Among the huge set 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, as, in the words of Yevgeny Yevtushenko, “an island of truth in a frozen pool of lies” - a literary and art 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 rather venerable and talented writers and journalists. Since its founding 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, General Secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers Vladimir Stavsky, and after the war - Konstantin Simonov, who 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 to print Yevgeny Yevtushenko's poem Babi Yar at his own risk) and a front-line writer, a former political prisoner and soldier of the penal battalion, Hero of the Soviet Union Vladimir Karpov. But still, Novy Mir became a real bulwark of free-thinking, the most authoritative, most beloved and read only under Tvardovsky. It has become a truly new world - a world of democracy and love of freedom.
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 - the cult of Stalin's personality was acquiring more and more ugly forms, campaigns of struggle against cosmopolitanism, against Weismanism-Morganism, against "killer doctors" were taking place, there was an unprecedented rampant reaction. Tvardovsky, who rooted for his country with all his heart, was deeply worried about the lawlessness and lawlessness that reigned in it, he sharply criticized various perversions in political and socio-economic transformations and willingly published articles (called "vicious" by the 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 Next World" in the magazine, in which the hero finds himself in the afterlife, which is very much reminiscent of Soviet reality in its deadening atmosphere. In a 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 "gray cardinal" Suslov) "On the mistakes of the magazine" Novy Mir "dated August 12, 1954 - and the release of Tvardovsky from his post.
Only after the 22nd congress of the party, in 1958, there was an opportunity to return to your favorite magazine. Indirectly, this was also due to the fact that Konstantin Simonov, who edited Novy Mir after Tvardovsky's dismissal, “fined” the party bosses, stating that the party’s resolutions on literature and art (in particular, about Fadeev’s novel “Young Guard” ) did only great harm to Soviet culture. This was followed by the resignation of the impudent author and his dispatch to Tashkent by the speccor of Pravda. In the second period of Tvardovsky's editing of Novy Mir, the magazine again becomes the center around which writers who strived for an honest and truthful reflection of reality were grouped, becomes a symbol of the sixties, a spiritual oasis of those years. The selection of personnel by Tvardovsky for the editorial board and editorial board of the magazine significantly contributed to the confirmation of his civic position, his fight against censorship, and contributed to the publication of works of art of an acute social orientation. Such talented people as writers Georgy Vladimov, Efim Dorosh and Fedor Abramov, literary critics and critics Vladimir Lakshin, Igor Vinogradov, Asya Berzer, Alexey Kondratovich worked in the editorial board in those years. Ilya Erenburg, Vasily Grossman, Victor Nekrasov, Vladimir Voinovich, Chingiz Aitmatov, Vasily Shukshin, Fazil Iskander published their best works in the magazine. In 1962, Tvardovsky published a novel by the then unknown Alexander Solzhenitsyn "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" (albeit, having previously agreed with Khrushchev personally), and then published several of his stories. But he was still not allowed to publish the novellas "In the First Circle" and "Cancer Ward". At this time, the approving term "Novy Mir prose" entered the literary use - that is, the 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, has always courageously defended the magazine's right 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 Union of Writers of the USSR. And despite all these regalia and awards, he had to experience the pressure of conservative forces. And when the so-called "Khrushchev thaw" came to an end, difficult times fell again for the magazine and for Tvardovsky himself. The magazine was constantly criticized for "slandering", "distorting history", "criticizing the collective farm system", etc. Tvardovsky ceased to be elected to state and party bodies. For several years, a literary (and not only literary) polemic between Novy Mir and Oktyabr magazine was conducted, the editor-in-chief of which was the well-known orthodox Vsevolod Kochetov, who wrote novels in the spirit of the official ideology (his novel What Do You Want ?, controversially depicting the modern intelligentsia, has served as the object of numerous parodies).
After the introduction of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and the suppression of the "Prague Spring" in August 1968, reaction in the Soviet Union again raised its head, the censorship press intensified - and every day it became more and more clear that the magazine would not survive under these conditions. Back in June of the same year, a decision was made by the secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee to remove Tvardovsky from his post, but for some reason its implementation was temporarily postponed. An unbridled campaign of persecution against Novy Mir began in the Soviet press, led by the Ogonyok magazine and the Socialist Industry newspaper. Thus, in Ogonyok, in the summer of 1969, a “letter to eleven” appeared, which was a harsh and accusatory response to an article in Novy Mir by publicist Alexander Dementyev “On Traditions and Nationalities”. In this article, the author dealt a tangible blow to the great-power Russian nationalism and the Stalinists from the magazines Molodaya Gvardiya and Our Contemporary, who were ardent champions of the state patriotic ideology. At the same time in the newspaper "Socialist Industry" appeared "An open letter to the editor-in-chief of" Novy Mir "comrade. Tvardovsky AT ", signed by some 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 magazine: "It was on the pages of Novy Mir that A. Sinyavsky published his" critical "articles, alternating them with foreign publications of anti-Soviet libel." A fierce struggle with the magazine was led by Glavlit, which systematically did not allow the most interesting and sharp materials to be 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, about the tragic contradictions of the spiritual world of Soviet people in those years, the truth about the fate of his father, who became a victim of “universal collectivization” and was exiled to Siberia. The poem, of course, was banned for publication by the censorship and saw the light of day only 18 years later. Realizing that he would not be allowed to tell the whole bitter truth about the past, the poet stopped working on the poem. And he devoted the last years of his life to lyric poetry. However, it is felt in it that he deliberately leaves the social themes he once loved and does not write about what still worries him - only because his thoughts will not reach the reader anyway. Tvardovsky understood that he was not able to change anything in this world and gradually felt more and more his uselessness.
"No. Better to crash us halfway
If the new route was not possible.
Without us they will sum up perfectly
And maybe less of ours will lie "
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 the homeland of Brezhnev, 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 did not formally decide on Tvardovsky, the last measure of pressure on him was the removal of some members of the editorial board and the appointment to these positions of people who were hostile to Tvardovsky. And on February 9, 1970, by a decree of the secretariat of the Union of Writers of the USSR, several of Tvardovsky's most loyal journalists, who were closest to him in spirit, with whom he had been making the magazine for many years, were removed from the editorial board of Novy Mir. And after 3 days, Alexander Tvardovsky himself submitted an application for resignation, and other employees of the magazine left with him. As it turned out, for Twardowski, the magazine meant life - in the literal sense of the word. After the defeat of Novy Mir, he did not live long. As Alexander Solzhenitsyvn later wrote: “There are many ways to kill a poet. For Tvardovsky it was chosen: to take away his brainchild, his passion is his magazine. " Yevgeny Yevtushenko, who was friends (despite the considerable 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 publicity -
Was also like Terkin in hell ...
Tvardovsky, like Zhukov, becoming unnecessary,
Was de-burned, disarmed ...
He knew one love in the white world
And for the land so torn
Heavy body and hard work
Broke the breach that 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 defeated the forces of evil, the forces of the enemies of democracy and progress.
P.S. In 2009, Alexander Tvardovsky's "Novomirsky Diary" was published in Russia in two volumes and a total volume of 1,300 pages (albeit in a scanty circulation - only 3,000 copies). The diary captures many dramatic episodes in the life of the great poet and legendary editor of the "new world", who in the middle of the last century made a truly revolutionary revolution in the consciousness of his people.

