Literaturnyj criticism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literaturnyjkritik ( Russian Литературный критик , literally: "The literary critic") was a Russian-Soviet monthly magazine for literary theory and criticism, which appeared in Moscow from 1933 to 1940. The Literaturnyjkritik was published by the Organizing Committee of the Soviet Writers' Union from June 1933 and had to cease publication in November 1940 on the instructions of the Central Committee of the CPSU . One prominent in Western Europe staff Literaturnyj criticism was Georg Lukács , who then lived in Moscow in exile.

Literary political prerequisite

Soviet literary policy changed direction at the beginning of the 1930s, as a result of which the previous political and ideological control of "non-proletarian" writers by the RAPP was given up in favor of a now cross-class, "socialist" literature . The official calculation was evidently not to force “non-proletarian” writers into opposition to the young Soviet Union, but to involve them in the new state and use their skills to improve Soviet literature.

Content orientation

Reception and use of the "cultural heritage"

Based on this political premise, the Literaturnyjkritik set itself the task of establishing a socialist aesthetic with the help of the reception of ideologically impeccable writers and literature (the so-called “cultural heritage”). In the literary criticism , authors such as Balzac , Goethe , Pushkin , Shakespeare , Lev Tolstoy and others were presented as classic models for Soviet writers.

Withdrawal of class struggle dogmas

The dissolution of the RAPP ordered by Stalin forced the Literaturnyjkritik with a campaign against those writers who considered the class of a writer to be the decisive criterion for good literature (campaign against the so-called "vul'garnyj sociologizm", dt .: "undialectical or vulgar sociologism" ).

The editorial team used the officially desired departure from narrow class struggle dogmas for theoretically demanding discussions on literary history, literary theory and aesthetic theory in general. To be emphasized are:

  • The discussion about the novel
  • The Russian translation of parts of the Hegelian aesthetic
  • V. Goffenšefer: "Sud'by novelli" (in Literaturnyj kritik (1935) No. 6)
  • Essays on Balzac by V. Grib
  • Essays on Kant by L. Spokojnij
  • Essays on Bergson by L. German
  • Essays on Aristotle's theory of drama by I. Al'tman
  • Essays on Russian realism and the related Russian literary criticism of the 19th century
  • Georg Lukács' literary theory
  • the discussion about worldview and method (whose theoretical meaning is questionable, see below)

The discussion about worldview and method

Between 1933 and 1935 there was a dispute among Soviet literary theorists and critics about the extent to which a writer's class determines the quality of his literature. The Literaturnyjkritik published important contributions to what was then known as the discussion of ideology and method . The editorial team took the position that a writer could create good literature despite (Russian: vopreki ) having a "wrong" worldview and thus founded the so-called Voprekizm . It was able to prevail against the so-called blagodarizm , according to which a writer can only succeed in good literature thanks to (Russian: blagodarja ) a proletarian worldview. Although much attention has been paid to it and no small amount of argumentative effort has been put into it, no great theoretical significance can be attributed to the discussion . Rather, it appears subtle and, above all, literature politically significant. The editors of the Literaturnyjkritik can assert themselves with their Voprekizm because this is in line with the official concern of using writers as producers of “good” Soviet literature whose worldview is not (yet) unequivocally “proletarian”.

Georg Lukács in the Literaturnyj kritik

Lukács was active as a party communist and Marxist theorist in German-speaking Moscow exile in the 1930s and 1940s . He published numerous essays on literary theory - mostly in German, rarely in Hungarian. Since he did not speak Russian, those of his essays that appeared in the Literaturnyjkritik had to be translated into Russian by third parties. Important passages of the text were often omitted from the translation, so it should be noted that Lukács' criticism of contemporary Soviet literature and official socialist realism at the time was mainly excluded from publication in the Literaturnyj kritik .

Lukács' position on literary theory in the 1930s is essentially recorded within the Literaturnyj kritik in the two articles "K probleme ob''ektivnosti chudožestvennoj formy" and "Rasskaz ili opisanie". The two articles are translations of the 1934 essay "Art and Objective Truth" and the 1936 essay "Narrating or Describing".

