... they are still alive today

"Thick" magazines are literary monthly magazines, in which novelties of literature were published in separate volumes before publication.

In the USSR, “thick” magazines included Novy Mir, Oktyabr, Znamya, Neva, Moscow, Our Contemporary, Friendship of Peoples, Foreign Literature, Siberian Lights, Ural", "Star", "Don", "Volga" to some extent "Youth", although it was thinner than the others. These magazines were published in A1 format. There were also small-format "thick" magazines "Aurora", "Young Guard", "Change".

"Thick" magazines should not be confused with the rest. There were also quite a few of them in the Soviet Union: “Worker”, “Peasant Woman”, “Crocodile”, “Spark”, “Soviet Union”. They came out in different ways: once a month or weekly.

There were magazines for interests and for different ages: “Around the World”, “Young Technician”, “Young Naturalist”, “Bonfire”, “Pioneer”, “Science and Religion”, “Science and Life”, “Technology of Youth”, “ Knowledge is Power”, “Chemistry and Life”, “Health”, “Sport Games”, “Driving”, “Journalist”.

• "Banner"
• "Moscow"
• "October"
• "Foreign literature"
• "Youth"

in 1962, under the editorship of Tvardovsky, he published the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and three stories “Matryonin Dvor”, “The Incident at the Krechetovka Station”, “For the Good of the Cause” by A. Solzhenitsyn

IN "October" the story "The Sad Detective" by V. Astafyev and the novel by A. Rybakov "Heavy Sand" were published. There were works by A. Adamovich, B. Akhmadulina, G. Baklanov, B. Vasiliev, A. Voznesensky, F. Iskander, Yu. Moritz, Yu. Nagibin, V. Mayakovsky, A. Platonov, S. Yesenin, Yu. Olesha, M. Zoshchenko, M. Prishvin, A. Gaidar, K. Paustovsky. L. Feuchtwanger, V. Bredel, R. Rolland, A. Barbusse, T. Dreiser, M. Andersen-Nexo, G. Mann.

IN "Banner" were published "The Fall of Paris" by I. Ehrenburg, "Zoya" by M. Aliger, "Son" by P. Antokolsky, "The Young Guard" by A. Fadeev, "In the Trenches of Stalingrad" by V. Nekrasov, military prose by Grossman, Kazakevich. In the poetic works of B. Pasternak, A. Akhmatova, A. Voznesensky. In the first years of perestroika, Znamya returned to the reader the forgotten and forbidden works of M. Bulgakov, E. Zamyatin, A. Platonov, and published A. Sakharov's Memoirs.

IN "Neva" published according to Wikipedia D. Granin, the Strugatsky brothers, L. Gumilyov, L. Chukovskaya, V. Konetsky, V. Kaverin, V. Dudintsev, V. Bykov.
Neva introduced readers to Robert Conquest's The Great Terror and Arthur Koestler's novel Blinding Darkness.

IN "Youth" V. Aksenov, D. Rubina, A. Aleksin, A. Gladilin, V. Rozov, A. Yashin, N. Tikhonov, A. Voznesensky, B. Okudzhava, B. Akhmadulina were published.
A. Kuznetsov published his novel Babi Yar.

Modern circulations of "Tolstoy" magazines

It was very difficult to get "thick" magazines in the Soviet Union. Subscribe to them was carried out only by pull (although the circulation of "Youth" exceeded three million copies), if they were received in the kiosks of "Soyuzpechat" they were in a minimal amount. Libraries were available only in reading rooms. Today in Russia I don’t want to read, you can subscribe to anyone, but everyone has scanty circulations: in Novy Mir there are 7200 copies, in Oktyabr and Znamya there are less than 5000, in Friendship of Peoples - 3000.

Govorukhina Yu. Russian literary criticism at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries

Mastering the literary practice of the turn of the century in the journals Novy Mir, Znamya, Oktyabr

