December 27, 2006 at 10:12Gloomy literature
In the first and second grade, I remember, it was necessary to learn the anthem of the Soviet Union. It would seem, why? After all, every year and everyone, and even asked for an assessment. Now I thought that this is correct. And that's why. Everything is very, very simple - crushing the knowledge of the anthem of the country in which you live was a part of patriotic education, which now does not exist at all.
So the anthem is in the first and second grade, and on every notebook in the Russian language is good. What else? Is Pushkin in all classes with his fairy tales-verses-captain-daughters-evgeny-onegins-peak-ladies - is that good? Of course! This is much better than teaching, say, Trediakovsky or Sumarokov (at least you need to know them - it’s also good, but to study their poems ...). And also because Pushkin was the first to write in Russian and readily.
I did not study well at school, which I regret now, I regret very much, because I did not read much on the program - more and more devoting myself to science fiction and fantasy, which I do not read at all now. Strange, right? Now it seems to me a big omission that I did not read “Crime and Punishment”, “War and Peace” or “Quiet Don”. These are big and heavy works, and I leave aside the question of understanding by schoolchildren of the problems hidden in them. Not everyone will understand Dostoevsky, agree.
“Pit” by Platonov and “We” Zamyatin - I simplydid not assimilate themI could not read because of the strange new Soviet language. But now the Pit seems to me to be the best that could have been in the school of Soviet literature - both a hidden satire and the truth (after all, how many ideas, such as with a pit, arose at the dawn of Soviet power ??). Zamyatin that went even further - showed the totalitarian system in all its glory (well, of course, Zamyatin - so, here Orwell - yes, anti-utopia).
But in Soviet literature absurd things have been and remain. "Small Earth", "Renaissance", "Integer" - gloomy literature? Maybe gloomy, I was lucky, but Brezhnev, we did not go to school. And it seems to me that Brezhnev in school at that time was simply the popularization of a book for the author’s sake (after all, the secretary general knew everything, but not everyone loved, and who in their right mind would read his books?). And to call Leonid Ilyich a writer somehow the language does not turn ...
But Brezhnev is not all Soviet literature. There were also Tvardovsky, Solzhenitsyn, Dovlatov, Shalamov, Sholokhov, Evtushenko, Mayakovsky, the same Bulgakov, Pasternak, Tsvetaeva, Blok, and finally, and many others ... Only not all of them were in school under the Soviet regime. Only now (well, this concept, you know, is extensible, from 1986 to 2006) began to appear names that were forbidden under that power. And not all of them have light works ...
And what is meant by gloom? What did they write about, or how is it written? Things are quite different, and quite slippery. Views, age, upbringing, level of education - we are all different and in our own way evaluate any work of art. But we evaluate, and therefore read. Both Soviet and Russian, and both of them have long become classics. But modern literature - what's wrong with it? Is she gloomy or what?
Then literature worked for the state and the party, brought up the right citizens, who think alike and how to. Is literature doing anything now? Yes, entertaining. Therefore, they read. Therefore, many do not care about who they choose and for whom they vote. Literature does not serve the state right now, which is why it is not positive in modern books, everything is black and gray, all the dirt and debauchery is a reflection of everyday life and reality. One complete statement, no thought or ideology, not any motivating motive for thinking or action ... gloomy.
Concluding this note, I want to say that Soviet literature is a phenomenon that has not been anywhere in the world (not because the Soviet Union is not the whole world, but because there were no similar situations). After the revolution in France, literature remained French, after the English revolution - English, even German literature remained under the Nazis in Germany, but in the USSR there was Russian and Soviet literature. So Soviet classics can be respected even for that.
About the origins of the note and its more complete version - Five pages about ...
So the anthem is in the first and second grade, and on every notebook in the Russian language is good. What else? Is Pushkin in all classes with his fairy tales-verses-captain-daughters-evgeny-onegins-peak-ladies - is that good? Of course! This is much better than teaching, say, Trediakovsky or Sumarokov (at least you need to know them - it’s also good, but to study their poems ...). And also because Pushkin was the first to write in Russian and readily.
I did not study well at school, which I regret now, I regret very much, because I did not read much on the program - more and more devoting myself to science fiction and fantasy, which I do not read at all now. Strange, right? Now it seems to me a big omission that I did not read “Crime and Punishment”, “War and Peace” or “Quiet Don”. These are big and heavy works, and I leave aside the question of understanding by schoolchildren of the problems hidden in them. Not everyone will understand Dostoevsky, agree.
“Pit” by Platonov and “We” Zamyatin - I simply
But in Soviet literature absurd things have been and remain. "Small Earth", "Renaissance", "Integer" - gloomy literature? Maybe gloomy, I was lucky, but Brezhnev, we did not go to school. And it seems to me that Brezhnev in school at that time was simply the popularization of a book for the author’s sake (after all, the secretary general knew everything, but not everyone loved, and who in their right mind would read his books?). And to call Leonid Ilyich a writer somehow the language does not turn ...
But Brezhnev is not all Soviet literature. There were also Tvardovsky, Solzhenitsyn, Dovlatov, Shalamov, Sholokhov, Evtushenko, Mayakovsky, the same Bulgakov, Pasternak, Tsvetaeva, Blok, and finally, and many others ... Only not all of them were in school under the Soviet regime. Only now (well, this concept, you know, is extensible, from 1986 to 2006) began to appear names that were forbidden under that power. And not all of them have light works ...
And what is meant by gloom? What did they write about, or how is it written? Things are quite different, and quite slippery. Views, age, upbringing, level of education - we are all different and in our own way evaluate any work of art. But we evaluate, and therefore read. Both Soviet and Russian, and both of them have long become classics. But modern literature - what's wrong with it? Is she gloomy or what?
Then literature worked for the state and the party, brought up the right citizens, who think alike and how to. Is literature doing anything now? Yes, entertaining. Therefore, they read. Therefore, many do not care about who they choose and for whom they vote. Literature does not serve the state right now, which is why it is not positive in modern books, everything is black and gray, all the dirt and debauchery is a reflection of everyday life and reality. One complete statement, no thought or ideology, not any motivating motive for thinking or action ... gloomy.
Concluding this note, I want to say that Soviet literature is a phenomenon that has not been anywhere in the world (not because the Soviet Union is not the whole world, but because there were no similar situations). After the revolution in France, literature remained French, after the English revolution - English, even German literature remained under the Nazis in Germany, but in the USSR there was Russian and Soviet literature. So Soviet classics can be respected even for that.
About the origins of the note and its more complete version - Five pages about ...