Union of Writers of the USSR headed. How the Union of Soviet Writers was born

SOVIET LITERARY CRITICISM 1930 - MIDDLE 1950s

Features of the new literary era.- Creation of Soyufor Soviet writers. Party resolution "On the transferconstruction of literary and artistic organizations. First Congress of Soviet Writers. The role of M. Gorky in the literarylife in the 1930s.-Party literary kritika.- Writer's literary criticism: A.A. Fadeev,A. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Platonov.- Cree literary typologytic performances.-A. P. Selivanovsky. D. P. Mirsky.- Literary criticism in the light of party decisions.- V.V. Ermilov.-The Crisis of Literary Criticism.

The diversity of literary life in the 1920s, the pluralism of ideological and aesthetic attitudes, the activity of numerous schools and trends turns into its opposite in the new socio-literary circumstances. If in the 1920s it was literary criticism that shaped and determined the literary situation, then, starting from 1929, literary life, like life in the country as a whole, proceeded in the harsh grip of Stalinist ideology.

With the rooting and hardening of totalitarianism, literature constantly found itself in the zone of close attention of the party leadership. The role of literary critics was played by such prominent figures of Bolshevism as Trotsky, Lunacharsky, Bukharin, but their literary critical assessments in the 1920s were not the only possible ones, as it will happen in the 1930s-50s with Stalin's literary judgments.

The creation and implementation of the concept of socialist realism, which led to the unification of our culture, was carried out simultaneously with other campaigns that were called upon to commemorate the gains of socialism.

Already at the end of the 1920s, the search began for a term that could designate that big and unified thing that was to become common for

all Soviet writers as a creative platform. It is still unknown who was the first to propose how unconvincing in terms of the phrase and so successful in terms of longevity the concept of "socialist realism". However, it was this term and the ideas invested in it that determined the fate of Russian literature for many years, giving literary critics the right either to extend it to all works that grew on Soviet soil, up to M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”, or to reject writers, unable to fit into the strict canons of socialist realism.

Returning from emigration at the insistence of Stalin, M. Gorky managed to fulfill the social function entrusted to him by the leader, and together with a whole group of developers, among whom the Rappovites occupied a predominant place, he helped to think through to the smallest detail the process of “reunification” of Soviet writers who were members of different groups and associations . This is how the plan to create the Union of Soviet Writers was conceived and implemented. It should be emphasized that the Union was created not in spite of, but in accordance with the aspirations of many, many Soviet writers. Most of the literary groups were close to self-dissolution, a wave of studies by E. Zamyatin, B. Pilnyak, M. Bulgakov passed, the most prominent literary critics of the era - A. Voronsky and V. Polonsky - were removed from their editorial posts. Rapp publications (in 1931, another magazine appeared - RAPP) print articles with such titles: “Not everything is left that screams”, “Homeless”, “Bouquet of rat love”, “Class enemy in literature”. Naturally, the writers assessed such a situation as a manifestation of lack of freedom and sought to get rid of the RAPP's forcible guardianship. It is enough to read the feuilleton by I. Ilf and E. Petrov “Give him the italics” (1932) to imagine why many Soviet writers enthusiastically reacted to the idea of ​​the Union.

On April 23, 1932, the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” was adopted. By this resolution, all existing organizations were dissolved, and the Union of Soviet Writers was created. Among the writers, the attitude towards the resolution was the most enthusiastic, the future members of the Union did not yet guess that instead of the RAPP, a literary organization of unprecedented power and unheard-of leveling opportunities was coming. The congress of Soviet writers was to be held very soon, but due to Gorky's family circumstances this event was postponed.

The first congress of Soviet writers opened on August 17, 1934 and lasted two weeks. The congress was held as a great all-Union holiday, the main character of which was M. Gorky. Presidio table-298

ma towered against the backdrop of a huge portrait of Gorky, M. Gorky opened the congress, made a report on it "On Socialist Realism", spoke with brief summaries, and concluded the work of the congress.

The festive atmosphere that prevailed at the congress was reinforced by numerous speeches by writers whose names had been unequivocally negatively assessed until relatively recently. I. Ehrenburg and V. Shklovsky, K. Chukovsky and L. Leonov, L. Seifullina and S. Kirsanov made bright speeches. General feelings were expressed by B. Pasternak: “For twelve days, from behind the table of the presidium, together with my comrades, I had a silent conversation with all of you. We exchanged glances and tears of emotion, made signs and exchanged flowers. For twelve days we were united by the overwhelming happiness of the fact that this high poetic language is born of itself in a conversation with our modernity.