Reviews

A good title for your article is "The New World of Alexander Tvardovsky." Yes! This is the era of a new, spacious, non-malicious view of the Orthodox Russian on the post-war world. The brilliant work is Vasily Turkin. A truly popular, one might say an epic Russian warrior is a character. He was taught at school, read from the stages in houses of culture, etc.
I read your article by chance on Yandex, trying to download the magazine Novy Mir No. 6 of 1968, more precisely, an article by V. Ya. Lakshin about Mikhail Bulgakov's novel. 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 a bow, a smile and heartfelt wishes,
Your Alyonkin

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

Mastering the literary practice of the turn of the century in the magazines "New World", "Znamya", "October"

The third block of articles identified by us is united by a common object - fiction. The most numerous, it is represented by articles dedicated to one work / author, the detected tendency, the literary situation as a whole. This moment allows you to determine the preferred angle preference of a particular magazine. Criticism of Znamya confirms the idea of ​​S. Chuprinin and I. Rodnyanskaya that literary criticism is moving away from detailed analyzes of individual works of art. From the considered group of articles "Znamya" (55 articles) devoted to one work - 0; 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 illustrations - 21; articles of a review type, in which, as a rule, works are only named, are combined into groups - 19. In Novy Mir out of 48 reviewed articles, 9 are devoted to one work; group of works - 7; trends - 26; review articles - 6. In the magazine "October" of 47 articles are devoted to one work - 21; 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 of literary practice. This is not to say that criticism moves from specifics to problematic, a problem article is 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 literacy, and therefore does not feel a deficit in 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 separate 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 “text-free” position. Self-asserting in the role of an analyst, standing over specific texts (which allows one to arrive at the construction of a typology), the critic subordinates the literary material to his “question”.
"October" is more "attentive" to a separate text / author. One of the reasons for the above quantitative difference in comparison with other journals is, in our opinion, professional status, the interests of critics. Reflections on individual texts are written mostly by either 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 criticism is not great (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 it can be reconstructed. The self-identification crisis 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 versions of the author's (self) understanding, their assessment in terms of depth / truth / adequacy (self) interpretation, in terms of the presence of “answers”. In the works of this group, the content aspect is of more interest to the critic 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 reference point, the hero's fate as a possible variant of a conscious, (un) true being). The use of a literary text as an “answer” option is especially characteristic of articles written within the framework of the third strategy and chronologically related to the second half of the 1990s. They show the critic's increased attention to the author and his characters, their psychological state, worldview and (self) understanding. Significant in this context is the remark made by A. Nemzer in the part of the article devoted to the interpretation of the storyline of the hero of the novel by A. Slapovsky “Questionnaire”: “This is how the knowledge of the world (and everything is mixed in it) is intertwined with the knowledge of oneself. So adaptation to the world draws out unexpected passions, thoughts, spiritual aspirations. " From all possible content continuum of the work, the critic singles out only that layer that “reacts” / correlates with his question. It is also no coincidence that A. Nemzer's reaction to the final of I. Polyanskaya's "Passage of the Shadow": "It seems to me that the Prehistory of such a powerful sounding urgently requires History, a semantic resolution, an answer to the openness that the heroine suffered with pain many years ago" In other words, A. Nemzer lacks an "answer". A kind of process of getting used to the life situation of an identification crisis is observed by N. Ivanova in her 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 to identify (otherwise: answer options) that the writers are undertaking.
The critic finds himself in an epistemological situation similar to that of many readers, when it is necessary to cognize 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 landmarks for the non-professional reader that teach not to live, but to understand /interpret. This, in our opinion, is the functional essence of the criticism of the 1990s.
The "question" of the critic determines that aspect of the analysis and that content 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 crisis / break / end situation?" ... This "question", in our opinion, correlates with the invariant one that determines (self) interpretive efforts of criticism of the 1990s - "What am I?" The critic is interested in the moment of (self) identification of literature, which is in circumstances similar to literary criticism. For critics, the experience of literature is, first of all, a possible answer to the existential “question” that is relevant in the 1990s as never before. This "question" determines the angle of the literary-critical view of the literary situation. The answers given by the literature (in accordance with the vision of the criticism of "Banner") can be grouped according to strategies of survival: adaptation of successful strategies (mass culture, literary movements that have survived a crisis cultural stage (the period of the Silver Age); withdrawal from the reality associated with a crisis ( mysticism, grotesque, postmodern relativism); search for new forms of self-presentation, hidden linguistic reserves (in poetry); comprehension of the renewed reality, dialogue with chaos. Criticism of the "New World" presents other options: the search and approval of spiritual bonds, values; return from sociocentrism to a person; active overcoming of the negative / unpromising experience of a 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, or an orientation towards the search for successful literary and literary-critical strategies. In most of the works published here, one or another literary phenomenon is singled out from the literary series, its specificity is revealed (while criticism of Novy Mir and Znamya has an intention to search for tendencies, typology). At the same time, criticism of "October" (mainly in 1995-1997) is also focused on reading in literary texts and comprehending existential, ontological problems that make it possible to study psychology and mental characteristics of a contemporary.
Unlike Znamya, Novy Mir and Oktyabr are more analytical, focused on mastering literary life as such, for them, in addition to an existentially filled question, another is more relevant - What is ...? The specificity of male / female prose, postmodernism, middle prose, post-realism, amateurish poetry, historical and philological novel, etc., becomes the subject of separate articles by critics.
If in the first half of the 1990s criticism turns to existentially neutral literary phenomena (successful writing strategies, new literary phenomena generated by new literary circumstances), then in the second half it isolates crisis manifestations. So, in the "Znameny" of the second half of the 1990s, only two articles are published outside of existential problems, written within the framework of the research direction set by the journal itself - the development of masslite. In Novy Mir, there are only nine such works. Criticism is now interested not in ways of overcoming the crisis, but in the forms of the “presence” of the phenomena of literary life.
The articles of 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 in the history of literature or with a modern phenomenon belonging to an "alien" aesthetic tradition (the tradition of mass culture, for example). In this case, the literary tradition, already assimilated, plays the role of a kind of helper, the very experience of its comprehension is used as a starting point. At the end of 1995, in Znamya, this tactic abruptly ends, and all subsequent articles are a critical study of the literary phenomenon itself, outside of explanatory analogies. In such a change in tactics, we see the result of the already observed reorientation of criticism in the second half of the 1990s to existential issues that are acutely experienced as “ours” “here and now,” as well as an orientation toward settling in, understanding new circumstances of functioning.
Another tendency manifests itself in the criticism of Novy Mir. There is no sharp change in 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 - in the second half ). Such a statistical difference in comparison with the Znamya magazine can be explained, firstly, by the general orientation of the magazine towards mastering the changed and changing literary environment (as one of the methods of self-identification), and secondly, by the retrospective type of critical thinking characteristic of Novy Mir ".