The third block of articles that we single out is united by a common object - fiction. The most numerous, it is represented by articles devoted to one work/author, a discovered trend, and the literary situation as a whole. This point allows you to determine the predominant perspective preference of a particular journal. Criticism of The Banner confirms the idea of ​​S. Chuprinin and I. Rodnyanskaya that literary criticism is moving away from detailed analyzes of individual works of art. Of the considered group of articles of the "Banner" (55 articles) are devoted to one work - 0; a group of works - 7 (four out of seven were written in the first half of the 1990s); consideration of a particular trend, accompanied by an appeal to works of art as an illustration - 21; articles of a review type, in which, as a rule, works are only named, are combined into groups - 19. In the "New World" of the 48 articles reviewed, they are devoted to one work - 9; a group of works - 7; trends - 26; articles of a review type - 6. Out of 47 articles in the journal "Oktyabr" are devoted to one work - 21; a group of works - 3; trends - 11; review articles - 12.
Thus, in the 1990s, criticism of Znamya and Novy Mir was dominated by a broad perspective on literary practice. It cannot be said that criticism is moving from being specific to being problematic; a problematic article was a rarity in the 1990s. Literary practice in the 1990s is represented by a large number of texts, moreover, criticism turns its attention to mass literature, and therefore does not feel a shortage of material for "careful reading". The reason for the enlargement of the perspective lies in the field of epistemology and in the communicative situation in which criticism functions. Expanded interpretations of a single work, in which the critic would follow the text, are replaced by (self-)reflection. In the articles of the 1990s, the critic is in an initially "free" position from the text. Self-affirming in the role of an analyst, standing above specific texts (which allows one to go to the construction of a typology), the critic subordinates literary material to his “question”.
"October" is more "attentive" to a particular text/author. One of the reasons for the above quantitative difference compared to other journals is, in our opinion, the professional status and interests of critics. Reflections on individual texts are written for the most part either by writers (O. Slavnikova, B. Kolymagin, Yu. Orlitsky, A. Naiman, O. Pavlov, etc.), or literary critics, whose professional interests do not imply a wide coverage of modern literary reality or whose the experience of literary critical activity is small (for example, L. Batkin).
The literary-critical material of this block made it possible to draw a conclusion about the reorientation of the function of criticism taking place in the 1990s. The new function is not formulated directly in the articles (the loss of the former is clearly stated), but can be reconstructed. The crisis of self-identification explains the activity of self-reflection of criticism, the actualization of the study of the consciousness of a modern person, the appeal to literary works as options for the author's (self) understanding, their assessment in terms of depth / truth / adequacy of (self) interpretation, from the point of view of the presence of "answers". In the works of this group, the content aspect of criticism is more interesting than the artistic one. The interpretation here takes the form of isolating the “answer” from the artistic structure (in the form of an idea, a life guide, the fate of the hero as a possible variant of conscious, (un)true being). The appeal to a literary text as a variant of the "answer" is especially typical for articles written within the framework of the third strategy and chronologically related to the second half of the 1990s. They show increased attention of the critic to the author and his characters, their psychological state, worldview and (self)understanding. Significant in this context is the remark that A. Nemzer makes in the part of the article that is devoted to the interpretation of the storyline of the hero of the novel by A. Slapovsky “The Questionnaire”: “So the knowledge of the world (and everything is mixed in it) is intertwined with the knowledge of oneself. Thus, adaptation to the world draws out unexpected passions, thoughts, spiritual aspirations. From the entire possible content continuum of a work, the critic singles out only that layer that “reacts”/corresponds to his question. It is no coincidence that A. Nemzer’s reaction to the finale of I. Polyanskaya’s “Passing the Shadow”: “It seems to me that the Prehistory of such a powerful sound urgently requires History, semantic resolution, a response to the openness that was given to the heroine with torment many years ago” . In other words, A. Nemzer lacks an "answer". A kind of process of getting used to the life situation of the crisis of identification is observed by N. Ivanova in the article “After. Post-Soviet Literature in Search of a New Identity” (“Znamya”, 1996, no. 4). The entire article presents the experience of getting used to the fate of Iskander, Kim, Aitmatov, an analysis of those attempts at identification (in other words: answer options) that writers make.
The critic is in an epistemological situation similar to many readers, when it is necessary to know the world and oneself without relying on ideology, on the “crutches” of myths. In this situation, critical texts focused on the question “who am I?”, presenting answers to this question, reflecting and comprehending (self-)interpretive processes in society (and in literature), turn out to be guidelines for the non-professional reader, teaching not to live, but to understand /interpret. This, in our opinion, is the functional essence of the criticism of the 1990s.
The “question” of criticism determines that aspect of the analysis and that meaningful plan of the text that will be updated. For criticism of the turn of the century, the following is significant: “What are the ways of survival / existence / presence of literature in a situation of crisis / turning point / end?” . This “question”, in our opinion, correlates with the invariant one that determines the (self)interpretive efforts of the criticism of the 1990s - “What am I?”. Criticism is interested in the moment of (self-)identification of literature, which is in circumstances similar to literary criticism. For criticism, the experience of literature is, first of all, a possible answer to that existential "question" that is more relevant than ever in the 1990s. This "question" determines the angle of the literary-critical view of the literary situation. The answers that literature gives (in accordance with the vision of the “Banner” criticism) can be grouped according to survival strategies: adaptation of successful strategies (masslit, literary movements that survived the crisis cultural stage (Silver Age period); avoidance of a reality associated with a crisis ( mysticism, grotesque, postmodern relativism); search for new forms of self-presentation, hidden language reserves (in poetry); understanding of the renewed reality, dialogue with chaos. Criticism of the "New World" presents other options: the search and approval of spiritual bonds, value orientations; assertion of the need return from sociocentrism to the individual; active overcoming of the negative / unpromising experience of the generation; appeal to the experience of classical literature, its optics.
In the literary criticism of "October" there is no sharp reflection of the situation of the crisis, the posing of existential questions, the orientation towards the search for successful literary and literary-critical strategies. In most of the works published here, this or that literary phenomenon is singled out from the literary series, its specificity is revealed (while the criticism of Novy Mir and Znamya is set to search for trends, typologies). At the same time, the criticism of "October" (mainly 1995-1997) is also focused on proofreading in literary texts and understanding existential, ontological problems that make it possible to explore the psychology and mental characteristics of a contemporary.
In contrast to Znamya, Novy Mir and Oktyabr are more analytical, focused on the development of literary life as such, for them, in addition to the existentially filled question, another one is more relevant - “What is ...?”. The specifics of male/female prose, postmodernism, median prose, post-realism, amateurish poetry, historical and philological novel, etc., become the subject of separate articles by critics.
If in the first half of the 1990s criticism turned to existentially neutral literary phenomena (successful writing strategies, new literary phenomena generated by new literary circumstances), then in the second half it singled out crisis manifestations. So, in the Znamya of the second half of the 1990s, only two articles are published outside of existential issues, written within the framework of the research direction set by the journal itself - the development of masslit. There are only 9 such works in Novy Mir. Criticism is no longer interested in ways to overcome the crisis, but in the forms of “presence” of the phenomena of literary existence.
Articles in the block under consideration, published in Znamya and Oktyabr over the course of a decade, dramatically change the type of analytical tactics used. In the first half of the 1990s, this or that literary phenomenon is compared with a similar one in the history of literature or with a modern phenomenon belonging to an “alien” aesthetic tradition (traditions of mass culture, for example). In this case, the literary tradition, already assimilated, plays the role of a kind of assistant, the very experience of its comprehension is used as a starting point. At the end of 1995, in The Banner, this tactic abruptly ends, and all subsequent articles are a critical study of the actual literary phenomenon without explanatory analogies. In this change of tactics, we see the result of the already observed reorientation of criticism in the second half of the 1990s to existential issues, acutely experienced as “their own” “here and now”, as well as an orientation towards settling in, understanding the new circumstances of functioning.
Another trend is manifested in the criticism of Novy Mir. There is no sudden change of tactics here. Both tactics are used equally in the first and second half of the decade (the principle of analogy is fixed in 8 out of 15 articles written in the first half of the 1990s, and in 14 out of 31 articles written in the second half of the 1990s). ). Such a statistical difference compared to Znamya can be explained, firstly, by the general focus of the journal on mastering the changed and changing literary environment (as one of the ways of self-identification), and secondly, by the retrospective type of critical thinking characteristic of Novy Mir ".
Let's compare articles that have the same subject - the loss and the search for reality in fiction, but published in different journals, in order to get an idea of ​​​​the difference in understanding the named subject.
K. Stepanyan's article "Realism as Salvation from Dreams" is traditionally divided into three parts; the first and third are the author's reflection on the questions about the idea of ​​reality in the mass consciousness, about the loss of a sense of the real as a general cultural mental problem, and the search for a stable center of the world. An appeal to the works of art by V. Pelevin and Y. Buida is also accompanied by the inclusion of fragments of the author's reflections, associations. Reflection on the text turns out to be more significant than the actual reflection on the text. In the articles by T. Kasatkina “In Search of the Lost Reality”, I. Rodnyanskaya “This world is not invented by us”, there are not so many author's digressions, and they are interspersed in the text of the interpretation.
The problem of feeling the loss of reality is comprehended by K. Stepanyan as mental, existential, as a product of the modern socio-cultural situation (“The concept of reality in general has become one of the most uncertain in our time<…>Involuntarily, a more or less thinking person may have a suspicion: if there are so many realities, then maybe there is no one, the only one?<...>one or another solution to it [the problem of reality, the truth of what is happening - Yu. G.] determines all our behavior in the world"). The critic sees its causes in the visualization of modern culture, in the circumstances of the de-ideologization / de-mythologization of society, the plurality of authoritative points of view on some events in modern democratic society. K. Stepanyan comprehends the problem of the loss of reality as an actual "here and now", psychologically felt by everyone.
We find another understanding of the same subject in the articles of Novy Mir. T. Kasatkina is interested in the problem of reality in its literary interpretation. A person who becomes "a being not adapted for any meeting, a being afraid of the independent life of his dreams", a person who acquires "a taste for limiting reality within himself" - this is, first of all, about the hero and about the artistic construction of the relationship "hero - reality" . For a critic, the theme of reality in its artistic projection is existentially significant. It is no coincidence that the reasons for the break with reality are sought by T. Kasatkina in the history of literature: “Where is the beginning (in any case, the obvious, nearest beginning) of this path? It seems that where they traditionally see the pinnacle of realism in literature. Psychologism, which so powerfully overwhelmed literature in the 19th century, turned out to be the first step away from reality. Instead of reality, they began to describe the perception of reality by the character, ”and the whole history after the 19th century is conceived as a search for reality. Modern literature, according to the critic, is still far from being acquired; it shows the life of the real world “as it is seen from within the main character, almost without any adjustments, without any criteria of adequacy. Now they all exist no longer in the flesh, but as shadows of his perception, the world blurs, acquires the features of unreality. I. Rodnyanskaya comprehends the problem of reality on the material of V. Pelevin's novel "Generation 'P'", explaining her choice in this way: V. Pelevin's work is one of "explaining what is happening to us." I have always been concerned about this area of ​​meanings, I am writing about it far from the first and, perhaps, not the last time, this is one of the through lines of my literary life. The moment of the illusory nature of reality, therefore, is thought by the critic as relevant for "all of us", included in the realm of the mental. In addition, I. Rodnyanskaya herself writes that the question of reality: illusion and reality is ontological (“The point, however, is that the problem of the “end of reality” cannot be reduced to purely social facts of manipulating people’s consciousness. This is an ontological problem”). The critic perceives Pelevin's text not as a text for "infants" and "tops", but as a work with modern ontological overtones. Thus, if K. Stepanyan, in addressing the problem of reality and its artistic embodiment, emphasizes its existential aspect, relevant "here and now", then the critics of the "New World" deprive it of social specificity (without disputing its relevance, the fact of resonation of the analyzed works with modernity), bring into the field of literary being, a philosophical context in which the categories of Other, Existence, Vertical are significant.