The pathos of delight was interrupted when it came to literary criticism. Writers complained that critics have a red and black board and that writers' reputations often depend on critical self-will: "We must not allow a literary analysis of an author's work to immediately affect his social position" (I. Ehrenburg). It was about the complete and hopeless absence of serious criticism, about Rapp's manners preserved in criticism. And the satirist Mikh. Koltsov proposed an amusing project: “introduce a form for members of the writers' union<...>Writers will wear uniforms, and it will be divided into genres. Approximately: red edging is for prose, blue is for poetry, and black is for critics. And introduce badges: for prose - an inkwell, for poetry - a lyre, and for critics - a small club. A critic walks down the street with four clubs in his buttonhole, and all the writers on the street stand in front.

Gorky's report and co-reports on world literature, dramaturgy, prose, and children's literature were of an ascertaining nature. The turning point in the official solemn course of the congress came after the report of N. Bukharin, who spoke of the need to revise literary reputations, in connection with which Pasternak was named the leader of the new poetic era. Bukharin's report was unexpected and therefore explosive. During the discussion of the report, the congress participants demonstrated both the difference in views on the history and future of Soviet literature, and the difference in temperaments. Sharp polemical speeches succeeded each other, general calm and a sense of belonging to a single union for a while

"The First Congress of Soviet Writers: Transcript. M., 1934. S. 548.

me disappeared. But the excitement in the hall soon passed, because everyone understood what a significant and solemn finale the congress was approaching.

The final words that were spoken at the congress and belonged to Gorky determined the literary life of the country for several decades: “In what way do I see the victory of Bolshevism at the congress of writers? In the fact that those of them who were considered non-Party, "waverers", admitted - with sincerity, the fullness of which I do not dare to doubt - recognized Bolshevism as the only militant guiding idea in creativity, in painting in a word.

On September 2, 1934, the First Plenum of the Board of the Union of Soviet Writers, elected at the All-Union Congress, took place. M. Gorky became the chairman of the board of the Union. Until the death of the writer in 1936, the literary life in the country passed under the sign of M. Gorky, who did extremely much to root the proletarian ideology in literature, to increase the prestige of Soviet literature in the world. Even before the final move to Moscow, M. Gorky becomes the initiator of the publication and editor of the journal Our Achievements, the yearbooks Year XVI, Year XVII, etc. (the year from the beginning of the revolution), large-scale publications History of Factories and Plants , "History of the Civil War" - with the involvement of a large number of authors who had no relation to the writing profession.

M. Gorky also publishes the journal "Literary Study", designed to conduct elementary consultations for newly-minted writers. Since M. Gorky attached great importance to children's literature, in parallel with the already existing children's magazines "Hedgehog", "Chizh", "Murzilka", "Pioneer", "Friendly Guys", "Bonfire", the magazine "Children's Literature" is also published, where literary critical articles are published, there are discussions about the books of A. Gaidar, L. Panteleev, B. Zhitkov, S. Marshak, K. Chukovsky.

Realizing himself as the organizer and inspirer of the new literary policy, M. Gorky actively participates in the literary-critical process. At the end of the 1920s, Gorky's articles were devoted to the study of his own writing experience: "To the Workers' Correspondents of Pravda", "Reader's Notes", "On How I Learned to Write", etc. In the 1930s, M. Gorky reflects on the specifics of the literary business ( “On Literature”, “On Literature and Other Things”, “On Prose”, “On Language”, “On Plays”), the newly discovered artistic method of proletarian literature (“On the Artistic Method of Soviet Literature”, “On the Union of Writers”, “On the preparation for the congress”) and, finally, emphasizes the connection between cultural construction and the fierce class struggle (“Who are you with, masters of culture?”, “About anecdotes and something else”). 300

M. Gorky enthusiastically follows the new things that are revealed to him in the Soviet country.

Absolutely confident that the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal is a socialist "reforging" of yesterday's thieves and bandits, M. Gorky organizes a numerous landing of writers who, under the editorship of a humanist writer, created a huge tome - a book about the White Sea-Baltic Canal, in which the work of the valiant employees of the GPU (Main Political Directorate, later known as the NKVD, MGB, KGB), re-educating the "canal army" was sung. M. Gorky, probably, had no idea about the force with which the machine for the suppression of dissent in the Soviet country was being spun. The Gorky Museum (in Moscow) stores the only newspaper issues published for Gorky, in which materials about the political processes that were blazing with might and main in the country were replaced by neutral journalistic reports about the latest successes in industry. Meanwhile, the all-round support that M. Gorky provided to Stalin was connected not only with the fact that M. Gorky was protected from real life in Moscow and in the country. The fact is that M. Gorky believed in the need for a radical improvement of man.