Let us compare articles that have one subject - the loss and search for reality in fiction, but published in different journals, in order to get an idea of ​​the difference in comprehension of the named subject.
K. Stepanyan's article "Realism as salvation from dreams" is traditionally divided into three parts compositionally; the first and the third - the author's reflection on questions about the idea of ​​reality in the mass consciousness, about the loss of the sense of the real as a general cultural mental problem, the search for a stable center of the world. The reference to the works of art by V. Pelevin and Y. Buida is also accompanied by the inclusion of fragments of the author's reflections and associations. Reflection on the backward text turns out to be more significant in volume than the actual reflection on the text. In the articles by T. Kasatkina "In Search of the Lost Reality", I. Rodnyanskaya "This world was not invented by us", there are not so many author's digressions, and they are interspersed into the text of interpretation.
The problem of feeling the loss of reality is comprehended by K. Stepanyan as mental, existential, as a product of the modern sociocultural situation (“The concept of reality in general has become one of the most uncertain in our time<…>Unwittingly, 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?<...>this or that solution to it [the problem of reality, the truth of what is happening - Yu. G.] determines all of our behavior in the world ”). The critic sees its reasons in the visualization of modern culture, in the circumstances of the de-ideologization / demythologization of society, the plurality of authoritative points of view on certain events in a 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 comprehension. A person who becomes “a creature not adapted for any meeting, a being afraid of the independent life of his dreams”, a person who acquires “a taste for limiting reality by the framework of himself” is, first of all, about the hero and about the artistic construction of the relationship “hero - reality” ... For the 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, immediate beginning) of this path? It seems that this is where the peak of realism in literature is traditionally seen. Psychologism, which so powerfully swept 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 a character ”, and the whole story after the 19th century is thought of as a search for reality. Contemporary literature, according to the critic, is still far from being acquired, in it the life of the real world is shown “as it is seen from the inside of the protagonist, 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 becomes blurred, gets the features of unreality. " I. Rodnyanskaya comprehends the problem of reality on the basis of V. Pelevin's novel “Generation P”, thus explaining his choice: the work of V. Pelevin is one of the “explaining what is happening to us”. I have always been worried 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 illusory reality, thus, is thought by the critic as relevant for "all of us", entering 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 manipulation of people's consciousness. This is an ontological problem”). The critic perceives Pelevin's text not as a text for “infantiles” 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, topical “here and now,” the critics of Novy Mir deprive it of social specifics (without challenging its relevance, the fact that the analyzed works resonate with modernity), lead to the field of literary being, a philosophical context in which the categories Other, Existence, Vertical are significant.
The closeness of the critical thinking angle of Oktyabr to Znamya is confirmed, for example, in the article by B. Filevsky "So we will be saved." The object of attention of B. Filevsky is “prose for adults” by R. Pogodin. The critic adjusts his perception of the writer's texts in such a way that he isolates, first of all, the existential moments of meaning. Pogodin and his generation (front-line), in the interpretation of B. Filevsky, are experiencing a feeling of “being outside of modernity” (“modernity turned out to be scary”). The destruction of "one's" 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"). Its reality is compared to a house being destroyed. The drama of the existential life situation is exacerbated by the lack of choice. All that remains is the possibility and necessity of a verbal, literary dialogue. This, in the opinion of the critic, is the reason for the "inconsistency" 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 focuses the reader's attention on the confessional nature of the writer's texts ("the story is imbued with interrogation, almost pleading: are we to blame for living honestly, hard and lived to see this?"). This type of interpretation, focused on the discovery of existential meanings, unites 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 Tester of Pain ..." Religious and Philosophical Motives of Brodsky's Poetry and Existentialism "(October 1997. No. 1) and others.
So, the criticism of the 1990s interprets literary phenomena, “reading” the actual meaning to which the critic is oriented by the presuppositions formed in a crisis situation (self-identification, literary centrism). The type of thinking, tuned to isolate, comprehend the crisis / catastrophic nature of one's own and universal being, is called "catastrophic thinking." The carrier of this type of thinking in criticism grasps those few "answers" (options for finding meaning, getting out of the existential deadlock) that literature provides. So, K. Stepanyan comes to the concept of the "center" of the world, fixes the options for filling it (based on literary "answers") - the person himself, another person, idea, Being. The last version of the center is assessed by the critic as true: “If in the center of the world there is Being, immeasurably higher than yourself, but not hostile, but akin 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 own version of finding 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 the biblical texts call“ walking before God ”. The author who raised his eyes and restored connection with the true Other is immediately given some freedom from and in relation to his hero ", only in the final overcoming the boundaries of this area:" Not to escape from reality, but to create reality, the person and the 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 in other eyes. " “Answer” by I. Rodnyanskaya is also relevant, first of all, in connection with the text of V. Pelevin: “Another thing is to admit that the world exists. Then the loss of his crown of creation, by man, the fall into the destructive fire of imaginary, as Pelevin so colorfully told, is an alarming civilizational dead end, a deception, from which it is imperatively ordered to get out both individually and together. You can figure out the deception only by comparing it with deception, ”but it can also be read as an appeal to a contemporary.
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 that the analytical attitudes of critics and critics differ. Criticism of "Banner" is more "I" -oriented, in it the existential way of understanding the problem of reality and its loss is more pronounced, the connection of the interpreted text with the actual social, mental reality, personal experiences of the critic is emphasized. Criticism of Novy Mir is more focused on text and literary context (broad in T. Kasatkina's, genre (dystopian tradition) in I. Rodnyanskaya, etc.), the problem of reality is interpreted 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 situation of the crisis 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 exclusively on the interpretation of an individual work of art, its artistic specificity, "following the text"; it does not have 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 attempts to study the variants of self-identification of literary heroes, to 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, to overcome the crisis.
Our conclusion about the differences in analytical attitudes in journals and observations of their change in authors who publish their articles in different journals confirm our conclusion. So A. Nemzer publishes works in "Znamya" in which moments of general cultural, mental crisis are actualized ("In what year - count", 1998), works of art are analyzed as a reflection 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 plan: “What? Where? When? About the novel by Vladimir Makanin: the experience of a short guide "(1998), in which follows" the text ", analyzing the space-time specifics of the novel, the system of characters; “Unfulfilled. Alternatives to History in the Mirror of Literature ”(1993), which offers an overview of contemporary novels-predictions, minimizing the fact of their resonance with the perception of contemporary history. M. Lipovetsky publishes his articles in all the "liberal" journals we are considering. In the "Banner" there are works in which the critic refers to the work of an individual author (s), and this allows M. Lipovetsky to conjugate the literary text and the "movement of the soul" of the author ("The End of the Lyric Age", 1996), in which the crisis of postmodernism is directly linked with the crisis of the historical and cultural environment ("Blue lard of a generation, or Two myths about one crisis", 1999). And the article “Living out of death. The specificity of Russian postmodernism "(1995), due to its theoretical nature and lack of correlation with the mental space, is perceived as" alien "in the context of the journal. The Novy Mir 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 ("Waste strategies, or metamorphisms of" chernukha ", 1999). They either remove or minimize 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 the object of interpretation, delves into the field of ontology of polyphonism, world images of chaos (this perspective is characteristic of "Banner") and at the same time practically does not the semantic plan of the text (which is typical for "Novy Mir"). This proves the conclusion about the intermediate position of "October" in terms of interpretive strategies and the foreshortening of the analysis of a literary phenomenon. The works of M. Lipovetsky are less characterized by the feeling of a crisis of self-identification, confusion in the situation of the loss of the reader, which the criticism of the 1990s experiences. This is due to the main scientific professional activity of M. Lipovetsky.