The closeness of the angle of critical thinking of October to Znamya is confirmed, for example, by B. Filevsky's article "That's how we'll be saved." The object of B. Filevsky's attention is the "prose for adults" by R. Pogodin. The critic adjusts his perception of the writer's texts in such a way that he singles out, first of all, the existential moments of meaning. Pogodin and his generation (front-line), in the interpretation of B. Filevsky, is experiencing a feeling of "being outside of modernity" ("modernity turned out to be terrible"). The destruction of “one’s own” reality, time, is interpreted as the destruction of myths (“But these are not just myths, they are nourished by their own life, almost lived to the end”). One's own reality is compared to a house being destroyed. The drama of the existential life situation is enhanced by the lack of choice. All that remains is the possibility and necessity of a verbal, literary dialogue. This, according to the critic, is the reason for the "identification" of R. Pogodin's prose ("he wanted to overcome the forced anonymity of children's literature, to conduct a conversation directly, without parables and fairy-tale fiction"). The critic draws the reader's attention to the confession of the writer's texts ("the story is imbued with questioning, almost begging: are we to blame for living honestly, difficultly and living up to this?"). A similar type of interpretation, focused on the discovery of existential meanings, combines the articles by V. Vozdvizhensky “The Writer and His Double” (October. 1995. No. 12), M. Krasnova “Between “Yesterday” and “Tomorrow”” (October. 1994. No. 7 ), L. Batkina “Thing and emptiness. Reader's notes on the margins of Brodsky's poems "(October. 1996. No. 1), A. Ranchin" "Man is a pain tester ..." Religious and philosophical motives of Brodsky's poetry and existentialism "(October. 1997. No. 1), etc.
So, the criticism of the 1990s interprets literary phenomena, “reading out” the actual meaning to which the criticism focuses presuppositions formed in a situation of crisis (self-identification, literary centrism). The type of thinking tuned to isolating, understanding the crisis / catastrophic nature of one's own and universal existence is called "catastrophic thinking". The carrier of this type of thinking in criticism grasps those few "answers" (options for gaining meaning, overcoming the existential impasse) that literature provides. So, K. Stepanyan comes to the concept of the “center” of the world, fixes the options for filling it (based on the literary “answers”) - the person himself, another person, an idea, Being. The latter variant of the center is assessed by the critic as true: “If in the center of the world there is Being, immensely higher than yourself, but not hostile, but related to you<…>then it immediately becomes clear: everything is really one: both that world and this<…>» . The works of V. Pelevin and Yu. Buida interpreted by him should convince the reader of the illusory nature of other options.
T. Kasatkina, coming to her version of gaining reality, remains, in fact, in the field of literature, the relationship between the author and the hero: “There is only one way out - in anticipation, in what is called “walking before God” in biblical texts. Having lifted his eyes to grief, having restored his connection with the true Other, the author is immediately granted some freedom from and in relation to his hero”, only in the finale overcoming the boundaries of this area: “Not to escape from reality, but to create reality, a person and an author need another. If you want to know something reliable about the world, and not get lost in your own mirages, do not look in the mirror - look into other eyes. The “answer” of I. Rodnyanskaya is also relevant primarily in connection with the text of V. Pelevin: “Another thing is to admit that the world exists. Then the loss of it by the crown of creation, man, the fall into the destructive fire of imaginaries, which Pelevin so colorfully told about, is an alarming civilizational dead end, a deception from which it is imperative to get out both individually and together. You can figure out deceit only by comparing it with bezdemannost ”, but it can also be read as an appeal to a contemporary.
The literary-critical reception of the "answer" (its explication, comprehension and correlation with one's own vision) takes the form of self-interpretation, complicated by an appeal to ontological, existential questions.
Comparison of the articles of the three journals leads to the conclusion about the difference between the analytical attitudes of critics and critics. Criticism of the "Banner" is more "I"-oriented, it more expresses the existential way of understanding the problem of reality and its loss, the connection of the interpreted text with the actual social, mental reality, personal experiences of the critic is accentuated. Criticism of the "New World" is more focused on the text and literary context (wide for T. Kasatkina, genre (tradition of dystopia) for I. Rodnyanskaya, etc.), the problem of reality is comprehended as a complex ontological one. But in both cases, the appeal of criticism to the problem itself and the texts in which it becomes central is explained by the crisis situation and attempts to comprehend the breakdown of literary reality. Criticism of "October" occupies an intermediate position. It is represented by a large number of texts focused solely on the interpretation of an individual work of art, its artistic specificity, "following the text", it is not characterized by a large capture of the interpreted material. At the same time, in the works in which the author comes to isolating the existential aspect of meaning, there are both attempts to study the variants of self-identification of literary characters, describe the psychological, mental portrait of a generation / social type, and attempts to correlate the literary plot with the line of the author's self-determination, overcoming the crisis.
Our conclusion about the differences in analytical attitudes in journals and observations of their change among authors who publish their articles in different journals confirm our conclusion. So A. Nemzer publishes works in Znamya, in which moments of a general cultural, mental crisis are actualized (“In what year - count”, 1998), works of art are analyzed as reflections of the process of self-identification of authors in a situation of breaking value orientations (“Double portrait on background of sunset”, 1993). In Novy Mir, over the same years, the critic publishes works of a different kind: “What? Where? When? About the novel by Vladimir Makanin: the experience of a short guide" (1998), which follows "the text", analyzing the spatio-temporal specificity of the novel, the system of characters; “Unfulfilled. Alternatives to History in the Mirror of Literature” (1993), where he offers an overview of modern prediction novels, minimizing the fact that they resonate with the perception of contemporary history. M. Lipovetsky publishes his articles in all the "liberal" journals we are considering. In Znamya, works appear in which the critic refers to the work of an individual author (s), and this allows M. Lipovetsky to match the literary text and the author’s “movements of the soul” (“End of the Lyric Century”, 1996), in which the crisis of postmodernism is directly linked with the crisis of the historical and cultural environment (“The blue fat of the generation, or Two myths about one crisis”, 1999). And the article “The Survival of Death. The Specificity of Russian Postmodernism” (1995) is perceived as “foreign” in the context of the magazine due to its theoretic nature and lack of correlation with the mental space. The New World publishes works in which M. Lipovetsky enters the historical and literary context in order to prove the regularity of the manifestation of such phenomena as the “new wave” of the story (in an article co-authored with N. Leiderman “Between chaos and space”, 1991 ), post-realism (in an article co-authored with N. Leiderman “Life after death, or New information about realism”, 1993), wasteful strategies in modern literature (“Wasting strategies, or metamorphoses of “darkness””, 1999). They either removed or minimized the moment of conjugation of the interpreted literary phenomenon with existential questions. In "October" M. Lipovetsky publishes the work "The Mythology of Metamorphoses ...", in which he chooses a separate work as an object of interpretation, delves into the ontology of polyphonism, world images of chaos (such an angle is typical for the "Banner") and at the same time practically does not read out the possible existential semantic plan of the text (which is typical for the "New World"). This proves the conclusion about the intermediate position of "October" in terms of interpretive strategies and perspective of the analysis of the literary phenomenon. The works of M. Lipovetsky are less typical of the feeling of a crisis of self-identification, of confusion in the situation of losing a reader, which critics of the 1990s experience. This is explained by the main scientific professional activity of M. Lipovetsky.
The practice of interpreting individual literary phenomena in the criticism of October reveals a number of typological moments that allow us to speak of special epistemological prestructures (invariant attitudes of literary critical thinking) that are characteristic of the criticism of this particular journal. Criticism of Oktyabr is not marked by sharpness of judgment; in the overwhelming majority of articles it is "not critical." The goal of criticism is to discover in the literary stream not trends, but individual literary phenomena, emphasizing their uniqueness and originality. As a rule, these are literary texts not of debutants, but of "writers with a reputation" (E. Popov, I. Akhmetiev, Yu. Kim, A. Melikhov, R. Pogodin, A. Sinyavsky, I. Brodsky, F. Gorenshtein and others. ). Hence the first two attitudes of critical thinking: the attitude that determines the choice of the object of interpretation and evaluation - orientation towards the recognizability of the analyzed; the setting that determines the relevance of hierarchization, the degree of evaluativeness - the irrelevance of an explicit / fundamental assessment of artistic value, a judgment without including the text in the hierarchy.
In most articles devoted to the analysis of individual works, there is a desire of the critic to determine the cognitive or psychological foundations of the world-modeling of this or that writer. So, M. Zolotonosov, considering the actual aspect of meaning in the works of N. Kononov, connected with the theme of life and death, explores the peculiarities of the poet's worldview, his knowledge of the phenomenon of death. The critic comes to the conclusion that such epistemological grounds are the Cartesianism of N. Kononov and the irrelevance of the individual (“Romanesque”) in the perception of things. The isolation of these grounds allows the critic to explain the features of strophic, metaphoric, interpret individual works of the poet, explain the reason for the author's indifference to building communication with the reader, get closer to determining the type of self-identification of N. Kononov. B. Kolymagin discovers the basis of world modeling in the poetry of I. Akhmetyev in the fundamental setting of the poet's thinking for everyday life, and V. Krotov - in setting for the carnival. E. Ivanitskaya, exploring the prose of A. Melikhov, comes to the conclusion about the relevance for the author's thinking of the postmodern foundations for the perception and cognition of being. The psychological and epistemological foundations of creativity are explored by B. Filevsky (the critic sees the change of the communicative code in R. Pogodin’s prose in the writer’s heightened experience of the loss of “his time”, “his reality”), V. Vozdvizhensky (explains the transformation of the image of Tertz as a character-double of A. Sinyavsky with the writer's need for self-disclosure), M. Krasnov (B. Khazanov explains the features of the world-modeling by that existential situation of a turning point, a feeling of the absence of the present, which the author is trying to artistically explore). Thus, another invariant setting of the literary-critical thinking of "October" is the search for cognitive / psychological foundations for the artistic development of being by the writer as a determining factor in the interpretation of the text.
The next setting, relevant for the criticism of October, is to turn to additional sources (philosophical, literary), correlate them with the interpreted object in order to search for an explanatory moment at the junction / distancing, the principle of "explaining parallel". E. Ivanitskaya in the article “The Burden of Talent, or New Zarathustra”, exploring the image of Saburov (the hero of the second part of A. Melikhov’s trilogy “Humpbacked Talents” - “Thus Spoke Saburov”), a person who realizes “that his strength is exhausted, but not by dedication creativity, not an ascent to the truth, but a dull, exhausting, daily resistance to the ugly-hard post-Soviet life ”, following the reminiscence given by the author, refers to the text of F. Nietzsche. Fixing the fundamental differences between Saburov and the image of Zarathustra (on the issue of the consequences of the absolutization of truth), the critic approaches the author’s concept of the hero: “<…>truth leaves in its infinity the freedom of doubt, compromise, the freedom of a tragic worldview. That's what Saburov said. So says Alexander Melikhov, the “tragic postmodernist.” The proof of the discrepancy between the concept of life, death, the meaning of human existence by I. Brodsky and existentialist philosophers becomes a structure-forming and interpretive basis in the work of A. Ranchin "Man is a pain tester ...".
Significant for characterizing the type of critical thinking may be the absence of one or another epistemological setting. In our opinion, such a significant absence in the criticism of October is its low degree of sociology. It is not focused for the most part on the perception of a separate literary phenomenon as a phenomenon that explains, clarifies reality, moreover, testifies to any aesthetic, ideological trend.
As noted above, the communicative situation in which criticism functions, the “question” it throws on literary reality, determines the choice of works of art and the actual aspect of the content of the text singled out by the critic. Criticism draws attention to the works, the authors of which are focused on the search for "screeds", braces, supports, allowing the characters to find peace of mind. Examples of successful strategies (in postmodernism, mass literature, lyrics) also become an object of attention. From the literary stream, criticism singles out literary phenomena associated with a tendency to turn to tried and tested literary forms, classics as an option to overcome the crisis. At the same time, criticism of liberal journals is attentive to moments of crisis in dramaturgy, contemporary prose, postmodernism, and the activities of journals. The variants of self-identification, the search for new forms, language reserves are explored in order to intensify the dialogue with the reader, to build the process of artistic comprehension of being and self-knowledge in the new socio-cultural conditions of the life of literature and the reader. Finally, criticism pays the most attention to works whose characters experience (not) overcome circumstances similar to those in which criticism finds itself: the destruction of value orientations, lack of support, loss of a sense of reality, connection with the present, loneliness. Such distinct content plans are typical for each journal, but the degree of their actualization differs. Thus, the criticism of the "New World" is more focused on the search for true value coordinates, some kind of spiritual support in fiction, as well as works, the storylines of which represent options for the hero's survival in existentially critical circumstances. Criticism of the "Banner" is especially attentive to the search for self-identification not of the hero, but of the author, magazine, lyrics in general, as well as crisis moments in literature. Criticism of "October" is focused on the formulation of socio-psychological "diagnoses", creates portraits of generations that find themselves in a situation of losing their time, singles out the collective unconscious generated by the crisis situation.
