Dark literature
I remember that in the first and second classes I had 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 it was right. And that's why. Everything is very, very simple - drumming in the knowledge of the national anthem in which you live was part of patriotic education, which is not present at all now.
So the hymn is in the first and second grade, and on every notebook in the Russian language it’s good. What else? Pushkin in all classes with his fairy tales-poems-captain-daughters-eugene-onegin-peak-ladies - is that good? Of course! This is much better than teaching, say, Trediakovsky or Sumarokov (at least you need to know them — not bad either, but learning their poems ...). And also because Pushkin was the first to write in Russian and accessible.
I didn’t study well at school, which I regret now, I’m very sorry, because I didn’t read much on the program - more and more devoted to fantasy and fantasy, which I don’t read at all now. Strange, right? Now it seems to me a big omission that I did not finish reading “Crime and Punishment”, “War and Peace” or “Quiet Don”. These are large and difficult works, and I leave the question of how the students understand the problems hidden in them. Not everyone will understand Dostoevsky, agree.
Platonov's “Pit” and Zamyatin's “We” - I simplycould not read them because of the strange new Soviet language. But now the Pit seems to me the best that could be in the school on Soviet literature - and the hidden satire, and the truth (after all, how many such ideas, as with the pit, arose at the dawn of Soviet power ??). Zamyatin, he went even further - showed the totalitarian system in all its “glory” (well, of course, Zamyatin - well, Orwell is yes, anti-utopia).
But in the Soviet literature were and remain absurd things. "Small Earth", "Revival", "Virginia" - a gloomy literature? Maybe gloomy, I was lucky, but Brezhnev we did not go to school. And it seems to me that at that time Brezhnev at school was just a popularization of a book for the sake of the author (after all, everyone knew the general secretary, but not everyone loved, and who in their right mind would read his books?). And to call Leonid Ilyich a writer somehow doesn’t turn a language ...
But Brezhnev is not all Soviet literature. There were also Tvardovsky, Solzhenitsyn, Dovlatov, Shalamov, Sholokhov, Yevtushenko, Mayakovsky, the same Bulgakov, Pasternak, Tsvetaeva, Blok, finally, and many others ... Only not all of them took place at school under Soviet rule. Only now (well, the concept is, you know, loose, somewhere from 1986 to 2006) began to appear names that were forbidden under that authority. And not all of them have light works ...
Yes, and what to mean by gloom? What did they write about, or how was it written? Things are quite different, and rather slippery. Views, age, education, level of education - we are all different and in our own way appreciate any artistic work. But we appreciate, and therefore read. Both Soviet and Russian, and both of them have become classics for a long time. But modern literature - what's wrong with it? Gloomy or what?
Then the literature worked for the state and for the party, brought up the right citizens, thinking the same way and as it should. Does literature now do anything? Yes, entertains. Therefore, read. Therefore, many do not care who they choose and for whom they vote. Literature now does not serve the state, which is why there is no positive in modern books, everything there is black and gray, all the dirt and debauchery are a reflection of everydayness and reality. Just one simple statement, no thought or ideology, no motive for thought or action ... is grim.
And concluding the note, I want to say that Soviet literature is a phenomenon that was not found 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 with the Nazis in Germany, German literature remained, but in the USSR there was Russian and Soviet literature. So the Soviet classics can be respected at least for this.
On the origins of the note and its more complete version - Five pages on ...
So the hymn is in the first and second grade, and on every notebook in the Russian language it’s good. What else? Pushkin in all classes with his fairy tales-poems-captain-daughters-eugene-onegin-peak-ladies - is that good? Of course! This is much better than teaching, say, Trediakovsky or Sumarokov (at least you need to know them — not bad either, but learning their poems ...). And also because Pushkin was the first to write in Russian and accessible.
I didn’t study well at school, which I regret now, I’m very sorry, because I didn’t read much on the program - more and more devoted to fantasy and fantasy, which I don’t read at all now. Strange, right? Now it seems to me a big omission that I did not finish reading “Crime and Punishment”, “War and Peace” or “Quiet Don”. These are large and difficult works, and I leave the question of how the students understand the problems hidden in them. Not everyone will understand Dostoevsky, agree.
Platonov's “Pit” and Zamyatin's “We” - I simply
But in the Soviet literature were and remain absurd things. "Small Earth", "Revival", "Virginia" - a gloomy literature? Maybe gloomy, I was lucky, but Brezhnev we did not go to school. And it seems to me that at that time Brezhnev at school was just a popularization of a book for the sake of the author (after all, everyone knew the general secretary, but not everyone loved, and who in their right mind would read his books?). And to call Leonid Ilyich a writer somehow doesn’t turn a language ...
But Brezhnev is not all Soviet literature. There were also Tvardovsky, Solzhenitsyn, Dovlatov, Shalamov, Sholokhov, Yevtushenko, Mayakovsky, the same Bulgakov, Pasternak, Tsvetaeva, Blok, finally, and many others ... Only not all of them took place at school under Soviet rule. Only now (well, the concept is, you know, loose, somewhere from 1986 to 2006) began to appear names that were forbidden under that authority. And not all of them have light works ...
Yes, and what to mean by gloom? What did they write about, or how was it written? Things are quite different, and rather slippery. Views, age, education, level of education - we are all different and in our own way appreciate any artistic work. But we appreciate, and therefore read. Both Soviet and Russian, and both of them have become classics for a long time. But modern literature - what's wrong with it? Gloomy or what?
Then the literature worked for the state and for the party, brought up the right citizens, thinking the same way and as it should. Does literature now do anything? Yes, entertains. Therefore, read. Therefore, many do not care who they choose and for whom they vote. Literature now does not serve the state, which is why there is no positive in modern books, everything there is black and gray, all the dirt and debauchery are a reflection of everydayness and reality. Just one simple statement, no thought or ideology, no motive for thought or action ... is grim.
And concluding the note, I want to say that Soviet literature is a phenomenon that was not found 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 with the Nazis in Germany, German literature remained, but in the USSR there was Russian and Soviet literature. So the Soviet classics can be respected at least for this.
On the origins of the note and its more complete version - Five pages on ...
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1010/
All Articles