The practice of interpreting certain literary phenomena in criticism of Oktyabr reveals a number of typological points that make it possible to speak of special epistemological prestructures (invariant attitudes of literary critical thinking) characteristic of the criticism of this particular magazine. Criticism of "October" is not distinguished by harsh judgments; in the overwhelming majority of articles it is "not critical." The goal of the critic is to detect in the literary stream not tendencies, but individual literary phenomena, emphasizing their uniqueness and originality. As a rule, these are literary texts not by debutants, but by “writers with a reputation” (E. Popov, I. Akhmetyev, Yu. Kim, A. Melikhov, R. Pogodin, A. Sinyavsky, I. Brodsky, F. Gorenstein, etc. ). 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 analysand; the attitude that determines the relevance of hierarchization, the degree of evaluativeness - the irrelevance of an explicit / fundamental assessment of artistic value, judgment without including the text in the hierarchy.
In most articles devoted to the analysis of individual works, the critic strives to determine the cognitive or psychological foundations of the world-modeling of a particular writer. So, M. Zolotonosov, considering the actual aspect of meaning in the works of N. Kononov, associated 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 foundations are N. Kononov's Cartesianism and the irrelevance for him of the individual ("Roman") in the perception of things. The isolation of these grounds allows the critic to explain the peculiarities of the stanza, metaphor, to interpret individual works of the poet, to explain the reason for the author's indifference to building communication with the reader, to come closer to defining the type of self-identification of N. Kononov. B. Kolymagin discovers the basis of world modeling in I. Akhmetyev's poetry in the fundamental adjustment of the poet's poetic thinking to everyday life, and V. Krotov - in the adjustment to the carnival. E. Ivanitskaya, examining A. Melikhov's prose, comes to the conclusion that the postmodern foundations of perception and cognition of being are relevant for the author's thinking. The psychological and epistemological foundations of creativity are investigated by B. Filevsky (the critic sees the change in the communicative code in R. Pogodin's prose in the writer's acute 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 by the writer's need for self-disclosure), M. Krasnov (B. Khazanova explains the peculiarities of world modeling by the existential situation of the turning point, the feeling of the absence of the present, which the author is trying to artistically explore). Thus, another invariant attitude of the literary-critical thinking of "October" is the search for cognitive / psychological foundations of the literary mastery of being by the writer as a determining factor in the interpretation of the text.
The next setting, relevant for 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 / distance point, the principle of “explanatory parallel”. E. Ivanitskaya in the article "Burden of Talent, or New Zarathustra", exploring the image of Saburov (the hero of the second part of A. Melikhov's trilogy "Humpbacked Talents" - "So Saburov Spoke"), a person who realizes "that his strength has been exhausted, but not by dedication creativity, not an ascent to the truth, but the dull, exhausting, daily resistance of the ugly-hard post-Soviet life ", following the reminiscence given by the author, turns to the text of F. Nietzsche. Fixing the fundamental differences between Saburov and the image of Zarathustra (in the question of the consequences of absolutizing 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. So said Saburov. This is what Aleksandr Melikhov, a "tragic postmodernist", also says. 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 A. Ranchin's work "Man is a tester of pain ...".
The absence of this or that epistemological attitude can also become significant for characterizing the type of critical thinking. In our opinion, such a significant absence in the criticism of "October" is its low degree of sociology. For the most part, it is not focused on the perception of a separate literary phenomenon as a phenomenon that explains, clarifies reality, moreover, testifies to any aesthetic, ideological tendency.
As noted above, the communicative situation in which criticism operates, the “question” it throws at literary reality, determines the choice of works of art and the actual aspect of the text's content that the critic isolates. Criticism draws attention to the works, the authors of which are focused on the search for "ties", braces, supports, allowing the heroes to find peace of mind. The objects of attention are also examples of successful strategies (in postmodernism, mass media, lyrics). From the literary stream, the critic isolates literary phenomena associated with the tendency to turn to tried literary forms, the classics as a way to overcome the crisis. At the same time, criticism of liberal magazines is attentive to the crisis moments in drama, contemporary prose, postmodernism, and the activities of magazines. Variants of self-identification, the search for new forms, linguistic reserves are investigated 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 heroes are experiencing, (not) overcoming circumstances similar to those in which the critic finds itself: breakdown of values, lack of support, loss of a sense of reality, connection with the present, loneliness. Such isolated substantive plans are characteristic for each journal, but the degree of their actualization differs. Thus, criticism of Novy Mir is more focused on the search for true value coordinates, some kind of spiritual support in fiction, as well as on works whose storylines represent options for the hero's survival in existentially critical circumstances. The criticism of Znamya is especially attentive to the search for self-identification not of the hero, but of the author, of the magazine, of the lyrics in general, as well as of the crisis moments in literature. Criticism of "October" is focused on the formulation of socio-psychological "diagnoses", creates portraits of generations who find themselves in a situation of losing their time, isolates the collective unconscious, generated by the situation of crisis.
Comparison of the actual content components, the very choice of the subject of critical research, allows us to see another difference in the cognitive attitudes of journals. In the process of (self) interpretation, "New World" comprehends a specific artistic material, an embodied search for "answers" of the author and his heroes in artistic form, shifts the perspective to the area of ​​the space of someone else's consciousness. Znamya explores strategies, tactics, tendencies that manifest themselves in a group of works, in the work of a group of authors, in lyrics or prose as a whole, thus demonstrating a broader capture of material for interpretation. "October" epistemologically focused on the consideration of the literary text, the literary tendency in the aspect of reflection in it of the typological features of the consciousness of contemporaries (representatives of the old and younger generations).
In the outlined object and problem field of criticism of liberal journals, the process of self-identification of criticism in the context of the current crisis is manifested. Criticism actively explores the very phenomenon of the crisis (common to elite literature, magazines), in other words, the communicative situation, explores the problems of public consciousness on the basis 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 the communicative act, understood broadly. The second level, in our opinion, concerns 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 investigates the facts of the restoration of a torn literary tradition, finds typologies, identifying herself as capable of comprehending and fitting the contemporary literary situation into the broad context of literary development.
