orlitsky, A. Nyman, O. Pavlov, etc.), or literary critics, whose professional interests don't assume wide coverage of the modern literary validity or
whose experience of literary-critical activity is insignificant.
For the criticism of the liberal magazines on the boundary of the XX-XXI centuries the reference to the literary works as to variants author's itself understanding, their estimation from the point of view of depth/validity/ adequacy interpretations, from the point of view of presence of «answers» is characteristic. Interpretation becomes exarticulation from art structure of «answer» (in the form of idea, a vital reference point, destiny of the hero as possible variant realized, (not) true life) on «question» «What ways of a survival/existence/ presence of the literature in a situation of crisis / of crisis/end?». N. Lejderman and M. Lipovetsky formulate this question so: «How to live in chaos?» (Lejderman, Lipovetsky, 1991. P.245). To the critic the moment itself identifications of the literature which is in circumstances similar to literary criticism interests. Answers, which are given by the literature (according to vision of criticism of «Banner»), can be grouped in survival strategy: adaptation of successful strategy (the popular literature, the literary trends which have endured a crisis cultural stage (the Silver age period); leaving from a reality interfaced to crisis (mysticism, grotesque, a postmodernist relativity); search of new forms of the self-presentation, the latent language reserves (in poetry); judgement of the updated validity, dialogue with chaos. The criticism of «The New world» represents also other variants: search and the statement spiritual «clips», valuable reference points; the statement of necessity of returning from social-centre to the person; active overcoming of negative/unpromising experience of generation; the reference to experience of the classical literature, its optics. In the literary criticism of «October» it is not observed a sharp reflection of a situation of crisis, statement of existential questions, orientation to search of successful
literary and literary-critical strategy. In bigger parts of works published here this or that literary phenomenon is isolated from a literary number, its specificity (while the criticism of «The New world» and «Banner» has installation on search of tendencies, typology) is found out. At the same time the criticism of «October» (mainly 19951997) is focused and on вычитывание in art texts and judgement of the existential, ontologic problems, allowing to investigate psychology, mental features of the contemporary.
There are some interpretative installations peculiar to this or that magazine. So, unlike «Banner», «The New world» and «October» more analitical, are focused on development of literary life as that, for them is in a greater degree actual besides existentially filled question and another -«That is ...?». Specificity of man's/female prose, a postmodernism, median prose, postrealism, amateurish poetry, the historical and philological novel, etc. becomes a subject of separate articles of critics.
Interpretative installations become more obvious in the course of comparison of articles having one subject, but published in different magazines. K.Stepanyan's articles «Realism as rescue from dreams» (the Banner. 1996. №11) and T.Kasatkinas «But it is terrible to me: you will change shape» (the New world) are devoted a theme of loss and reality searches in fiction.
K.Stepanyan's article it is composite traditionally shares on three parts; the first and the third - an author's reflection over questions on representation on a reality in mass consciousness, about loss of sensation real as a common cultural mental problem, searches of the steady center of the world. The reference to V.Pelevin and J.Bujdy’s works of art also is accompanied by inclusions of fragments of author’s reflections, associations. Exits in area of personal reflections are fixed in the text: «Here to me V.Aksenov’s story ...», «However was for some reason
remembered, still classics of a XIX-th century guessed those dangers which are concealed by realism ...», «Here we come back to that problem of criteria of a reality about which there was a speech in article beginning» (Stepanyan, 1996. P.196, 197, 199). The reflection on beyond-text appears on volume more considerably actually reflections on the text (compare: in T.Kasatkina’s articles «In search of the lost reality» (Kasatkina, 1997), I.Rodnjanskajas «This world is thought up not by us» (Rodnjanskaja, 1999) author’s deviations not so much, and they are interspersed in the interpretation text).