M. Gorky more than once said and wrote that he did not feel pity for suffering, and it seemed to him that the state built in Russia would be able to raise people who were not burdened with complexes of sympathy and mental confusion. M. Gorky publicly repented that in 1918-21 he helped the intelligentsia not to die of hunger. He liked to feel like a Soviet person involved in great and unprecedented achievements. That is why he found high-flown words, characterizing Stalin and considering him a "powerful figure." Probably, not everything in the words and deeds of Stalin and his associates suited Gorky, however, in the epistolary and journalistic confessions that have come down to us, negative assessments of the activities of the party and state structures are not presented.

So, after the union of writers into a single Union, after rallying them around a common aesthetic methodology, a literary era begins, in which writers were well aware that they must obey a certain program of creative and human behavior.

The rigid framework of the writer's life was regulated by vouchers to the Houses of Creativity, apartments in prestigious writers' houses, extraordinary publications in major publications and publishing houses, literary awards, career advancement in writers' organizations and - most importantly - trust, trust

parties and governments. Not to enter the Union or leave it, to be expelled from the Writers' Union - meant to lose the right to publish their works. The literary and literary hierarchy was erected on the model of the party-government hierarchy. What is socialist realism, knew literary theorists and literary critics, who created a huge number of works on this topic. When Stalin was asked what the essence of socialist realism was, he replied: "Write the truth, this will be socialist realism." Stalin's most famous literary-critical judgments were distinguished by such concise and peremptory formulations: "This thing is stronger than Goethe's Faust (love conquers death)" - about Gorky's fairy tale "The Girl and Death", "Mayakovsky was and remains the best, most talented poet of our Soviet epoch." Stalin met with writers more than once, giving guidance and evaluating novelties in literature, he saturated his speech with quotations and images from world classics. Stalin, in the role of a literary critic and critic, assumes the functions of a literary court in the last instance. Since the 1930s, a process of canonization of Lenin's literary ideas has also been outlined.

♦ * ♦

For twenty years - from the beginning of the 1930s to the beginning of the 1950s, Soviet literary criticism was represented mainly by reports and speeches, party resolutions and decrees. Literary criticism had the opportunity to realize its creative potential in the intervals from one party resolution to another, and therefore can rightly be called partyliterary criticism. Its essence and methodology were forged in speeches, speeches, articles and official documents, the authors of which were I. Stalin, A. Zhdanov, literary functionaries A. Shcherbakov, D. Polikarpov, A. Andreev and others. The main features of such literary criticism are rigid certainty and indisputable unambiguity of judgments, genre and style monotony, rejection of a “different” point of view - in other words, an ideological and aesthetic monologism.

Even writers' literary criticism, usually marked by traits of bright individuality, presents in these years examples of speeches and speeches that correspond to the general spirit of the times. Alecsandr alexandrovich fadeev(1901-1956), who worked in 1939-1944 as secretary of the Presidium of the Union of Soviet Writers, and from

From 1946 to 1953, he was the Secretary General of the Union, as a rule, he devoted his literary-critical speeches to the ties between literature and Soviet reality: “Literature and Life”, “Learning from Life”, “Going straight into life - loving life!” "In the study of life - the key to success." Such monotony of titles was dictated by the needs of the Stalin era: it was necessary to write and talk about the social role of literature. Declarativity was considered a necessary attribute of journalistic literary criticism.

Actively engaged in literary criticism and returned from exile Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy(1882-1945). Having defended in previous years the principle of apolitical art, Tolstoy began to speak and write actively about the partisan nature of literature. His articles are devoted to the innovative role of Soviet literature, the establishment of the principle of socialist realism.

Another type of literary-critical reflections is presented in the works Andrei Platonovich Platonov (Klimentov)(1899-1951). It still remains a mystery why such a subtle artist, an outstanding writer of the 20th century, the author of "The Pit" and "Chevengur", presented a number of examples of literary critical articles in which Pushkin is treated as "our comrade" in the meaningless rhetoric of Soviet prose. features of artistic romance are distinguished, and the work of Gogol and Dostoevsky is interpreted as "bourgeois" and "backward". V. Perkhin believes that the specificity of Platonov's criticism lies in his secret writing - part of Russian secret speech and opposition to censorship conditions 1 . The true literary and critical abilities of the writer can be judged by his deep interpretation of the poetry of A. Akhmatova.