Lukács' thoughts speak of the norm established in Hegel's aesthetics that a work of art should bring the essence of an object to be depicted to appearance. Lukács is in favor of a realistic “reflection” of reality through literature - but not in the manner of a photographic snapshot: He criticizes the naturalistic process for the intention of producing a detailed image of a section of reality in the form of a “description”, disregarding its temporal variability. In order to understand the essential connection behind the superficial appearance of things, according to Lukács' understanding of the method dialectical thinking is required, which tries to understand his objects in their development and decay and in the interaction with their environment. The naturalistic approach must be enriched with dialectics if literature is to understand reality not only superficially, as an unrelated accumulation of things, but according to its essence. A concrete reflection of reality - in the Marxist sense - is only possible under this condition . Lukács, on the other hand, sees in naturalistic description the danger that living things solidify into dead things. Lukács sees naturalism as a phenomenon of the decline of bourgeois culture, which in its decline has become hostile to life itself. Lukác's recourse to “life” deviates from the official Soviet reading, in which “life” is a cipher for “Soviet reality that historically and legitimately develops into socialism”. On the other hand, Lukács' formulations show that when he says “life” he primarily refers to the quality of liveliness, which he sees fundamentally endangered by modern tendencies towards alienation, which are reflected in the reification and tearing of the “wholeness” of life. Lukács therefore speaks of the "richness of life" ("bogatsvo žizni" or "žiznennoe bogatstvo"), sometimes in his German texts of "cunning of life", where "cunning" stands for "richness, diversity, complexity, contradiction". According to Lukács, a lack of the naturalistic image lies in the fact that, according to Lukács, it establishes a reception experience that at best corresponds to the reception of the depicted reality, but precisely in this regard cannot compete with the multifaceted reality. That is why Lukács advocates that art does not copy reality, but rather depicts existing but hidden connections in such a way that they are immediately recognizable to the recipient. Lukács aims at an art-conveyed understanding of reality, which cannot be caused by reading detailed descriptions or even lists of facts. Rather, it is a question that the reader witnessed the development of relationships, and thus the Aufeinanderbezogensein formed articles (not the least of representations of people) intuitively nachvollziehe.

After Stalin's death, Lukács declared that he and his colleagues in the Literaturnyj kritik had worked in “opposition” to a “Stalinist naturalistic orthodoxy”. Accordingly, the Literaturnyj kritik is an unofficial magazine that played a "literary-theoretical opposition role" in its time.

To the question of the official or oppositional status of the magazine

The opposition role claimed by Lukács and other former editors speaks for the fact that the officially decreed ban on literary criticism was motivated by the accusation that an “anti-party” “group” had emerged in the editorial staff of the magazine.

Superficially, the position of the literary criticism cannot be clearly assigned to an official or unofficial direction. Lukács' theory is based on a radical criticism of modern organization of life, which, at least according to its logic, also means the modernization policy in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era. By reprinting stories by the then controversial writer Andrei Platonov , the editors succeeded in publishing texts that correspond to Lukács' theory to an exemplary degree and also reflect his radical critical dimension. At the same time, however, the editorial team also publishes numerous articles which turn this criticism into an affirmative by shortening the argument and playing down its meaning.

The major themes of the literary criticism can be combined to form the program of the narodnost ' (Eng. About "folklore", "folk loyalty"), which was also propagated by official literary politics. The official literary political shift away from the previous "proletarian" orientation towards narodnost ' is to be understood in the sense of a then newly installed Soviet patriotism, which secured the political consolidation of the young Soviet state propagandistically and ideologically. In the course of this political upheaval, the literary criticism opposed previously valid dogmas, but in historical retrospect it turns out to be a useful publication medium for official literary policy.

literature

  • Achlomova, Tat'jana Vasil'evna: Istorija zapadnoevropejskoj literatury na stranicach žurnala «Literaturnyj kritik» . In: Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta seria 10 žurnalistika (1988), No. 2, pp. 47-53
  • Belaja, Galina Andreevna: «Literaturnyj kritik» . In: Dement'ev, Aleksandr Grigor'evič (ed.): Očerki istorii russkoj sovetskoj žurnalistiki (1933–1945) . Moscow, Nauka, 1968, pp. 218-252
  • Belaja, Galina: «Literaturnyj kritik» . Keyword in: Surkov, AA (ed.): Kratkaja literaturnaja ėnciklopedija . Moscow, Sovetskaja ėnciklopedija, 1962-1978, Vol. 4, 1967, pp. 319-320
  • Meier, Nils: The magazine »Literaturnyj kritik« under the sign of Soviet literary politics. Munich, Otto Sagner, 2014. ISBN 978-3-86688-433-5 ; e-Book: 978-3-86688-434-2