The problem of sensation of loss of a reality is comprehended by K.Stepanyan as mental, existential, as generation modern social-cultural situations («the Concept of a reality in general became one of the most uncertain presently <...> Necessarily at in the slightest degree thinking person there can be a suspicion: if it is so much realities, that, can, any one, unique, isn’t present? <...> its this or that decision [a problem of a reality, the validity of an event -Yu. G.] defines all our behavior in the world» (Stepanyan, 1996. P.194). Its reasons the critic sees in visualization of modern culture, in circumstances deideologizing/demythologization societies, pluralities of the authoritative points of view on one events in modern democratic society. K.Stepanyan comprehends a problem of loss of a reality as actual «here and now», psychologically felt as everyone.
Other understanding of the same subject it is found in articles «The New world». To T.Kasatkina the reality problem in its literary judgement interests. The person becoming «the being which has been not adapted for any meeting, a being which is afraid of independent life of the dreams» (Kasatkina, 1996) the person finding «taste to restriction of a reality by frameworks of» is, first of all, about the hero and about art designing of relations «the hero - a reality». For the critic the
reality theme in its art projection is existentially significant. Not casually reasons of rupture with a reality are searched by T.Kasatkina in the history of the literature: «Where the beginning (anyway, the obvious, nearest beginning) this way? It is represented that there where traditionally see realism top in the literature. The psychologism which so powerfully has overflowed the literature in a XIX-th century, has appeared the first step aside from a reality. Instead of a reality began to describe perception of a reality the character» (Kasatkina, 1996), and all history after a XIX-th century is thought as reality searches. The modern literature, according to the critic, is still far from finding, in it life of the real world is shown «such what it sees from within the protagonist, almost without any updatings, without any criteria of adequacy. Now all of them exist any more in a flesh and as shades of its perception, the world blurs, receives lines of irreality» (Kasatkina, 1996). T.Kasatkina, coming to the variant of finding of a reality, remains, as a matter of fact, in the field of the literature, relations between the author and the hero: «the Exit one - in prestanding, that in bible texts is called «to go before God». Lifted eyes the grief, reestablished communication with true Another is given to the author at once some freedom from and in relation to its hero», only in the ending overcoming borders of this area: « Not for flight from a reality, but for reality creation another is necessary to the person and the author. If you want to learn something authentic about the world, instead of to lose the way in own mirages, don’t look in a mirror - look in other eyes» (Kasatkina, 1996).
The affinity of a foreshortening of critical thinking of «October» to «Banner» proves to be true B.Filevsky’s articles «And we will escape» (October. 1995. № 5), VVozdvizhensky's «the Author and its double» (October. 1995. № 12), M.Krasnova's «Between» yesterday «and» tomorrow» (October. 1994. № 7), L.Batkin's
«the Thing and emptiness. Notes of the reader on fields of verses of Brodsky» (October. 1996. № 1), A. Ranchin s « “the Person is the verifier of a pain...” Is religious-philosophical motives of poetry of Brodsky and existentialism» (October. 1997. № 1), etc. Object of attention of B.Filevsky there is «a prose for adults» R.Pogodin. The critic adjusts the perception of texts of the writer in such a manner that isolates first of all the existential moments of sense. Pogodin and its generation (front), in B.Filevsky’s interpretation, endures sensation «lives out of the present» («the present has appeared it is terrible»). Destruction of the reality, time is comprehended as destruction of myths («And after all it isn’t simple myths, they are raised by own life almost lived up to the end» (Filevsky, 1995. P. 189). The reality is compared to the destroyed house. The dramatic nature of an existential reality situation is strengthened by absence of a choice. There is only a possibility and necessity of verbal, literary dialogue. In it, according to the critic, the reason «o^HHHeHHa» River prose Pogodin («he wanted overcome the compelled anonymity of the children’s literature to have conversation directly, without parables and a fantastic fantasy» (Filevsky, 1995. P. 188).