This is probably just one of the explanations. Another, obviously, lies in the peculiarities of Platonic writing in general. The original tongue-tiedness of the heroes of Plato's prose, passed through the author's irony and creating an explosive mixture of a dangerous literary game, could not but influence Plato's critical prose. One more thing should be remembered: Platonov resorts to literary criticism during the years of "non-printing", and his "reflections of the reader" become critical assessments of one of the many proletarian readers who have become familiar with great literature. And the fact that he is one of many, “a man from the masses,” Platonov constantly emphasizes, conducting literary reviews as if on behalf of one of his literary heroes.

"See about it: Perkin V. Russian literary criticism of the 1930s: Criticism and public consciousness of the era. SPb., 1997.

Literary criticism itself has often been at the center of attention of literary criticism. At one of the plenums of the Board of the Writers' Union in 1935, a well-known representative of this profession, I. M. Bespalov, spoke about criticism. In this and subsequent reports on similar topics, one can find the same structural components, the same clichés and formulas. The reports on the state and tasks of Soviet literary criticism clearly define the following key problems: the question of criticism is more relevant than ever; literary criticism is an integral part of socialist culture; it is necessary to fight against the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people; it is necessary to rally around the party and avoid groupism; literature still lags behind life, and criticism behind literature; literary criticism must emphasize the partisanship and class character of literature.

A remarkable chronicler of literary life, V. Kaverin gives a fragment of the shorthand report "Dispute on Criticism". The meeting took place in the House of Writers. Mayakovsky in March 1939. Eternal competitors, writers from Moscow and Leningrad, gathered here to discuss the “critical section of Soviet literature” (K. Fedin). And again - general phrases about the high purpose of criticism, about courage and fantasy in literary critical work.

Keeping the general concept of speeches and articles devoted to the tasks of Soviet literary criticism, the authors made an adjustment for time. So, in the 1930s, they wrote about such an obligatory quality of literary criticism as revolutionary vigilance.

In the literary criticism of the 1930-40s, the most notable were the speeches of I. Bespalov, I. Troisky, B. Usievich, D. Lukach, N. Lesyuchevsky, A. Tarasenkov, L. Skorino, V. Ermilov, Z. Kedrina, B. .Brainina, I. Altman, V. Goffenschefer, M. Lifshits, E. Mustangova. Their articles and reviews determined the real state of literary life.

Literary criticism of the Stalin era, in its summary form, was an inexpressive ideological appendage to great literature, although against the general bleak background one could discern both interesting findings and accurate judgments.

Alexey Pavlovich Selivanovsky(1900-1938) began his literary-critical activity in the 1920s. He was one of the leaders of the RAPP, collaborated in the magazines "On a literary post" and "October". In the 1930s, Selivanovsky published the books Essays on the History of Russian Soviet Poetry (1936) and In Literary Battles (1936), and was published in the journal Literary Critic. Like other former Rappovites, Selivanovsky emphasized: “We

straightened out and is straightening out by the Party. His most famous works are “The Thirst for a New Man” (about A. Fadeev’s “Defeat”), “Cunning and Love of Zand” (about Y. Olesha), “The Laughter of Ilf and Petrov”, as well as articles about D. Bedny, N. Tikhonov, I. Selvinsky, V. Lugovsky. These and other works are written from the standpoint of socialist partisanship, the literary text is considered in them in the context of vulgar sociological convergence with reality. So, for example, the critic calls on the creators of Ostap Bender to strengthen the features of a class enemy in him, and Selivanovsky sees the pathos of Soviet literature in "the artistic affirmation of the system of socialist relations on earth." At the same time, Selivanovskii's literary-critical works reflect tendencies that are not characteristic of the era: this applies to articles on poetry.

Selivanovskii's assessments here run counter to generally accepted ones. He tries to understand the rhythm and phonetic neoplasms of Khlebnikov, seeks to understand the essence of acmeism (while naming the name of Gumilyov), wading through the terminological tie of the era (“poetry of late bourgeois classicism”, “imperialist poetry”, “poetry of political generalizations”), the critic expands the poetic field at the expense of names seemingly hopelessly lost by the era of the 1930s. Selivanovsky was repressed. Rehabilitated posthumously.