The dynamics of dominant components in the structure of goal-setting correlates with the considered process of changing epistemological coordinates and the evolution of self-identification. From the entire volume of critical works published in journals for 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 considered the groups chronologically. In the early 1990s (1991-1993) there were twice as many articles with a pragmatic dominant of the method in criticizing Znamya as there were analytically oriented ones. By the mid-1990s (1994-1996) we find only dynamics in the group with an analytical dominant (their number is gradually increasing) and by the end of the 1990s (1997-1999) it reaches a number three times higher than the initial number. By the end of the 1990s, pragmatic criticism was losing its quantitative superiority; now the ratio between the two groups is inversely proportional. In the "Novy Mir" magazine, the statistics by periods differ, but the general dynamics are repeated. From the beginning of 1990 to 1996, an equal number of analytic 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, in the period of the most acute reflection. Experiencing a situation of existential uncertainty, the danger of "abandonment", criticism uses the largest possible number of means aimed at the success of communication. With the passage of time, which has not resolved the crisis, criticism begins to master a new communicative situation and, as a consequence, to a greater extent to involve analytics.
A different dynamic is revealed in the literary criticism of Oktyabr. Until 1998, the number of analytically oriented (the overwhelming majority) and pragmatic texts did not change, but in the period from 1998 to 2002 the number of texts with a pragmatic dominant goal increased sharply. In our opinion, this is due to the weak reflection of the crisis situation in the criticism of this magazine, 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 late 1990s - early 2000s is also explained by the fact that writers (O. Slavnikova, L. Shulman, Ya. Shenkman, V. Rybakov, I. Vishnevetsky, etc. .), whose critical thinking presupposes to a greater extent the activity of the pragmatic component.
An analysis of the analytical component of the Znamya criticism method of 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), criticism is dominated by the pathos of exposing, restoring aesthetic, moral norms, it determines the dominance of the pragmatic component in the method and determines the direction of analytics (a typical strategy for deploying analytics is to collide myth / deviation from the norm with facts / norm) ... The demonstrated distance (mismatch) should achieve the pragmatic effect planned by the critic - a change in the recipient's value ideas. The pragmatics of Novy Mir and Oktyabr are not so “aggressive” and are more closely related to interpreted literary material. From the end of 1992 to 1995, criticism (more clearly in Znamya) formed a different strategy of critical comprehension of literary phenomena. It relies on a comparative-typological special method that allows you to determine the specifics of the phenomenon under consideration, finding an analogue or contrast to it in the literary / literary-critical tradition. In the late 1990s (late 1996-1999), criticism reorients its analytical potential towards the search for clamps 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 find common genre, aesthetic, and worldview convergence that allows one to see some tendencies: to describe the phenomenon of associative poetry (A. Ulanov "Slow Writing" (Banner. 1998, No. 8), transmetarealism (N. Ivanova "(Banner. 1998. No. 4)), the tendency of domestic postmodernism, showing the features of the crisis (M. Lipovetsky" Blue lard of a generation, or Two myths about one crisis "(Banner. 1999. No. 11)), the circumstances of the place and action (mental ), in which modern Russian literature is located (K. Stepanyan "False memory" (Banner. 1997. No. 11), highlight "silence" as a fundamental feature of the poetics of metaphorists (D. Bavilskiy "Silence" (Banner. 1997. No. 12)) , the manifestation of a crisis in drama (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 out the world. 1998. No. 4)), common features of the texts-finalists of literary prizes (N. Eliseev "Fifty-four. Bookeriada through the eyes of an outsider" (New world. 1999. No. 1), O. Slavnikova “Who is“ good ”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 regarding the communicative and epistemological situation and the peculiarities of the functioning of criticism in it. The circumstances of communication change during the 1990s, exacerbating the loss of an important member of the communicative 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 continues to work with the mass consciousness: it destroys myths, restores the idea of ​​the 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 general 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, an orientation towards a recipient-co-researcher or a silent interlocutor. By the end of the 1990s, critics have little understanding of the crisis nature of their own situation. Epistemologically, criticism changes qualitatively: from self-knowledge it goes 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 narrowed to a 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 “Along the Way of the Text” and “Struggle for Style” appeared in Novy Mir, implying a closer reading of individual texts.
The dynamics in terms of critical activity in the articles from 1992 to 2002 also correlates with the patterns identified. In the texts of "Znamya" of the period 1991-1993, the facto (text) centric perspective of critical activity prevails, a little less of the works of the self-centered (the perspective of the interpreted's own vision becomes defining). There are a minimum of author-centered texts. In the period 1994-1996, we recorded the growth of texts with an orientation towards the self of the critic, and by the end of the 1990s, their sharp decline. The same decline is observed in the group of texts reflecting the critic's orientation towards the author's (writer's) intention. The need for a recipient, which was most acutely felt until the mid-1990s, apparently explains the dominance of the self-centered method of critical activity of Znamya. 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 textocentrism naturally occur.
A different dynamic is observed in Novy Mir. In the early 1990s, text-centered criticism sharply dominated (the number of such works throughout the decade was practically the same), by the middle of the decade, the number of author-centered texts doubled, and by the end of the 1990s the number of the former and the latter was being compared. For Novy Mir, the growth of self-centrism, an abrupt change of perspectives, is not relevant. He, as we have already observed, is more analytical in understanding literary life and his place in it.
Until 1998, in October, there was a decline in author-centered criticism, with the dominance of textocentrism and a minimum of self-centrism. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, we note the growth of autocentrism and a sharp increase in self-centrism. This is due to an increase in the pragmatic component, which we record in the criticism of this period, as well as the activity of writers-critics at that time.
An analysis of the entire set of articles published in Novy Mir, Znamya, Oktyabr at the turn of the XX - XXI 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 presupposes self-determination in moral, ideological coordinates, self-understanding in a complex existential and communicative situation of confusion. Liberal criticism addresses the creative and life destiny of writers as a possible answer to existential, ontological "questions." The activity attitude of the critics of Novy Mir, Znamya, Oktyabr is an attitude towards search (interpretation of literary phenomena as a different experience of "interrogation", survival). The interpretation here takes the form of isolating the “answer” from the artistic structure (in the form of an idea, a life reference point, the hero's fate as a possible variant of a 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 interpreted "as my problem too", existentially close. For the critic of Novy Mir, Znamya, Oktyabr, the Other is “almost identical to me,” can help “me” to understand “me,” while interpreted literary, social reality is thought of primarily as the experience of the presence of Others, possible options for “answers” , (self) interpretations.
Typology is also found within the literary-critical discourse of individual "thick" journals. Thus, the attitude toward negative self-identity in the first half of the 1990s unites criticism of Novy Mir and Znamya and turns out to be irrelevant for Oktyabr. As a consequence of this, it is irrelevant for the last “restorationist” interpretation 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, the criticism of "Znamya", "New World", "October" follows in descending order. Criticism of Znamya is the most sociological and aggressive in the liberal journalistic context. Like Novy Mir, it proclaims the status of a critic-commentator, a reader as a norm, but it does so more harshly, “by contradiction”. Criticism of "October" accentuates the intermediary function, creating the image of a critic-mediator, a teacher.
All magazines tend to move in the direction of analytics, narrowing the perspective. But most of all dynamic in this evolution is "October", epistemologically oriented towards comprehending the literary situation, individual literary phenomena.
According to the criterion of the deducted meaning, the Znamya's attitude towards the study of the postmodernist type of thinking of modern man differs, and October's attitude towards the sphere of social psychology. Criticism of Znamya reads not only manifestations of the crisis and the forms of experiencing it, but also exit options in the form of successful strategies in the literature's “responses”. The "New World" is focused on the discovery of spiritual bonds, value guidelines.