A comparison of the relevant content components, the very choice of the subject of critical research, allows us to see another difference in the cognitive attitudes of the journals. In the process of (self-)interpretation, Novy Mir comprehends a specific artistic material, embodied in an artistic form the search for "answers" of the author and his characters, shifts the perspective to the space of someone else's consciousness. "Znamya" explores the strategies, tactics, trends that appear in a group of works, the work of a group of authors, in lyrics or prose in general, thus demonstrating a wider capture of material for interpretation. "October" is epistemologically focused on the consideration of a literary text, a literary trend in the aspect of reflecting in it the typological features of the consciousness of contemporaries (representatives of the old and young generation).
In the outlined object and problem field of criticism of liberal journals, the process of self-identification of criticism in the conditions of the ongoing crisis is manifested. Criticism actively explores the very phenomenon of crisis (common for elite literature, magazines), in other words, the communicative situation, explores the problems of social consciousness on the material of literature, that is, it cognizes the changing recipient, and finally comprehends itself. Thus, the first level of self-identification of criticism lies in terms of a communicative act, understood broadly. The second level, in our opinion, affects the categories of "necessity" and "status". Despite N. Ivanova's remark that the optimal position of a critic today is the position of an observer, a commentator, it is obvious that criticism does not limit itself to such a status. She explores the facts of the restoration of a broken literary tradition, finds typologies, identifying herself as capable of comprehending and fitting the modern literary situation into a broad context of literary development.
The considered process of changes in epistemological coordinates, the evolution of self-identification correlates with the dynamics of dominant components in the structure of goal-setting. Of the entire volume of critical works published in journals in the 1990s - early 2000s, we selected those in which the modern literary situation is mastered, ungrouped according to the analytical / pragmatic dominant in the method, and examined the groups chronologically. In the early 1990s (1991-1993) there were twice as many articles with a pragmatic dominant method in the criticism of Znamya than analytically oriented ones. By the mid-1990s (1994-1996), we only find dynamics in the group with analytical dominance (their number is gradually growing) and by the end of the 1990s (1997-1999) it reaches a number that is three times the initial number. By the end of the 1990s, pragma-oriented criticism was losing its quantitative superiority, and now the ratio between the two groups is inversely proportional. In the Novy Mir magazine, the statistics differ by period, but the general dynamics repeats. From the beginning of 1990 to 1996, an equal number of analytical and pragma-oriented texts, and since 1997 the number of analytical texts has increased dramatically. This phenomenon can be explained by referring to the communicative situation in which the criticism of this period functions. The pragma-oriented method turns out to be dominant at the moment when the critic realizes the crisis that has come, during the period of the most acute reflection. Experiencing a situation of existential uncertainty, the danger of being "abandoned", criticism uses the largest possible number of means aimed at the success of communication. Over time, which has not resolved the crisis, criticism begins to master a new communicative situation and, as a result, to involve analytics to a greater extent.
A different dynamic is revealed in the literary criticism of October. Until 1998, the number of analytically oriented (overwhelming majority) and pragma-oriented texts did not change, however, in the period from 1998 to 2002, the number of texts with a pragmatic dominant goal increased dramatically. In our opinion, this is due to the weak reflection of the situation of the crisis in the criticism of this journal, which we noted above, and, consequently, the irrelevance of the processes that were noted in Novy Mir and Znamya. The non-dominance of the analytical component in the period of the late 1990s - early 2000s can also be explained by the fact that writers (O. Slavnikova, L. Shulman, Y. Shenkman, V. Rybakov, I. Vishnevetsky and others) publish their critical articles at that time .), whose critical thinking to a greater extent involves the activity of the pragmatic component.
An analysis of the analytical component of the Znamya's method of criticism in the 1990s made it possible to single out three stages in the development of critical thinking in liberal journals. In the early 1990s (1991-1992), the pathos of exposing, restoring the aesthetic, moral norm triumphs in criticism, it determines the dominance of the pragmatic component in the method and determines the direction of analytics (the typical strategy for deploying analytics is the confrontation of myth / deviation from the norm with facts / norm) . The demonstrated distance (discrepancy) should achieve the pragmatic effect planned by the critic - a change in the recipient's value ideas. The pragmatics of "New World" and "October" is not so "aggressive", is more closely connected with the interpreted literary material. From the end of 1992 to 1995, a different strategy of critical comprehension of literary phenomena was formed in criticism (more clearly in The Banner). It is based on a comparative-typological special method, which allows you to determine the specifics of the phenomenon under consideration, finding its analogue or contrast in the literary/literary-critical tradition. In the late 1990s (late 1996-1999), criticism refocuses its analytical potential on the search for bonds in the modern literary space, the analysis of new literary phenomena/names. The principle of typology begins to dominate. In the motley "literary landscape", critics discover common genre, aesthetic, ideological rapprochements, allowing them to see some trends: to describe the phenomenon of associative poetry (A. Ulanov "Slow Writing" (Znamya. 1998. No. 8), transmetarealism (N. Ivanova "Overcoming Postmodernism "(Znamya. 1998. No. 4)), the trend of domestic postmodernism, demonstrating the features of the crisis (M. Lipovetsky" The blue fat of a generation, or Two myths about one crisis "(Znamya. 1999. No. 11)), the circumstances of the place and action (mental ), which contain modern Russian literature (K. Stepanyan "False Memory" (Znamya. 1997. No. 11), highlight "silence" as a fundamental feature of the poetics of metaphorists (D. Bavilsky "Silence" (Znamya. 1997. No. 12)) , a manifestation of the crisis in dramaturgy (A. Zlobina "Drama of Drama" (Novy Mir. 1998. No. 3)), the structure of the author's I as a typological feature of "male prose" (O. Slavnikova "I am the most charming and attractive. Impartial notes on male prose " (But you world. 1998. No. 4)), common features of texts-finalists of literary awards (N. Eliseev "Fifty-four. Bukeriade through the eyes of an outsider" (New World. 1999. No. 1), O. Slavnikova “Who is kind to whom, or the Great Wall of China” (October. 2001. No. 3)), the phenomenon of forgetting in the modern literary process (K. Ankudinov “Others” (October. 2002. No. 11)) etc.
Observations of the general dynamics of the method, its analytical component, allow us to draw some general conclusions about the communicative and epistemological situation and the features of the functioning of criticism in it. The circumstances of communication change throughout the 1990s, exacerbating the loss of an important member of the communication act (the real reader). A sharp deformation of the communication chain turns into an awareness of the crisis, confusion of criticism. By inertia, in the early 1990s, criticism continued to work with mass consciousness: it destroys myths, restores the idea of ​​an aesthetic/humanistic norm, and at the same time uses a maximum of pragma-oriented techniques (the pragmatic component dominates in the method of this period), building an active dialogue with the recipient. Further, mastering a new communicative situation, solving the problem of self-identification, criticism is reoriented from the mass reader to a small circle of recipients (mostly professional). This is evidenced by the gradual dominance of the analytical component of the method, the saturation of texts with terminology, the orientation towards the recipient-co-researcher or a silent interlocutor. By the end of the 1990s, critics had little understanding of the crisis of their own situation. Epistemologically, criticism changes qualitatively: it moves away from self-knowledge into the field of cognition of the contemporary literary situation. The scale of critical thinking is narrowing: if in the mid-1990s we observed a general tendency to consider this or that phenomenon in the large context of the literary process, the dominance of the comparative typological approach, then by the end of the 1990s (since 1998) the context narrows to the literary direction (in within which several texts are interpreted), a separate literary phenomenon. It is no coincidence that it was during this period that the headings “In the course of the text”, “Struggle for style” appeared in the Novy Mir, suggesting a closer reading of individual texts.
Dynamics from the point of view of critical activity in the articles of the period 1992 - 2002 also forms correlations with the revealed regularities. In the texts of Znamya of the period 1991-1993, the facto(text)centric perspective of critical activity predominates, slightly less than the works of I-centric ones (the perspective of one's own vision of what is being interpreted becomes decisive). At least autocentric texts. In the period 1994 - 1996, we record an increase in texts oriented towards the self of criticism, and by the end of the 1990s, their sharp decline. The same decline is observed in the group of texts that reflect the orientation of the critic towards the author's (writer's) intention. The need for a recipient, which was most acutely experienced until the mid-1990s, apparently explains the dominance of Znamya's self-centered method of critical activity. It allows you to draw the attention of the recipient to the personal opinion of the critic, contributes to his self-realization. In the late 1990s, as a result of the reorientation of criticism towards analytics, the decline of self-centrism and the dominance of text-centrism naturally occur.
In the "New World" there is a different dynamic. In the early 1990s, text-centric criticism dominated sharply (the number of such works throughout the decade was almost the same), by the middle of the decade the number of author-centric texts doubled, and by the end of the 1990s, the number of the first and second was equal. For the "New World" the growth of I-centrism, a sharp change of angles is not relevant. He, as we have already observed, is more analytical in understanding literary life and his place in it.
In "October" until 1998, there is a decline in authorocentric criticism with the dominance of textocentrism and a minimum of I-centrism. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, we noted the growth of autocentrism and the sharp growth of I-centrism. This is due to the increase in the pragmatic component that we fix in the criticism of this period, as well as the activity of writers-critics at this time.
An analysis of the entire set of articles published in Novy Mir, Znamya, Oktyabr at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries allows us to conclude that there are epistemological attitudes common to the criticism of these journals. Criticism of liberal journals demonstrates a personal type of self-identification, which implies self-determination in moral, ideological coordinates, self-understanding in a complex existential and communicative situation of confusion. Liberal criticism turns to the creative and life fate of writers as a possible answer to existential, ontological "questions". The activity orientation of the critics of Novy Mir, Znamya, Oktyabrya is a search orientation (interpretation of literary phenomena as a different experience of "questioning", survival). The interpretation here takes the form of isolating the “answer” from the artistic structure (in the form of an idea, a life guide, the fate of the hero as a possible variant of conscious, (un)true being). The lack of "support" in the work/life of the writer, his hero, the general situation of confusion in literature is comprehended "like my problem too", existentially close. For the critic of “New World”, “Banner”, “October”, the Other is “almost identical to me”, can help “me” understand “me”, and the interpreted literary, social reality is conceived primarily as an experience of the presence of Others, possible options for “answers” , (self)interpretations.
The typology is also found within the literary-critical discourse of individual "thick" journals. Thus, the attitude towards negative self-identity in the first half of the 1990s unites the criticism of Novy Mir and Znamya and turns out to be irrelevant for Oktyabr. As a consequence of this - irrelevance for the latest "restoration" interpretative strategy, repulsion from the model of Soviet criticism.
In terms of the severity of the attitude towards understanding social problems, the relevance of the social, criticism of the Banner, Novy Mir, and October are in descending order. Criticism of the Banner, the most sociological and aggressive in a liberal magazine context. Like Novy Mir, it proclaims the status of a critic-commentator, a reader as a norm, but does it more harshly, "on the contrary." Criticism of "October" emphasizes the mediating function, creating the image of a critic-mediator, a teacher.
All journals tend to move towards analytics, narrowing the perspective. But the most dynamic in this evolution is October, epistemologically oriented towards understanding the literary situation, individual literary phenomena.
According to the criterion of readable meaning, the setting of "Banner" for the study of the postmodern type of thinking of a modern person, "October" - for the sphere of social psychology, is distinguished. Criticism of the "Banner" subtracts in the "answers" of literature not only the manifestations of the crisis and the forms of its experience, but also options for exiting in the form of successful strategies. "New World" is focused on the discovery of spiritual bonds, value orientations.