The Soviet period of activity of the former émigré writer also deserves attention. Dmitry Petrovich Mirsky (Svyatopol-ka)(1890-1939). In Soviet Russia in the 1930s, Mirsky published a number of articles and prefaces on foreign literature. He also owns articles about M. Sholokhov, N. Zabolotsky, E. Bagritsky, P. Vasiliev. Mirsky's articles and books stood out noticeably against the general literary-critical background: he was uninhibited in his judgments and often allowed himself assessments that did not coincide with those of semi-official criticism. Thus, Mirsky was convinced of the unity of Russian literature of the post-revolutionary period 2 . Despite the fact that the creative individuality of criticism absorbed a variety of currents and trends, the element of vulgar sociological reading of texts was quite strong in Mirsky's works. Mirsky was repressed. Rehabilitated posthumously.

Intervention and control of party bodies led, as a rule, to a deterioration in the literary and social situation. WITH

Selivanovsky A. in literary battles. M., 1959. S. 452. 2 See about this: Perkin V. Dmitry Svyatopolk-Mirsky // Russian literary criticism of the 1930s: Criticism and public consciousness of the era. SPb., 1997. S. 205-228.

In 1933, the monthly journal Literary Critic began to appear in the country, edited by P. F. Yudin, and later by M. M. Rozental. Of course, this magazine was also a publication of its era, far from always meeting the title. And yet, to a large extent, he filled the gaps in literary critical thought, since operational criticism - reviews, reviews, discussion articles - side by side here with more or less serious literary historical and literary theoretical works. As a result, the party decree of December 2, 1940 "On Literary Criticism and Bibliography" discontinued the publication of a one-of-a-kind magazine.

Even more sad in its consequences was the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of August 14, 1946 “On the magazines Zvezda and Leningrad”. This document, the discussion of the topic that preceded its appearance at the Orgburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and especially the report of A. Zhdanov at a meeting of writers in Leningrad, not only stopped the publication of the Leningrad magazine, but also contained shameless, insulting statements addressed to A. Akhmatova and M. Zoshchenko. After the publication of the Decree, both Akhmatova and Zoshchenko were essentially excommunicated from the literary and publishing process; they had to print only literary translations.

It was party literary criticism in its primordial, clearly unilinear expression. Party decisions were made about I. Selvinsky's play "Umka - the Polar Bear" (1937) and the play "House" by V. Kataev (1940), about the play "Snowstorm" by L. Leonov (1940), and "vol. Fadeev A.A.” (1940), about the magazine "October" (1943) and the magazine "Znamya" (1944). Vigilant party control over literature took the place of literary criticism. Proof of this is a relatively recently published collection of documents testifying to rampant party censorship 1 .

Literary controversy in these conditions seemed out of place. However, the rudiments of literary discussions survived. Thus, for example, between 1935 and 1940 there were discussions about formalism and vulgar sociologism. In fact, these turned out to be echoes of the disputes of the 1920s, and the main actors - supporters of the formal school and representatives of sociological literary criticism - were given another, this time - the last - battle. Considering that 90% of writers who joined the Union of Soviet Writers in 1934, by 1937-1938. was repressed, one can understand that the discussions of the late 1930s were organized from above and proceeded

The Literary Front: A History of Political Censorship: 1932-1946 M., 1994.306

extremely sluggish. If in the 1920s a “guilty” critic could lose the trust of his party comrades, then in the 1930s he lost his life. On this occasion, the character of Bulgakov's novel Azazello said to Margarita: "It's one thing to hit Latunsky's critic with a hammer and quite another thing - in his heart."

After the end of the publication of The Quiet Flows the Don by M. Sholokhov, literary criticism suddenly stirred up, and responses appeared in which Sholokhov was reproached for the wrong end of the epic, that the writer had crushed the image of Melekhov. There were short discussions about historical romance, about the prose of N. Ostrovsky and D. Furmanov.

During the Great Patriotic War, the attention of the party and government to literary criticism was weakened, and it did not give its own bright shoots. Another effort to "improve the quality" of literary criticism was made in 1947, when A. A. Fadeev spoke and wrote about its state and tasks. To general discussions, Fadeev added the idea that socialist realism may well include romantic elements. Fadeev supported Vladimir Vladimirovich Ermilov(1904-1965), the author of a phrase that was remembered by contemporaries, in which N. Chernyshevsky’s formula was only “slightly” altered: “beautiful is our life".