Resume: Comparison of articles of
three magazines leads to a conclusion about a difference of analytical installations of critics and criticism. The criticism of «Banner» in a greater degree «I» - Is focused, in it the existential way of judgement of a problem of a reality and its loss is more expressed, communication of the interpreted text with the actual social, mental validity, personal experiences of the critic is accented. The criticism of «The New world» is in a greater degree focused on the text and a literary context (wide at T. Kasatkina's, genre (tradition of an allotopia) at I.Rodnjansky, etc.) The reality problem is comprehended as the difficult ontologic. But in that and other case the reference of criticism to the problem and texts in
which she becomes central, speaks a situation of crisis and attempts to comprehend demolition of the literary validity. The criticism of «October» is intermediate. It is presented by a considerable quantity of the texts focused exclusively on interpretation of a separate work of art, its art specificity, «following the text», the big capture of an interpreted material isn't peculiar to it. At the same time in works in which the author leaves to exarticulation of existential aspect of sense, descriptions of a psychological, mental portrait of generation / social type, and attempt of correlation of a literary plot with a line of author's self-determination, overcoming crisis are observed as attempt of research of variants of self-identification of literary heroes.
Confirm our conclusion about differences of analytical installations in magazines and supervision over their change at the authors publishing articles in different magazines. So A. Nemzer publishes in work «Banner» in which the moments of the general cultural, mental crisis («In what year are staticized - count», 1998), works of art as reflections of process of self-identification of authors in a situation of demolition of valuable reference points («the Double portrait against a decline», 1993) are analyzed. For the same years the critic publishes works of other plan In «The New world»: «That? Where? When? About Vladimir Makanin's novel: experience of the short guidebook» (1998) in which follows «the text», analyzing existential specificity of the novel, system of characters; «Not come true. Alternatives of history in a literature mirror»
(1993) where offers the review of modern novels-predictions, reducing to a minimum the fact of their resonating with perception of history of the contemporary. M. Lipovetsky publishes the articles in all «liberal» magazines considered by us. In «Banner» there are works in which the critic addresses to creativity of the separate author(s), and it allows M.Lipovetsky to interface
the art text and «soul movements» the author of the «Lyrics of the End of the Century», 1996) in which postmodernism crisis directly contacts crisis of the historical and cultural environment («Blue fat of generation, or Two myths about one crisis», 1999). And article «Overcoming of death. Specificity of Russian postmodernism» (1995) owing to the theoretical and notcorrelation with mental space is perceived as «another's» in a magazine context. Works in which M. Lipovetsky leaves in a historic-literary context on purpose are published in «the New world» to prove law of display of such phenomena, as «a new wave» story (in article in the co-authorship from N. Lejderman «Between chaos and space», 1991), postrealism (in article in the co-authorship from N. Lejderman «Life after death, or New data on realism», 1993), misspent to strategy in the modern literature («Spend of strategy, or metamorphoses a seamy side», 1999). In them either it is removed, or the moment of interface of the interpreted literary phenomenon with existential questions is minimized. In «October» of M. Lipovetsky «Ehe Mythology of metamorphoses . » (Lipovetsky, 1995) in which object of interpretation chooses separate product publishes work, goes deep into area of ontology of polyphony, world images chaos (such foreshortening is characteristic for «Banner») and at the same time practically doesn't find the possible existential semantic plan of the text (that is characteristic for «The New world»). It proves a conclusion about intermediate position of «October» in respect of interpretative strategy and a foreshortening of the analysis of the literary phenomenon. For M. Lipovetsky's works that sensation of crisis of self-identification, confusion in a situation of loss of the reader which tests the critic of 1990th years is to a lesser degree characteristic. It speaks M. Lipovetsky's basic scientific professional work.