January 18 is considered to be the birthday of Novy Mir magazine. This year the publication is 85 years old.

The Novy Mir magazine is one of the oldest monthly literary, artistic and socio-political magazines in modern Russia.

The idea of ​​creating the magazine belonged to the then editor-in-chief of Izvestia, Yuri Steklov, who proposed creating a monthly literary, artistic and socio-political magazine on the basis of the Izvestia publishing house, which was carried out. The magazine began publication in 1925.

For the first year, the monthly was led by Anatoly Lunacharsky, People's Commissar of Education, who remained a member of the editorial board until 1931, and Yuri Steklov.

In 1926, the leadership of the magazine was entrusted to the critic Vyacheslav Polonsky, who turned the new edition into the central literary magazine of the time. Polonsky directed the magazine until 1931, and already in the early 1930s, Novy Mir was recognized by the public as the main, main magazine of the then Russian Soviet literature.

After the war, the well-known writer Konstantin Simonov, who headed the magazine from 1946 to 1950, became the editor-in-chief, and Alexander Tvardovsky replaced him in 1950. This first tenure of Tvardovsky as editor-in-chief was short-lived. In 1954, he was removed from the leadership, but in 1958 he again became the editor-in-chief, and a period in the history of the magazine was inextricably linked with his name. Thanks to Tvardovsky, the small story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by the Ryazan teacher Alexander Solzhenitsyn could appear on the pages of the magazine, which became a milestone not only in the literary, but also in the political life of the country. In 1970, Tvardovsky was removed from his post as chief editor, and died soon after.

After Tvardovsky's death until 1986, Novy Mir was headed first by Viktor Kosolapov, then by Sergei Narovchatov and Vladimir Karpov.
In 1986, for the first time, the magazine was headed by a non-partisan writer - prose writer Sergei Zalygin, under whom the circulation of the magazine rose to a record high of two million seven hundred thousand copies. The success of the magazine was associated with the publication of many previously banned books in the USSR, such as Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak, Pit by Andrei Platonov, but especially Alexander Solzhenitsyn's works The Gulag Archipelago, In the First Circle, Cancer Ward.

The most high-profile publications of the magazine in its entire history were: "The Black Man" by Sergei Yesenin (1925); "Not by Bread Alone" by Vladimir Dudintsev (1956); "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1962); "Blach" by Chingiz Aitmatov (1986); "Advances and Debts" by Nikolai Shmelev (1987); "Pit" by Andrey Platonov (1987); Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak (1988); The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1989); "Sonechka" by Lyudmila Ulitskaya (1993); "Prisoner of the Caucasus" by Vladimir Makanin (1995); "Freedom" by Mikhail Butov (1999) and many others.

In 1947-1990 the magazine was an organ of the Union of Writers of the USSR. But since 1991, thanks to new media legislation, Novy Mir has become a truly independent publication, not directly associated with any of the creative unions or public organizations.

With the development of perestroika, the editorial charter changed, and at some point Zalygin was already voluntarily elected editor-in-chief by the editorial office. But in 1998, the five-year term for which he was elected expired and Sergei Pavlovich refused to run.
In 1998, literary critic Andrey Vasilevsky was elected editor-in-chief of the journal.

Today, like all “thick” magazines, Novy Mir is forced to survive in the market situation. The impossibility of existence without sponsorship, the inability of most potential readers to acquire a relatively expensive magazine, the inevitable decline in public interest - all this forced a change in editorial policy.

If earlier the magazine was based on novels published with a continuation from issue to issue, today the magazine has reoriented itself to "small" forms - a short story, a cycle of stories.

The current circulation of the magazine hovers around the figure of only 7,000.

Currently, Novy Mir is published on 256 pages. In addition to novelties of prose and poetry, the magazine offers the traditional headings "From Heritage", "Philosophy. History. Politics", "Far Close", "Times and Mores", "A Writer's Diary", "The World of Art", "Conversations", "Literary Criticism" (with the subheadings "The Struggle for Style" and "In the Course of the Text"), "Reviews . Reviews”, “Bibliography”, “Foreign book about Russia”, etc.

The editor-in-chief is Andrey Vasilevsky. Responsible secretary prose writer Mikhail Butov. Ruslan Kireev is in charge of the prose department. The department of poetry is headed by Oleg Chukhontsev, the department of criticism - Irina Rodnyanskaya, the department of history and archives - Alexander Nosov. Freelance members of the editorial board (and now the Public Council) are Sergei Averintsev, Viktor Astafiev, Andrei Bitov, Sergei Bocharov, Daniil Granin, Boris Ekimov, Fazil Iskander, Alexander Kushner, Dmitry Likhachev and other respected writers.

The material was prepared by the editors of rian.ru based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources

Andrey Voznesensky Virabov Igor Nikolaevich

"Banner" and "Youth". What about New World?

For the first time, Voznesensky's poems were published by Literaturnaya Gazeta - on February 1, 1958, Earth was published. "We loved to walk barefoot on the ground, / on the soft, smoking, sweet ground." And further: “To me, a Turk is a countryman. Both Mongol and Pole. / A countryman in calluses, in the world - a countryman "...