Written with flashy brilliance and heightened expressiveness, V. Ermilov, a literary scholar and literary critic, began his performances as early as the 1920s and became infamous in the 1930s and 1940s. Yermilov has always remained one of the most notable odious figures in Soviet literary life. He was an indispensable active participant in all literary and party discussions of different decades. A long-liver of Soviet literary criticism, V. Yermilov has come a long way in journalism. In 1926-29, he edited the Rappov magazine "Young Guard", in 1932-38 he headed the editorial office of Krasnaya Nov, in 1946-50, Literaturnaya Gazeta was published under his leadership. Despite the fact that Ermilov was a member of the Rappov leadership, he easily abandoned the ideological aspirations of this organization and in the 1930s focused on monographic studies of the work of M. Koltsov, M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky. In different years, from a opportunistic-dogmatic position, he spoke sharply about the prose of I. Ilf and Evg. Petrov, K. Paustovsky, about the poetry of A. Tvardovsky and L. Martynov, about the dramaturgy of V. Grossman.

In] 936, in the book "Gorky's Dream", written immediately after the writer's death, Yermilov proved the absolute connection between M. Gorky's work and the ideas of victorious socialism. At the end of the book, the critic analyzed in detail the merits of the Stalinist constitution, which, according to Yermilov, became a kind of apotheosis of Gorky's ideas.

In the 1940s, Yermilov was the author of a number of articles in which the idea of ​​the writer's and critic's party responsibility was rigidly declared. According to Yermilov, the literature of socialist realism can be considered the most democratic literature in the world. The suspicious "trends" that emerged in the work of Zoshchenko and Akhmatova are, of course, "deeply hostile to Soviet democracy."

Yermilov fought tirelessly against "political irresponsibility" and "decadence", against "mystical distortion of reality" and "pessimism", against "rotten scholasticism" and "theorists" "preaching Tolstoy's self-improvement". He was one of the creators of the tendentious and crackling literary-critical phraseology, diligently replicated in the 1930s and 50s. From the titles of Ermilov’s works alone, one can easily imagine what prohibitive pathos they were permeated with: “Against Menshevism in Literary Criticism”, “Against Reactionary Ideas in the Works of F. M. Dostoevsky”, “On a False Understanding of Traditions”, “A Harmful Play”, “The slanderous story of A. Platonov”, etc. Yermilov proclaimed literary works as a weapon necessary to protect “genuine partisanship” in art.

Yermilov enthusiastically supported the idea of ​​A. Zhdanov, expressed by him at the First Congress of Writers, that socialist realism should be a method not only of Soviet literature, but also of Soviet criticism. Yermilov played his part in the fight against "cosmopolitanism" - in the ruthless state action of the late 1940s. He announced the names of "cosmopolitan" writers who allowed themselves to see in Russian literature the artistic influences of world classics.

In the 1950s and 60s, Ermilov focused on historical and literary research, most of which he devoted to A. Chekho-

Cm.: Ermilov V, The World's Most Democratic Literature: Articles 1946-1947. M., 1947.

woo. Meanwhile, Yermilov attached considerable importance to literary and critical work. After the 20th Party Congress, in accordance with new trends, the critic began to write more freely, more relaxed, he approached the artistic text and began to pay attention to its poetic structure. 1 However, Yermilov remained true to himself and introduced endless references to party documents into the corpus of his articles, trusting, first of all, a timely expressed political idea, and not a literary and artistic discovery. In the 1960s, Yermilov the critic lost his former influence, and his articles were perceived as ordinary phenomena of a turbulent literary process that attracted the attention of readers with completely different names and artistic ideas.

V. Mayakovsky forever “introduced” Yermilov into the history of literature, having mentioned the critic with an unkind word in his suicide letter, and before that he composed one of the slogans for the play “Banya”:

do not evaporate

swarm of bureaucrats. Not enough baths

and no soap for you. And also

bureaucrats

helps pen critics -

like Ermilov ...

In 1949, a "struggle against cosmopolitanism" began in the country. In the sections of the Writers' Union, another wave of severe studies took place. The writers, of necessity, repented, and literary critics concentrated around the next "positive" facts, which manifested themselves in defiantly semi-official, reptilian literature. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Soviet literary criticism was dying. She was forced to “take into service” the theory of non-conflict known for its demagogic frankness. Criticism, like literature, went around sharp corners, joyfully, with cloying jubilation, welcoming the appearance of literary works, the very name of which was intended to inspire pride and optimism. The writers painfully agreed to the alteration of what was written. class

"See, for example: Ermilov V. Connection of times: On the traditions of Soviet literature. M., 1964.

A classic example of tragic lack of will is A. Fadeev's reworking of the novel The Young Guard. Literary critics hostilely accepted honest literature - books that ran counter to the general mood. Negative reviews appeared about the poems of A. Tvardovsky, the novels of V. Grossman "For a Just Cause" and V. Nekrasov "In the Trenches of Stalingrad", novels and stories by V. Panova. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Soviet literary criticism was going through a severe crisis.