As it has been noted above, the communicative situation in which the criticism
functions, «the question» thrown by it on the literary validity, defines a choice art products and actual aspect of the maintenance of the text isolated by the critic. The criticism pays attention to the products which authors are focused on search of «couplers», the support allowing heroes to find composure. Examples of successful strategy (in a postmodernism, popular literature, to the lyric poet) become object of attention also. From a literary stream of the critic isolates the literary phenomena connected by a tendency of the reference to tested literary forms, classics as to a variant of overcoming of crisis. At the same time the criticism of liberal magazines is attentive by the crisis moments in dramatic art, modern prose, a postmodernism, activity of magazines. Self-identification variants are investigated, searches of new forms, language reserves on purpose to make active dialogue with the reader, to build process of art comprehension of life and self-knowledge in new social cultural literature and reader living conditions. At last, the greatest attention of the critic turns on the products which heroes worry, don’t overcome the circumstances similar to in what there is a criticism: demolition of valuable reference points, without a support, loss of sensation of a reality, communication with the present, loneliness. Such isolated substantial plans are characteristic for each magazine, but degree of their actualization differs. So, the criticism of «The New world» is in a greater degree focused on search of true valuable coordinates, a certain spiritual support in fiction (Lipovetsky, 1991; Bak, 1998; Eliseev, 1997; Esaulov, 1994; Anninsky, 1994 and others), and also on the products which subject lines represent variants of a survival of the hero in existentially critical circumstances (Rodnjanskaja, 1994; Slavnikova, 1998; Shklovky, 1997; Kasatkina, 1997; Bavilsky, 1997; Anninsky, 1995; Eliseev, 1995 and others). The criticism of «Banner» is especially attentive to self-identification searches not the hero, but the
author, magazine, lyrics as a whole (Ajzenberg, 1994; Lipovetsky, 1996; Bavilsky, 1997; Ulanov, 1998; Wjazmitinova, 1998; Chuprinin, 1995 and others), and also by the crisis moments in the literature (Tihomirova, 1992; Lipovetsky, 1992; Arbitman, 1995; Novikov, 1992; Chuprinin, 1994 and others ). The criticism of «October» is focused on statement of socially-psychological «diagnoses», creates portraits of the generations which have appeared in a situation of loss of time, isolates collective unconscious, generated by a crisis situation.
Comparison of the actual substantial components, the choice of a subject of critical research allows to see one more distinction in informative installations of magazines. In process (itself)interpretations «The New world» comprehends a concrete art material, in the art form incarnate search of «answers» of the author and its heroes, displaces a foreshortening in area of space of another's consciousness. «Banner» investigates strategy, tactics, the tendencies
shown in group of products, creativity of group of authors, in the lyric poet or prose as a whole, showing, thus, wider capture of a material for interpretation. «October» gnoseological is focused on consideration of the art text, a literary tendency in aspect of reflection in it of typological features of consciousness of contemporaries (representatives of old and young generation).
The analysis of the typology in the field of gnoseological installations of the literary criticism of the separate «large-volume» magazines allows to draw a conclusion that the axiom defining possibility of existence of the literary criticism only in struggle, despite the notevidence today (critics ascertain recession of discussions, disputes, polemics, decrease in their quality), continues to operate. There is a latent opposition which is shown in different direction of gnoseological efforts. The «large-volume» magazine, in our opinion, and possesses today implicit the pressure mechanism, gnoseological focuses the critic.
References
M. Ajzenberg, “Statement possibility”, Banner, 6 (1994).
L. Anninsky, “So than all it has come to an end? Notes about finalists of Buker”, The New world, 2 (1995).
L. Anninsky, “To rescue Russia by Russia ...”, The New world, 10 (1994).
R. Arbitman), “Long farewell to the sergeant of militia. A modern Russian detective: the publisher against the reader”, Banner, 7 (1995).
D. Bak, “Evgenie Fedorova’s found time, or A-la-ger comme a-lager”, The New world, 5 (1998).
D. Bawilsky, “Silences”, Banner, 12 (1997).
D. Bavilsky, “The education novel”, The New world, 1 (1997).
M. Berg, “Literaturokratija. Problem of assignment and power redistribution in the literature” (Moskow, 2000).
S. Chuprinin, “Elegy”, Banner, 6 (1994).
S.Chuprinin, “The list will accept”, Banner, 1 (1995).