... they are still alive

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

In the USSR, the “thick” magazines included Novy Mir, Oktyabr, Znamya, Neva, Moscow, Our Contemporary, Druzhba Narodov, Foreign Literature, Siberian Lights, Ural "," Zvezda "," 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", "Smena".

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

There were magazines of interest and for different ages: "Around the World", "Young Technician", "Young Naturalist", "Koster", "Pioneer", "Science and Religion", "Science and Life", "Technology of Youth", " Knowledge is Power "," Chemistry and Life "," Health "," Sports Games "," Behind the Wheel "," Journalist ".

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

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

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

IN "Banner" published "The Fall of Paris" by I. Ehrenburg, "Zoya" by M. Aliger, "Son" by P. Antokolsky, "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 Memories.

IN "Neve" published according to Wikipedia information D. Granin, Strugatsky brothers, L. Gumilev, L. Chukovskaya, V. Konetsky, V. Kaverin, V. Dudintsev, V. Bykov.
Neva introduced readers to The Great Terror by Robert Conquest 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 circulation of "Tolstoy" magazines

"Thick" magazines in the Soviet Union were very difficult to get. Subscribing to them was carried out only by pull (although the circulation of "Yunost" exceeded three million pieces), even if they came to the kiosks of "Soyuzpechat" in a minimal amount. There were only reading rooms in the libraries. Today in Russia, read it - I don’t want to, you can subscribe to anyone, but everyone has scanty circulations: in Novy Mir 7,200 copies, Oktyabr and Znamya have less than 5,000, and Druzhba Narodov - 3,000.

Andrey Voznesensky Virabov Igor Nikolaevich

"Banner" and "Youth". And the New World?

For the first time, Voznesensky's poems were published by the 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 fellow countryman. Both Mongol and Pole. / A fellow countryman for calluses, a fellow countryman around the world "...

It was the debut. The very first thing. Then, little by little, his poems were carefully circulated through other newspapers. Through thick magazines.

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

No buts. Now you can. Don't hide. He's been rehabilitated. There have been mistakes. What a light of thought! The tea will be brought in now. And you are like a son ...

No buts. We give your poems to your room. They will understand us correctly. You have the hand of a master, especially you succeed in the signs of our atomic age, modern words - well, for example, you write "caryatids ..." Congratulations.