The organization is incomparably more massive than the notorious RAAP - Russian Association of Proletarian Writers, dispersed in 1932. RAPP divided all writers into proletarians and fellow travelers, assigning the latter a purely technical role: they can teach the proletarians formal skills and go either to be melted down, that is, to production, or to be reforged, that is, to labor camps. Stalin focused precisely on fellow travelers, because the course towards the restoration of the empire - with the oblivion of all international and ultra-revolutionary slogans of the twenties - was already obvious. Fellow travelers - writers of the old school, who recognized the Bolsheviks precisely because only they were able to keep Russia from disintegration and save it from occupation - perked up.

A new writers' union was required - on the one hand, something like a trade union dealing with apartments, cars, dachas, treatment, resorts, and on the other, an intermediary between an ordinary writer and a party customer. Gorky was organizing this union throughout 1933.

From August 17 to 31, in the Hall of Columns of the former Assembly of the Nobility, and now the House of Unions, his first congress was held. The main speaker was Bukharin, whose attitude towards culture, technology and some pluralism was well known; his appointment as the main speaker of the congress indicated a clear liberalization of literary policy. Gorky took the floor several times, mainly in order to emphasize again and again: we still do not know how to show a new person, he is not convincing with us, we do not know how to talk about achievements! He was particularly delighted by the presence at the congress of the national poet Suleiman Stalsky, a Dagestan ashug in a worn robe, in a gray shabby hat. Gorky took a picture with him - he and Stalsky were the same age; in general, during the congress, Gorky very intensively filmed with his guests, old workers, young paratroopers, metro builders (almost did not pose with the writers, there was his own principled installation).

Separately, it is worth mentioning the attacks on Mayakovsky, which sounded in Gorky's speech: he condemned the already dead Mayakovsky for his dangerous influence, for the lack of realism, the excess of hyperbole - apparently, Gorky's enmity towards him was not personal, but ideological.

The first congress of writers was widely and enthusiastically covered in the press, and Gorky had every reason to be proud of his long-standing plan - to create a writers' organization that would tell writers how and what to do, and along the way would provide for their life. In Gorky's own letters during these years, there is a sea of ​​plans, advice that he distributes with the generosity of a sower: write a book about how people make the weather! The history of religions and the church's predatory attitude towards the flock! The history of the literature of small peoples! Few, few writers rejoice, it is necessary to be more cheerful, brighter, more reckless! This constant call to joy can be understood in two ways. Maybe he was talking about his own horror of what was happening - but in none of his essays of this time there is a shadow of horror, not even doubts about the unconditional triumph of justice in the vastness of the Union of Soviets. One delight. So another reason, probably, is that the literature of the thirties never learned to lie with talent - and if it did, then it was very mediocre; Gorky was sincerely perplexed when he saw this. He was, oddly enough, extremely far from the life that most Russian writers lived, not to mention the people they wrote about; his ideas about this life were drawn mainly from newspapers, and his mail, apparently, was strictly controlled by the secretary we already knew

"... a voluntary public creative organization that unites professional writers of the Soviet Union, participating with their creativity in the struggle for the construction of communism, for social progress, for peace and friendship between peoples" [Charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR, see "Information Bulletin of the Secretariat of the Board of the Writers' Union of the USSR ”, 1971, No. 7(55), p. 9]. Before the creation of the joint venture of the USSR, owls. writers were members of various literary organizations: RAPP, LEF, "Pass" , The Union of Peasant Writers, etc. On April 23, 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decided “...to unite all writers who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction into a single union of Soviet writers with a communist faction in it” (“On the Party and Soviet press", Collection of documents, 1954, p. 431). 1st All-Union Congress of Soviets. writers (August 1934) adopted the charter of the Writers' Union of the USSR, in which he defined socialist realism (See socialist realism) as the main method of Sov. literature and literary criticism. At all stages of the history of the Sov. countries of the joint venture of the USSR under the leadership of the CPSU took an active part in the struggle for the creation of a new society. During the Great Patriotic War, hundreds of writers voluntarily went to the front, fought in the ranks of the Soviets. Army and Navy, worked as war correspondents for divisional, army, front and navy newspapers; 962 writers were awarded military orders and medals, 417 died the death of the brave.