It was a debut. The very first. Then his poems, little by little, cautiously went to other newspapers. From thick magazines.

“Once my poems reached a member of the editorial board of a thick magazine. He calls me to the office. He sits down - a kind of welcoming carcass, hippopotamus. Looks in love.

No "buts". Now it is already possible. Don't hide. He's been rehabilitated. There were mistakes. What a beacon of thought! Tea will be brought now. And you are like a son...

No "buts". We give your poems to the number. We will be understood correctly. You have the hand of a master, you are especially good at signs of our atomic age, modern words - well, for example, you write “caryatids ...” Congratulations.

(As I later realized, he mistook me for the son of N. A. Voznesensky, the former chairman of the State Planning Commission.)

- ... That is, if not a son? Like a namesake? Why are you fooling us here? Bring on all sorts of nonsense. We won't allow it. And I kept thinking - like such a father, or rather, not a father ... What other tea?

For those who don't understand. The namesake, Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky, was predicted in the late forties, almost as a "successor" to Stalin. The struggle for proximity to power is a fraught thing. In 1949, that Voznesensky was assigned to the "Leningrad case", removed from all posts, convicted as a conspirator and shot. And five years later, in 1954, they rehabilitated.

The writer Anatoly Gladilin worked in Komsomolskaya Pravda in those years - he will also remember how he first met Andrei in the editorial office, with whom he was friends for many years later:

“He brought, of course, poetry, and I was the first to publish it in Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1959. The poem was called "Heart". In general, it was lucky that we met with him, because I did not work there for long ... Then the rapid rise of Voznesensky began, and Yevtushenko and Rozhdestvensky were well-known before him ... Bulat was just starting then. I remember that I lived then in the center, not far from the Central House of Writers, and many people visited me then. It is strange, but young poets more often than others, it seems, were printed then by the Znamya magazine. The editor there was Comrade Kozhevnikov, not the most progressive, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, the same Kozhevnikov published Andrei's poems about the Polytechnic, skipping the following lines there: “Hurrah, student sharaga! / Come on, shy away / by combining your cracks! / How the Oshanins prevented us from meeting! “... After that there was a scandal, and“ Oshanin ”had to be removed. Kozhevnikov could hardly have missed it by chance. I think he just had some sort of scores of his own with the author of the “Hymn to Democratic Youth”, which was then sung everywhere. And here is such a case - it’s convenient for Oshanin to call in with the hands of Voznesensky ... "

Many years later, in the seventies, Vadim Kozhevnikov would sign a letter against Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, and it would no longer be acceptable to remember something good about him. But Voznesensky remembered well:

“The Znamya magazine was even then the best poetry magazine. The liberal Novy Mir was the leader in prose and social thought, but because of the gloomy alertness of the great Tvardovsky, the poetry department was weak there.

A lot of bad things are being said about the editor Vadim Kozhevnikov. I'll tell you something else. A tall athlete with a Roman bronze profile, he was a prominent figure in the literary process. Under the guise of orthodoxy lurked the only passion - a love of literature. He was a screamer. He did not listen to his interlocutor and shouted lofty words in a high, strong treble. It can be seen hoping that he will be heard in the Kremlin, or not trusting the dilapidated listening devices. Then, shouting, he smiled shyly at you, as if apologizing.

As a substitute, he took the refined intellectual Boris Leontyevich Suchkov. He went through the Gulag as a spy for all intelligence agencies, whose foreign languages ​​he knew. With thin lips he tasted poetry. But sometimes panic seized him, as, for example, it was with my lines, absolutely innocent: “landing pad”. It was about an actress, but he saw politics here and turned pale with horror.

You are right, of course, but why tease the geese? - he told me, and replaced "genius" with "epiphany" in "Autumn in Sigulda".

Znamya printed my Goya. This publication came as a shock to officialdom. At a meeting of editors, the all-powerful head of the Central Committee's department for ideology, D. A. Polikarpov, branded these poems. Kozhevnikov stood up, shouted at him, tried to protect me. My destiny as a poet began with Goya. The first abusive article "Conversation with the poet Andrei Voznesensky" in "Komsomolskaya Pravda" smashed "Goya". Following were the articles of Gribachev, who frightened everyone, and the frightened Oshanin. For them, formalism was a phenomenon similar to Weismannism and Morganism. He seemed more dangerous than political mistakes - people are semi-literate and superstitious, they were afraid of mysticism and verbal conspiracies. Since then, the most zealous of official critics have attacked all my publications, which only increases, perhaps, a surge of reader interest.

Kozhevnikov was not afraid and printed "The Triangular Pear". There were lines:

I love my critics.

On the neck of one of them

fragrant and naked,

shining anti-head!..

... I tried to prove that this was not about Khrushchev, that I had in mind my scolders Prokofiev and Gribachev, whose portrait resemblance inspired such an image in me. But this only aggravated my “guilt” ... Posters were pasted all over the country, where the Mukhin worker and collective farm woman swept dirty rubbish - spies, saboteurs, hooligans and a book called “Triangle Pear”.

So my fate was intertwined with the fate of the Znamya magazine and the best things of those years - Paris without Rhymes, Merlin's Monologue, Autumn in Sigulda and others were published here. True, they did not print Ozu. But it's not their fault. Apparently, the possibilities were limited.

In addition to the "Banner" - there was also "Youth", where Valentin Kataev was. Actually, “Youth” began with Kataev, and soon poetic youth got used to gathering around the samovar bought by the editor himself (natural, on pine cones and coals!). Many believe, and not unreasonably, that in terms of its influence in domestic journalism, the figure of the editor of Yunost was comparable to that of the editor of Novy Mir Tvardovsky...

In the 1970s, Kataev wrote a sparkling preface to Voznesensky's book The Shadow of Sound. Andrei Andreevich shyly crossed out some compliments addressed to him. Kataev grinned: “Well, if you don’t want to be called a genius, it’s up to you…”

It is worth recalling, nevertheless, to bring here a piece of ripe prose - from that article by Valentin Kataev about Voznesensky:

“He entered the entrance hall, as always, in a short jacket and a fur hat sprinkled with snowflakes, which gave his somewhat elongated young Russian face with strangely attentive, watchful eyes an even more Russian look, perhaps even Old Slavonic. Remotely, he resembled a rynda, but without an axe.

As he took off his fur gloves, Oza appeared from behind him, also showered with snow.

I wanted to close the door behind her, from where cold was pulling down my legs, but Voznesensky held out defenselessly bare, narrow palms to me.

Do not close, - he whispered pleadingly, - there is more ... Sorry, I didn’t warn you. But there is more...

And through the door gap, widening it to the extent necessary, sliding over the old oilcloth and felt, warmly dressed guests from the Moscow region, men and women, began to penetrate close one after another, crowding the tiny entrance hall in one minute and then shyly spreading further throughout the apartment.

I thought that there would be three or four of them, - Voznesensky apologized in a whisper, - but it turns out there are five or six of them.

Or even seventeen or eighteen, I said.

It's not my fault. They themselves.

Clear. They sniffed out that he was coming to me to read new poems, and joined. Thus, he appeared along with the entire random audience. It was somewhat reminiscent of a barrel of kvass traveling through the city on a hot day, followed by a queue of thirsty people with cans in their hands.

A mountain of fur coats is heaped under the stairs.

And here he is standing in the corner near the door, straight, motionless, at first glance quite young - modesty itself - but through this imaginary modesty a frightening impudence persistently shines through.

A grown-up boy with a finger, a test tube with a luminous reagent of an infernal fortress. Arthur Rimbaud painted by Rublev.

He reads a new poem, then old poems, then generally everything that he remembers, then everything that he has half forgotten. Sometimes you can hear him well, sometimes the sound goes away and only the image remains, and then you have to read his moving, whitened lips yourself.

His audience won't move. Everyone froze, fixing their eyes on the poet, and read the lines that disappeared on the air from his lips. There are writers, poets, students, playwrights, an actress, several journalists, acquaintances of acquaintances and strangers of strangers, unknown young people - boys and girls in dark gray pullovers, two physicists, a grinder from an automobile factory - and even one antagonistic critic who has a reputation as a shirt -a guy and a truthful fellow, that is, a liar, which the world did not produce ... "

In this very article (“Voznesensky”, published in the collection “Miscellaneous” in 1970), Kataev will also remember how Yuri Olesha dreamed of writing the book “Depot of Metaphors”. And he will be surprised: here, Voznesensky's poems are the “depot of metaphors”. And in the metaphor it is not just decoration, but a lot of meanings and meanings.

... And, by the way, in the "New World" Voznesensky's poem "At the Opening of the Kuibyshev Hydroelectric Power Station" was nevertheless published - in the eleventh issue for 1958. True, this was when Konstantin Simonov was in charge of Novy Mir. And under Alexander Tvardovsky - in any. Gladilin recalls that he “did not let Akhmadulina, Voznesensky, Yevtushenko, Okudzhava, Rozhdestvensky, Moritz stay a kilometer away.” Semyon Lipkin in his "Meetings with Tvardovsky" names Maria Petrov and Brodsky among those rejected. Why?