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

- ... That is, how not a son? How is the namesake? Why are you fooling us here? Bring all sorts of harmful nonsense. We will not allow it. And I kept thinking - how is such a father, or rather, not a father ... What other tea? "

For those who did not understand. The namesake, Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky, was predicted at the end of the forties almost to be the "successor" of Stalin. The struggle for closeness to power is fraught. In 1949, that Voznesensky was timed to coincide with the "Leningrad case", removed from all posts, condemned as a conspirator and shot. And five years later, in 1954, he was rehabilitated.

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

“He brought, of course, poetry, and then 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 Voznesensky's rapid rise began, and before him Yevtushenko and Rozhdestvensky were heard ... 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 then visited me. Strange, but young poets more often than others, it seems, was then published by the magazine "Znamya". The editor there was Comrade Kozhevnikov, not the most, to put it mildly, progressive. Nevertheless, the same Kozhevnikov published Andrey's poems about the Polytechnic, omitting the following lines: “Hurray, student sharaga! / Well, sharahni / on combined their slaps! / 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 accident. I think he just had some sort of scores with the author of the "Anthem of Democratic Youth", which was then sung everywhere. And here is such a case - it is convenient to call Oshanin with the hands of Voznesensky ... "

Many years later, in the seventies, Vadim Kozhevnikov will sign a letter against Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, and it will no longer be accepted to remember anything good about him. But Voznesensky remembered goodness:

“The Znamya magazine was then the best poetry magazine. The liberal "New World" was the leader in prose and social thought, but because of the gloomy wariness of the great Tvardovsky, the department of poetry there was weak.

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

He took the refined intellectual Boris Leontievich Suchkov as his replacement. He went through the Gulag as a spy for all intelligence services, 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 site". It was about an actress, but he saw politics here and turned pale with horror.

You are right, of course, but why tease geese? - he said to me, and replaced "genius" with "insight" in "Autumn in Sigulda".

The Banner printed my Goya. This publication came as a shock to the officialdom. At a meeting of editors, the almighty head of the Central Committee's department for ideology, D.A.Polikarpov, branded these verses. Kozhevnikov got up, shouted at him, tried to protect me. My destiny as a poet began with "Goya". The first abusive article "A Conversation with the Poet Andrei Voznesensky" in "Komsomolskaya Pravda" smashed "Goya". Following were the articles of Gribachev, who intimidated everyone, and the frightened Oshanin. For them, formalism was a phenomenon similar to Weismanism 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 the official critics have lashed out at all my publications, which perhaps only adds to the rush of readers' interest.

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

I love my critics.

On the neck of one of them,

fragrant and naked,

the anti-head shines! ..

... I tried to prove that this was not about Khrushchev, that I had in mind my scolders Prokofiev and Gribachev, whose portrait resemblance inspired me with such an image. But this only aggravated my “guilt” ... Posters were posted all over the country where workers from Mukha and a collective farmer were sweeping dirty rubbish - spies, saboteurs, hooligans and a book called “Triangular Pear”.

So my fate 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 publish Ozu. But this is not their fault. It can be seen that the possibilities were limited. "

In addition to Znamya, there was also Yunost, where Valentin Kataev was. Actually, Yunost 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 without reason, that in terms of his influence in domestic journalism, the figure of the editor of Yunost was comparable to the figure of the editor of Novy Mir Tvardovsky ...

In the seventies, Kataev will write a sparkling preface to Voznesensky's book The Shadow of Sound. Andrey Andreyevich bashfully crossed out some compliments addressed to him. Kataev grinned: "Well, you don't want to be called a genius - your business ..."

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

“He entered the vestibule, as always, in a short jacket and a fur hat strewn with snowflakes, which gave his somewhat elongated young Russian face with strangely attentive, watchful eyes an even more Russian, perhaps even Old Slavic, appearance. Distantly, he resembled a bell, but without an ax.

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

I wanted to close the door behind her, from where the cold felt on my legs, but Voznesensky held out his defenselessly naked, narrow palms to me.

Do not close it, - he whispered pleadingly, - there is more ... Sorry, I did not warn you. But there - more ...

And in the door gap, expanding it to the extent of necessity, sliding along the old oilcloth and over the felt, warmly dressed guests from the Moscow region - men and women - began to penetrate closely one after the other, filling the tiny hallway in one minute and then shyly spreading further throughout the apartment.

I thought there would be three or four, ”Voznesensky apologized in a whisper,“ but there are, it turns out, five or six.

Or even seventeen or eighteen, ”I said.

I am not guilty. They are themselves.

It's clear. They sniffed out that he was coming to me to read new poems, and joined. Thus, he appeared along with an entire random audience. It was somewhat reminiscent of a barrel of kvass driving through the city on a hot day, followed by a line of thirsty people with cans in their hands at a brisk pace.

A pile of fur coats is piled under the stairs.

And now he stands in the corner near the door, straight, motionless, at first glance very young - modesty itself - but through this imaginary modesty, frightening insolence persistently shines through.

A grown boy with a finger, a test tube with a glowing reagent from the hellish fortress. Arthur Rimbaud, written by Rublev.

He reads a new poem, then old poems, then in general everything that he remembers, then everything that he has half-forgotten. Sometimes you can hear him well, sometimes the sound leaves and only an image remains, and then you need to read it yourself on his moving, whitened lips.

His audience doesn't budge. Everyone froze, fixing their eyes on the poet, and read the lines missing on the air on his lips. Here are writers, poets, students, playwrights, an actress, several journalists, acquaintances of acquaintances and unfamiliar strangers, unknown young people - boys and girls in dark gray pullovers, two physicists, a grinder from a car factory - and even one antagonist critic with a reputation for a shirt - a guy and a true fellow, that is, a nonsense, what kind of light he 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 "The 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 multitude of meanings and meanings.

... And, by the way, in "Novy Mir" Voznesensky's poem "At the opening of the Kuibyshev hydroelectric power station" was still published - in the eleventh issue of 1958. True, this was when the Novy Mir was headed by Konstantin Simonov. And under Alexander Tvardovsky - not in any. Gladilin recalls that he “didn’t let Akhmadulina, Voznesensky, Yevtushenko, Okudzhava, Rozhdestvensky, Moritz,” “for a kilometer”. Semyon Lipkin in his "Meetings with Tvardovsky" names among the rejected Maria Petrovs and Brodsky. Why?