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Meier: The magazine "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary politics, pp. 83, 110.
  2. ^ Meier: The journal »Literaturnyj kritik« under the sign of Soviet literary policy, pp. 111-114. A more detailed description is given in Russian: Achlomova: Istorija zapadnoevropejskoj literatury na stranicach žurnala «Literaturnyj kritik».
  3. ^ Meier: The journal »Literaturnyj kritik« under the sign of Soviet literary policy, pp. 83–86, 93–115.
  4. ^ Problema teorii romana. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), 2 & 3, pp. 214–249 & 231–254. See Belaja: Teorija: Problemy i razmyšlenija. "FOKUSNIČESKOE USTRANENIE REAL'NOSTI". In: Voprosy literature (1998), No. 3, pp. 175-184; and Tihanov: The master and the slave: Lukács, Bakhtin, and the ideas of their time. Pp. 113-128.
  5. ↑ Gegel ': ESTETIKA (perevod B. Stolpnera). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1934), No. 10; Gegel ': stetika. Vvedenie (okončanie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1934), No. 11. Gegel ': Character. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 2. Gegel ': Chudožnik (glava 1 iz toma “Ėstetiki”). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 1. Gegel ': Ideal klassičeskoj formy iskusstva. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1937), No. 4; Gegel ': ideal klassičeskogo iskusstva (okončanie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1937), No. 5. Gegel ': Romantičeskogo forma iskusstva. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1938), No. 1; Gegel ': Romantičeskogo forma iskusstva (prodolženie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1938), No. 7; Gegel ': Romantičeskogo forma iskusstva (okončanie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1938), No. 8. Gegel ': Ėpičeskaja poėzija (Perevod B. Stolpnera). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 6; Gegel ': Ėpičeskaja poėzija (okončanie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 8. Gegel ': Princip tragedii, komedii i dramy. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1936), No. 3; Gegel ': Princip tragedii, komedii i dramy (prodolženie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1936), No. 5; Gegel ': Princip tragedii, komedii i dramy (okončanie). In: Literaturnyj kritik (1936), No. 7. For the interpretation, see Meier: The journal »Literaturnyj kritik« under the sign of Soviet literary politics, pp. 116–121
  6. ↑ See Meier: The magazine "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary politics. Pp. 93-110.
  7. ^ Meier: The magazine "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary politics, p. 134
  8. ↑ Lukács: K problems whether ″ ektivnosti chudožestvennoj formy. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 9, pp. 5–23
  9. ↑ Lukács: Rasskaz ili opisanie. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1936), No. 8, pp. 44–67
  10. ↑ Lukács: Telling or describing. In: Internationale Literatur (1936), 11 & 12, pp. 100-118 & 108-123
  11. ↑ Lukács: K problems whether ″ ektivnosti chudožestvennoj formy. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 9, p. 13
  12. ↑ Lukács: Rasskaz ili opisanie. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1936), No. 8, p. 63.
  13. ↑ See Meier: The magazine "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary policy, p. 136.
  14. ↑ Lukács explains his criticism in detail in: History and Class Consciousness , Studies on Marxist Dialectics. Neuwied, Luchterhand, 1970. (First Berlin, Malik, 1923).
  15. ↑ See Lukács: Rasskaz ili opisanie. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1936), No. 8, passim; Lukács: K problems whether ″ ektivnosti chudožestvennoj formy. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 9, pp. 9, 10 et passim.
  16. ↑ Cf. Lukács: Art and Objective Truth. In: Ders .: Problems of Realism. Berlin, Aufbau, 1955, pp. 5–46, here p. 44.
  17. ↑ Lukács: K problems whether ″ ektivnosti chudožestvennoj formy. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 9, p. 8.
  18. ↑ Lukács: K problems whether ″ ektivnosti chudožestvennoj formy. In: Literaturnyj kritik (1935), No. 9, pp. 8–9.
  19. ↑ Lukács: Lived Thinking (G. Lukács in conversation about his life). In: Benseler, Frank (Ed.): Autobiographical texts and conversations. Bielefeld, Aisthesis, 2005 (Werke, 18), pp. 49–197, here p. 143.
  20. ↑ Lukács' preface to the new edition from 1968 in Ders .: History and Class Consciousness. Neuwied, 1970, p. 45.
  21. ↑ Meier: The magazine "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary policy, pp. 185–192.
  22. ↑ On the agreement between Lukács and Platonov cf. Poltavceva, Natal'ja Georgievna: Platonov i Lukač. In: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie (2011), No. 107, pp. 253–270, here p. 263.
  23. ↑ See Meier: The magazine "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary policy, pp. 166–171.
  24. ↑ For the correspondence between the main focuses of the Literaturnyj kritik and the official narodnost ' see Meier: Die Zeitschrift "Literaturnyj kritik" under the sign of Soviet literary politics, pp. 180-185.
  25. ↑ For an analysis of the complex relationship between literary criticism and official literary policy, see Meier: The journal »Literaturnyj kritik« under the banner of Soviet literary policy.