Sofya Karaganova, editor of the poetry department of the journal under Tvardovsky, will recall later (Questions of Literature. 1996. No. 3): “I propose to print Voznesensky’s poem“ The Grove ”, A.T. writes on the manuscript:“ The first half of the poem can be understood and accepted, but further I don't understand anything anymore. Why should I assume that the reader will understand and be pleased?

Let's interrupt Karaganova for a while - to recall the lines from Voznesensky's "Grove": "Do not touch a person, a tree, / do not make a fire in it. / And this is how it is done in it - / God, don't bring it! / Do not hit a person, bird, / shooting has not yet been opened. / Your circles are lower, quieter. / The unknown is sharper ... "

“... Voznesensky is becoming more and more famous, he brings poetry to Novy Mir, but everything is rejected. “This is from the evil one,” said A. T. I defend Voznesensky: “I believe in him.” I quote, albeit paraphrasing, Pasternak: “At the end of the road I will fall, as if into heresy, into unheard-of simplicity!” A. T. laughed: “That's when we will print it, but for now let others print it.”

Once I said to Alexander Trifonovich with chagrin:

- Novy Mir published Voznesensky when he was still unknown to anyone. He is talented, now famous, but we do not print him.

Well, that doesn't make sense at all. They would say - he is talented, but they don’t publish him, here it is ...

And indeed, when Voznesensky was no longer printed (they didn’t print at all for a year and a half or two: “signer”), the poems he offered to the magazine were immediately signed into the set by Tvardovsky ... I don’t know of a single case when A.T. publicly - orally or in press - criticized the poet, whose poems he himself did not accept.

By the way: Karaganova's mention of "signer" is about Voznesensky's signature under a letter in defense of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Or in defense of Sinyavsky and Daniel. It will be later. Voznesensky will always be among the "signers" of letters that one is ashamed not to sign. Not a single vile letter will ever have his signature.

As for magazines... Even in our times, he will nostalgically remember what it all started with: “Thick magazines have completely died down ... Take a look at the style of new magazines that have been born recently. This is not a denim "Youth", born of the thaw. They are printed brilliantly, with perfect taste, like catalogs of galleries or museums. All of them are in patent leather shoes ... "

In the late fifties, there was a lot of tension with patent leather shoes. It’s not that the shoes don’t worry, it’s just that many people are dope in their heads! - they naively thought: it is more important that the poems be - shine.

As if poems for life are more interesting than shoes. Ha ha ha.

This text is an introductory piece. From the book of Maria Ulyanova author Kunetskaya Ludmila Ivanovna

The banner is raised They return to Moscow, but stay here for a short time. The conditions of underground work were such that Maria Ilyinichna had to leave. It was decided to settle together in Saratov. The mother is in a hurry, she feels that danger hangs over her daughter, spies, do not

From the book Great Tyumen Encyclopedia (About Tyumen and its people from Tyumen) author Nemirov Miroslav Maratovich

"Znamya" Soviet and Russian "thick magazine". Published since 1931. Since 1986, it has been one of the main strongholds of the struggle for freedom, and for literature to be outstanding and wonderful, and not just shit and mudota. Currently - the number 1 literary magazine in Russia, well, maybe

From the book of Kurchatov author Astashenkov Petr Timofeevich

They carry a banner... Recently I had a chance to visit the Institute of Atomic Energy named after I. V. Kurchatov.

From the book Tale of my life. Volume 2 author Morozov Nikolai Alexandrovich

3. Star Banner Spring passed, all summer passed, and autumn came without bringing any changes to our lives. Due to the fact that we always walked in the same parties, in groups, we did not get a general acquaintance, and conversations soon became sluggish. To make it even easier

From the book Against the Winds author Dubinsky Ilya Vladimirovich

2. The black banner of Iona Gaiduk, the namesake of the division commander, led a semi-squadron of horsemen to Parkantsy. The hot July sun, hanging overhead, gilded the fields. On one side of the country road rose shocks of freshly harvested wheat, on the other - bright carpets of chestnuts spread.

From the book Remember, you can not forget author Kolosova Marianna

BANNER AND MOTTO One said to the other: - What should we do with you? Both of us are unfamiliar Neither with the wind, nor with fate. Let's go with you to meet And life and struggle! I will notice the danger, I will tell you about it. The other was silent and listened. And I understood: at that moment, a ray penetrated into the tormented souls of Nadezhda. One

From the book Nikolai Ernestovich Bauman author Novoselov M.

THE REGULAR BANNER The Russian State was on fire... The fire illuminated half the world! But our glory did not die, And the tricolor banner did not fall. We took it from there And we won't give it to anyone. As our honor, as faith in a miracle, We keep the Russian banner! The sun shines in the eyes of the heroes. The paths are different, the goal is

From the book Ugresh Lira. Release 3 author Egorova Elena Nikolaevna

IV. A BANNER OVER THE POWLAND Before leaving for the Saratov province, Bauman said goodbye to his friends in circles, went for three whole days with them, taking advantage of the unattended holidays, to go fishing down the Volga. - It's not so far here. I will keep with you from Saratov

From the book Diary Sheets. Volume 1 author

Banner Lying my banner oilcloth in the kitchen, My ideals have long been rotten. The guys do not write about our battalion commander, I sold orders on the old Arbat. I hung my beret and vest in the closet, I forgot the times when my chest was wide open. Rolled tightly all the principles in the dough, In my own country I

From the book Diary Sheets. Volume 2 author Roerich Nicholas Konstantinovich

Banner In the White House today, with the participation of President Roosevelt, the Pact is being signed. The Banner has already been hoisted over our baishin. In many countries it will be fluttering today. In many parts of the world, friends and co-workers will gather in solemn communion and outline the following

From the book Diary Sheets. In three volumes. Volume 3 author Roerich Nicholas Konstantinovich

Banner of Peace They are asked to collect where there are signs of our Banner of Peace. The sign of the trinity was spread all over the world. Now they explain it differently. Some say that this is the past, present and future, united by the ring of Eternity. For others, a closer explanation of what it is

From the book Memory of a Dream [Poems and Translations] author Puchkova Elena Olegovna

Banner of Peace (10/24/1945) On the day of the Second World War, we wrote: "TO THE PROTECTORS OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES

From the book I Serve the Motherland. Pilot's stories author Kozhedub Ivan Nikitovich

Our Banner Thank you for your kind letter dated 27 January. They tried to send you a telegram, but it was not accepted. "Let Vogel work for good." Of course, the text of the Covenant can be included, and if you want a bibliography - but at the back, in the form of an appendix. There is a lot of confusion in the world right now. The earth is upset

From the book Vladimir Vysotsky. Life after death author Bakin Viktor V.

Banner of the People The swing of my thoughts has swayed me, I am plunging into the ocean of sadness. When I could plunge into the blood of tyrants, Then I would swim in a river of tears into other distances. Mentor, condescend to my skill, Leave me in the fire, so that I burn, burn, I again, like Majnun before Leila,

From the author's book

7. THE GUARDS BANNER In those days, when intense combat work was going on in my old regiment, when the troops of the 2nd Ukrainian Front were fighting on the outskirts of Bucharest, a lull continued in our sector. We were preparing for the upcoming big, intense battles. In aerial combat

From the author's book

The name as a banner Happy was the fate of Vysotsky also because he was recognized by the whole country during his lifetime. If he wanted to, he could make a revolution, people would surely follow him - because of the power of his charm and talent. Artur Makarov The name of Vysotsky - the sound of combat