Sofya Karaganova, editor of the poetry department of the journal at Tvardovsky, will recall later (Voprosy literatury. 1996. No. 3): “I propose to print Voznesensky's poem Grove, AT 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 short while - to recall the lines from Voznesensky's Grove: “Don't touch a person, a tree, / don't make a fire in it. / And so this is done in him - / God, do not bring it! / Don't hit the man, bird, / shooting is not open yet. / Your circles are lower, quieter. / The unknown is sharper ... "

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

Once I told Alexander Trifonovich with chagrin:

- Voznesensky published Novy Mir when he was still unknown to anyone. He's talented, he's famous now, but we don't publish him.

Well, that’s not a reason at all. They would say that he is talented, but he is not published, here it is ...

And indeed, when Voznesensky stopped printing (for one and a half or two years they did not publish at all: "signatory"), the poems he proposed to the magazine were immediately signed into Tvardovsky's set ... I do not 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 "signatory" 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 the letters, which it is ashamed not to sign. There will never be his signature under any dastardly letter.

And about magazines ... Already in our times he will nostalgically remember what once it all began: “Thick magazines are completely bent ... 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. They are all in patent leather shoes ... "

In the late fifties, it was tense with patent leather shoes. It's not that the shoes don't bother, it's just that many - that's a dope in their heads! - they naively thought: it is more important that the poems are - brilliance.

As if poetry is more interesting for life than shoes. Ha ha ha.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Maria Ulyanova the author Kunetskaya Lyudmila Ivanovna

The banner is raised. They return to Moscow, but they do not stay here for long. The conditions of the underground work developed in such a way that Maria Ilyinichna had to leave. It was decided that everyone would live together in Saratov. The mother is in a hurry, she feels that danger is hanging over her daughter, spies, do not

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

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

From the book of Kurchatov the author Astashenkov Petr Timofeevich

They carry the banner ... Recently I had a chance to visit the Institute of Atomic Energy named after I. V. Kurchatov. At a late hour, the director of the institute, Academician Anatoly Petrovich Aleksandrov, was talking with a young employee about new, more advanced reactors, about direct transformation

From the book Stories of my life. Volume 2 the author Morozov Nikolay Alexandrovich

3. The Star Banner Spring has passed, all summer has passed, and autumn has come 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 to know each other, and the conversations soon became sluggish. To make it even easier

From the book Against the Winds the author Dubinsky Ilya Vladimirovich

2. Black banner Iona Haiduk, namesake of the division commander, led a half-squadron of horsemen to Parkantsi. The hot July sun, hanging overhead, gilded the fields. Shocks of freshly harvested wheat stood on one side of the lane, and on the other, bright carpets of bashtans lay.

From the book Remember, Can't Forget the author Kolosova Marianna

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

From the book Nikolai Ernestovich Bauman author Novoselov M.

THE POWERFUL BANNER The Russian State was on fire ... The fire illuminated half the world! But our glory did not perish, And the tricolor banner did not fall. We took it away from there And we will not 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 Ugreshskaya lyre. Issue 3 the author Egorova Elena Nikolaevna

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

From the book Diary Leaves. Volume 1 the author

Banner My banner lays like an oilcloth in the kitchen, My ideals have long since become rotten. The guys do not write about our battalion commander, I sold orders on the old Arbat. I hung my beret and a vest in the closet, I forgot the times when my chest was wide open. All the principles are rolled up tightly into the dough, In my own country I

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

Banner In the White House today, with the participation of President Roosevelt, a Pact is being signed. The Banner has already been hoisted over our bishin. In many countries, it will flutter today. Friends and co-workers will gather in many parts of the world in solemn communication and outline the following

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

Banner of Peace Ask 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, an explanation is closer that it is

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

Banner of Peace (24.10.1945) On the day of World War II, we wrote: "TO THE GUARDIANS OF CULTURAL ASSETS The thunder of the European War demand that the most keen attention be paid again to the protection of cultural property. The pact on such protection is under discussion in a number of

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

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

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

The banner of the people I was swayed by a swing of thought, I plunge into an ocean of sorrow. When I could plunge into the blood of tyrants, Then I would float like a river of tears to other distances. Mentor, descend to my skill, Leave me on 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.

From the author's book

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

This term has other meanings, see New World ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see New way. Novy Put is a Russian religiously philosophical journalistic journal, created in 1902 and existed until the end of 1904. Magazine originally intended for ... ... Wikipedia

New world: Contents 1 Printed editions 1.1 Magazines 1.2 Newspapers ... Wikipedia

New World: Contents 1 Russia 2 Ukraine 2.1 Crimea ... Wikipedia

"New world"- NEW WORLD lit. artist and societies. polit. magazine, until 1991 the organ of the USSR SP. Published in Moscow since 1925. Among the editors. N. M. A. Lunacharsky, Yu. Steklov (Nakhamkis), I. Skvortsov Stepanov (1925), V. Polonsky (Gusev) (1926 31), I. Pronsky (1932 37), V. ... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary

This term has other meanings, see New World (disambiguation). "New world". 1988, No. 7. ISSN ... Wikipedia

- "NEW WORLD" monthly literary art and social political magazine, ed. "Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Central Executive Committee". From 1925 it was published under the editorship of A. V. Lunacharsky and I. I. Stepanov Skvortsov, and from 1926 them and V. P. Polonsky, who was ... Literary encyclopedia

- "New world". 1988. No. 7. 0130 7673. Traditional magazine cover. In this issue, for example, were published poems by Vladimir Tsybin, Konstantin Vanshenkin, Nona Slepakova, Leonard Lavlinsky, Y. Daniel, a story by Tatiana Tolstoy, ending ... ... Wikipedia

Specialization: contemporary art Frequency: 6 times a year Abbreviated title: NOMI Language: Russian Editor-in-chief: Vera Borisovna Bibinova ... Wikipedia

- ("New World") monthly literary, art and social political magazine, organ of the Union of Writers of the USSR. Published in Moscow since January 1925. The first editors were A. V. Lunacharsky, Yu. M. Steklov, II Skvortsov Stepanov; with… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

• The magazine "World of PC" №12 / 2015, World of PC. In the issue: Theme of the issue: A holiday comes to us ... A gift for yourself A gift should be a gift, it should be bright, memorable - so that you would like to show it to your friends or in social networks. ... eBook
• The magazine "World of PC" №07-08 / 2016, World of PC. In this issue: Theme of the issue: Network solutions How to bring the Internet to your dacha: Personal experience of fighting digital isolation What to do if you fled from stuffy Moscow to your dacha or even decided ...