In 1934, the SP of the USSR included 2,500 writers, now (as of March 1, 1976) - 7,833, writing in 76 languages; among them 1097 women. including 2839 prose writers, 2661 poets, 425 playwrights and film writers, 1072 critics and literary critics, 463 translators, 253 children's writers, 104 essay writers, 16 folklorists. The supreme body of the Writers' Union of the USSR - the All-Union Congress of Writers (2nd congress in 1954, 3rd in 1959, 4th in 1967, 5th in 1971) - elects the board, which forms the secretariat, which forms the bureau of the secretariat to resolve everyday issues. The Board of the USSR Writers' Union in 1934-36 was headed by M. Gorky, who played an outstanding role in its creation and ideological and organizational strengthening, then at different times V. P. Stavsky A. A. Fadeev, A. A. Surkov now - K. A. Fedin (Chairman of the Board, since 1971) , G. M. Markov (1st Secretary, since 1971). Under the board there are councils for the literature of the union republics, for literary criticism, for essays and journalism, for drama and theater, for children's and youth literature, for literary translation, for international writers' relations, etc. The structure of the unions of writers of the union and autonomous republics is similar; In the RSFSR and some other Union republics, there are regional and regional writers' organizations. The system of the USSR Writers' Union publishes 15 literary newspapers in 14 languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR and 86 literary, artistic and socio-political journals in 45 languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR and 5 foreign languages, including the organs of the Writers' Union of the USSR: "Literaturnaya Gazeta", magazines "New World" , "Banner", "Friendship of Peoples", "Questions of Literature", "Literary Review", "Children's Literature", "Foreign Literature", "Youth", "Soviet Literature" (published in foreign languages), "Theater", " Soviet Motherland” (published in Hebrew), “Star”, “Bonfire”. Under the jurisdiction of the Board of the Writers' Union of the USSR are the publishing house "Soviet Writer", the Literary Institute. M. Gorky, Literary consultation for novice authors, Literary Fund USSR, All-Union Bureau of Fiction Propaganda, Central House of Writers. A. A. Fadeev in Moscow, etc. Directing the activities of writers to create works of a high ideological and artistic level, the Writers' Union of the USSR provides them with various assistance: organizes creative business trips, discussions, seminars, etc., protects the economic and legal interests of writers. The Writers' Union of the USSR develops and strengthens creative ties with foreign writers, represents Sov. literature in international writers' organizations. Awarded the Order of Lenin (1967).

Lit.; Gorky M., On literature, M., 1961: Fadeev A., For thirty years, M., Creative unions in the USSR. (Organizational and legal issues), M., 1970.

• - USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics State that existed in 1922–1991 on the territory of modern countries: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, ...

  Russia. Linguistic Dictionary

• - Leningrad organization, creative society, organization of cinematographers of Leningrad ...

  St. Petersburg (encyclopedia)

• - Sverdl. region org-tion. Arose after the Citi...

  Yekaterinburg (encyclopedia)

• - ALL-RUSSIAN UNION OF WRITERS - see Unions of Writers ...

  Literary Encyclopedia

• - - social creative. an organization that unites composers and musicologists of the USSR, actively participating in the development of owls. music lawsuit. The main tasks of the CK of the USSR are to contribute to the creation of highly ideological ...

  Music Encyclopedia

• - was founded at the beginning of 1897. It aims to unite Russian writers on the basis of their professional interests, to establish constant communication between them and to protect good morals among the press ...
• - see Mutual Aid Union of Russian Writers...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• is a creative public organization uniting architects. Created in 1932 on the basis of the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of April 23, 1932 "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations" ...
• - voluntary creative public organization of owls. professional workers of periodicals, television, radio broadcasting, news agencies, publishing houses ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - a public creative organization that unites cinematographers ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - public creative organization uniting composers and musicologists of the USSR. Created in 1932 by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of April 23, 1932 "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations" ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - creative public organization uniting owls. artists and art critics...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Komsomol is an amateur public organization that unites in its ranks the broad masses of progressive Soviet youth. The Komsomol is an active assistant and reserve of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - creative public organization of professional Soviet writers ...

  Big encyclopedic dictionary

• - Razg. Shuttle. Transfer hub of Chekhovskaya, Gorkovskaya and Pushkinskaya metro stations in Moscow. Elistratov 1994, 443...

  Big dictionary of Russian sayings

• - Union of Writers, m. Own. Interchange hub of Chekhovskaya, Gorkovskaya and Pushkinskaya metro stations...

  Dictionary of Russian Argo

"Union of Writers of the USSR" in books

Joining the Writers' Union