Among the huge number of Soviet newspapers and magazines in the 50-60s of the last century - like an impregnable fortress, like a bright guiding beacon in the darkness of the night, like, in the words of Yevgeny Yevtushenko, "an island of truth in a frozen puddle of lies" - a literary and artistic magazine towered "New world". During these years, its editor-in-chief, its ideologist and soul was the outstanding Soviet poet, author of the famous "Vasily Terkin" Alexander Tvardovsky. True, even before him, the magazine was headed by quite venerable and talented writers and journalists. From the day of its foundation in 1925 - People's Commissar of Education of the USSR, playwright Anatoly Lunacharsky and editor-in-chief of the Izvestia newspaper Yuri Steklov, then literary critic and historian Vyacheslav Polonsky, Secretary General of the Union of Soviet Writers Vladimir Stavsky, and after the war - Konstantin Simonov, who in In 1950 he was appointed editor-in-chief of the Literaturnaya Gazeta. And after Tvardovsky, the magazine was edited by Valery Kosolapov (during his tenure as editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta, it was he who dared, at his own peril and risk, to print Yevgeny Yevtushenko’s poem “Babi Yar”) and a front-line writer, former political prisoner and soldier of the penal battalion, Hero of the Soviet Union Vladimir Karpov. But still, the New World became a real stronghold of freethinking, the most authoritative, most beloved and readable only under Tvardovsky. It has become a truly new world - a world of democracy and freedom-loving.
Tvardovsky accepted this magazine in 1950, at a difficult time for the state and the whole people - there was a difficult process of restoring the economy destroyed by the war. On the ideological front, it was also very restless - Stalin's personality cult took on ever more ugly forms, campaigns against cosmopolitanism, Weismannism-Morganism, "killer doctors" took place one after another, there was an unprecedented rampant reaction. Tvardovsky, who was rooting for his country with all his heart, deeply worried about the lack of rights and lawlessness that reigned in it, he himself sharply criticized various perversions in political and socio-economic transformations and willingly published articles (called “vicious” by party criticism) on these topics, the authors of which were talented publicists Vladimir Pomerantsev, Mikhail Livshits, Fedor Abramov, Mark Shcheglov and others. In addition, Tvardovsky tried to publish his new poem "Vasily Terkin in the Other World" in the magazine, in which the hero finds himself in the afterlife, which is very reminiscent of Soviet reality with its deadly atmosphere. In the poem, in an allegorical form, the poet criticized the then dominant Soviet bureaucratic system. The result of all this was the decision of the secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU (and the secretary for ideology was none other than the “grey eminence” Suslov) “On the mistakes of the Novy Mir magazine of August 12, 1954 - and the release of Tvardovsky from his post.
Only after the 22nd Party Congress, in 1958, did the opportunity arise to return to my favorite magazine. Indirectly, this was also due to the fact that Konstantin Simonov, who edited Novy Mir after Tvardovsky's dismissal, "fined himself" before the party bosses, saying that the party's resolutions on issues of literature and art (in particular, about Fadeev's novel "The Young Guard" ) caused only great harm to Soviet culture. The impudent author was dismissed and sent to Tashkent as a spokesman for Pravda. In the second period of Tvardovsky's editing of Novy Mir, the magazine again becomes the center around which writers aspired to an honest and truthful reflection of reality, it becomes a symbol of the "sixties", a spiritual oasis of those years. The selection of personnel by Tvardovsky for the editorial board and the editorial staff of the journal significantly contributed to the assertion of his civic position, his fight against censorship, and contributed to the publication of works of art with a sharply social orientation. In those years, such talented people as writers Georgy Vladimov, Efim Dorosh and Fedor Abramov, literary critics and critics Vladimir Lakshin, Igor Vinogradov, Asya Berzer, Alexei Kondratovich worked in the editorial board in those years. Ilya Erenburg, Vasily Grossman, Viktor Nekrasov, Vladimir Voinovich, Chingiz Aitmatov, Vasily Shukshin, Fazil Iskander published their best works in the magazine. In 1962, Tvardovsky published a novel by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, then unknown to anyone, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (however, after personally agreeing with Khrushchev), and then published several of his stories. But the stories "In the First Circle" and "Cancer Ward" he was still not allowed to publish. At this time, the approving term "Novomirskaya prose" came into literary use - i.e. prose is acutely social and artistically significant. The publication of the work in Novy Mir meant recognition and, at the same time, a new turn in the creative destiny of the author. Tvardovsky, as editor-in-chief, always courageously defended the right of the magazine to publish every truly talented work. Alexander Tvardovsky was awarded many high awards and titles - he was a laureate of the Lenin Prize and four times a laureate of the State Prize, awarded orders and medals, was a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR of several convocations, a candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, secretary of the Writers' Union of the USSR. And despite all these regalia and awards, he had to experience the pressure of conservative forces. And when the end of the so-called “Khrushchev thaw” came to an end, difficult times again came for the magazine and for Tvardovsky himself. The magazine was constantly scolded for "slander", "distortion of history", "criticism of the collective farm system", etc. Tvardovsky was no longer elected to state and party bodies. For several years, there was a literary (and not only literary) polemic between Novy Mir and the Oktyabr magazine, whose editor-in-chief was the well-known Orthodox, who wrote novels in the spirit of the official ideology, Vsevolod Kochetov (his novel What Do You Want?, odiously depicting the modern intelligentsia, served as the object of numerous parodies).
After the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and the suppression of the "Prague Spring" in August 1968, reaction again raised its head in the Soviet Union, the censorship press intensified - and every day it became more and more clear that the journal could not survive in these conditions. Back in June of the same year, a decision was made by the secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU to remove Tvardovsky from his post, but for some reason its implementation was temporarily postponed. An unbridled campaign of harassment against Novy Mir began in the Soviet press, led by the magazine Ogonyok and the newspaper Socialist Industry. So, in Ogonyok in the summer of 1969, a “letter of eleven” appeared, which was a sharp and accusatory response to an article in Novy Mir by publicist Alexander Dementyev “On Traditions and Nationality”. In this article, the author dealt a tangible blow to great-power Russian nationalism and the Stalinists from the magazines Young Guard and Our Contemporary, who were ardent champions of the state patriotic ideology. At the same time, the Socialist Industry newspaper published an “Open letter to the editor-in-chief of Novy Mir”, comrade Tvardovsky A.T. ”, signed by a certain mythical turner, Hero of Socialist Labor Ivan Zakharov. In this letter, the traditionally fictional “voice of the people” wrote about the articles of the writer Andrei Sinyavsky published in the journal: “It was on the pages of Novy Mir that A. Sinyavsky published his“ critical ”articles, alternating them with foreign publications of anti-Soviet libels.” Glavlit waged a bitter struggle with the journal, systematically preventing the most interesting and poignant materials from being published.
In 1967-1969, Alexander Tvardovsky worked on his last poem "By the Right of Memory". It reflected the pathos of the uncompromising truth about the time of Stalinism, the tragic inconsistency of the spiritual world of a Soviet person in those years, the truth about the fate of his father, who became a victim of "general collectivization" and exiled to Siberia. The poem, of course, was banned for publication by censorship and saw the light only 18 years later. Realizing that he would not be allowed to tell the whole bitter truth about the past, the poet stopped work on the poem. And he devoted the last years of his life to lyric poetry. However, it is also felt in it that he deliberately moves away from the social topics he once loved and does not write about what he still cares about - only because his thoughts still will not reach the reader. Tvardovsky understood that he was not able to change anything in this world and gradually felt more and more useless.
"Not. It's better for us to collapse halfway,
If the new route was beyond its power.
Without us, they will sum up perfectly
And maybe they will lie less than ours "
The persecution of the Novy Mir magazine is also evidenced by the fact that the subscription to it in those years was invariably limited, and in Brezhnev's homeland, in the Dnipropetrovsk region, it was generally prohibited. In the last two years of Tvardovsky's editorial activity, the circulation of the magazine was extremely small - only 271 thousand copies, while at the same time other, more obedient magazines had millions of copies. Since the leadership of the Union of Writers of the USSR was not formally decided on Tvardovsky, the last measure of pressure on him was to remove some members of the editorial board and appoint people who were hostile to Tvardovsky to these positions. And on February 9, 1970, by a decree of the secretariat of the Union of Writers of the USSR, several journalists most devoted to Tvardovsky, closest to him in spirit, with whom he had been making a magazine for many years, were withdrawn from the editorial board of Novy Mir. And after 3 days, Alexander Tvardovsky himself submitted a letter of resignation, and other employees of the magazine left with him. As it turned out, for Tvardovsky, the magazine meant life - in the literal sense of the word. After the defeat of the "New World" he did not live long. As Alexander Solzhenitsivn later wrote: “There are many ways to kill a poet. For Tvardovsky, it was chosen: to take away his offspring, his passion - his magazine. Yevgeny Yevtushenko, who was friends (despite a solid age difference) with Tvardovsky in recent years, dedicated to him in 1990 the poem “The Main Outback”, where there are such truthful and heartfelt lines:
“And Tvardovsky himself - the forerunner of glasnost -
He was also like Terkin in hell ...
Tvardovsky, like Zhukov, becoming unnecessary,
Was de-journaled, disarmed...
He knew one love in the world of white
And for the sake of the so tormented land
Heavy body and heavy deed
Broke the gap we entered"
Yes, Alexander Tvardovsky entered the history of Soviet literature, the history of Soviet journalism and the history of Soviet society not as a literary dignitary, but as a poet-citizen, a poet - a true patriot of his country and his people, he also entered as a great editor who, in a fierce struggle, all- still defeated the forces of evil, the forces of the enemies of democracy and progress.
P.S. In 2009, Alexander Tvardovsky's "Novomir Diary" was published in Russia in two volumes and a total of 1,300 pages (albeit in a meager circulation - only 3,000 copies). The diary captured many dramatic episodes in the life of the great poet and legendary editor of the "new world", who made a truly revolutionary revolution in the minds of his people in the middle of the last century.

Reviews

A good title for your article is "Alexander Tvardovsky's New World". Yes! This is the era of a new, spacious, non-malicious view of the Orthodox Russian on the post-war world. More brilliant work - Vasily Terkin. A truly folk, one might say epic Russian warrior character. He was taught at school, read from the stages in the houses of culture, etc.
I accidentally read your article on Yandex, trying to download the Novy Mir magazine No. 6 of 1968, more precisely, an article by V. Ya. Lakshin about the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov. I remember that this issue of the magazine, according to Lakshin himself, in those days could not be obtained for any money.
History repeats itself. Just like today, it is absolutely hopeless to download from the Internet (despite its gigantic resources).
With bow, smile and heartfelt wishes,
Your Alyonkin