N. Eliseev, “Amarkord”'s shade”, The New world, 4 (1995).
N. Eliseev, “Azolsky and his heroes”, The New world, 8 (1997).
I. Esaulov, “Devilish stars and sacred war. The modern novel in a context of Russian spiritual tradition”, The New world, 4 (1994).
T Kasatkina, “But it is terrible to me: you will change shape”, The New world, 4 (1996) URL: http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/1996/4/kasatkin.html.
T. Kasatkina, “In search of the lost reality”, The New world, 3 (1997).
N.Lejderman, M.Lipovetsky, “Between chaos and space”, The New world, 7 (1991).
M. Lipovetsky, “Blue fat of generation, or Two myths about one crisis”, Banner, 11 (1999).
M. Lipovetsky, “Deification of particles, or dialogues with chaos”, Banner, 8 (1992).
M. Lipovetsky, “Mythology of metamorphoses”, October, 7 (1995).
M. Lipovetsky, “The lyrics end of the century”, Banner, 10 (1996).
W.Novikov, “Intermediate finish”, Banner, 9 (1992).
E. Podbelsky, “Genre twilight? The modern criticism: pro’s and con’s”, URL: http://www.sibogni. ru/archive/29/327.
Responsibility of the literary criticism: materials of a round table, URL: http://lecture.imhonet. ru/element/1005065/.
I. Rodnjanskaja, “A plaster wind”. About a philosophical intoxication in current literature”, The New World, 12 (1993). URL: http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/1993/12/rodnyan.html.
I- Rodnjanskaja, “Experience overcoming, or twenty years of wanderings”, The New world, 8
(1994).
I. Rodnjanskaja, “This world is thought up not by us”, The New world, 8 (1999).
N. Sergunina, The literary criticism in Russian Internet as a link of communicative system: the author-text-audience. The question theory: diss. ... cand. philology. Sciences (Moskow, 2006).
E. Shklovsky, “Time and place. Notes about three poets”, The New world, 6 (1997).
O.Slavnikova, “It would not be desirable to read painfully”, October, 8 (2000).
O. Slavnikova, “Old Russian Sergey Zalygina’s Late prose”, The New world, 12 (1998).
K.Stepanjan, “Realism as rescue from dreams”, Banner, 11 (1996).
The critic can’t write to a table (URL: http://exlibris.ng.ru/fakty/2007-10-25/2_critic.html).
E.Tihomirova, “Eros from an underground. Sex best sellers 90 and Russian literary tradition”, Banner, 6 (1992).
To a literary situation of 1994, Banner, 1 (1995).
A. Ulanov, “The slow letter”, Banner, 8 (1998).
L. Wjazmitinova, “From an ice-hole of Poliny to dreams of Pelagei Ivanovny (Poetry of generation 90s)”, Banner, 11 (1998).
«Толстый» журнал на рубеже ХХ-ХХ! вв.: идейная диффузия и гносеологический стержень
Ю.А. Говорухина
Сибирский федеральный университет Россия 660041, Красноярск, Свободный, 79
Цель данной статьи - обнаружить гносеологические ориентиры, обусловливающие особенности литературной критики того или иного «толстого» либерального журнала на рубеже ХХ-ХХ1 веков. Актуальность такого исследования очевидна в ситуации утраты стержня, позиционного единства журналов.
Критика перестает восприниматься как поле идеологической борьбы, а в конце 1990-х - начале 2000-х годов процесс противостояния перетекает в процесс диффузии. Анализ типологии в области гносеологических установок литературной критики отдельных «толстых» журналов позволяет сделать вывод о том, что в журнальной критике продолжает идти скрытое противостояние, которое проявляется в разнонаправленности гносеологических усилий. «Толстый» журнал, на наш взгляд, и сегодня обладает имплицитным механизмом давления, гносеологически ориентирует критика.
Ключевые слова: литературная критика, “толстый” журнал, гносеология, литературный процесс, кризис, метакритика, “Новый мир”, “Знамя”, “Октябрь”
