In connection with the restructuring of the social environment, change and installation of a human personality. And it is not a consequence of the ill will of some extreme selfishness, or even some bad inclinations. On the contrary, people seems to be becoming honest, fair, considerate, reasonably economical… it is not fights, no screams, virtues he has much more than the disadvantages…. It seems from the outside.
Has changed fundamentals of the internal, if you changed some inner deity, and with it the whole moral basis has changed. People have become callous and harsh because selflessly serve a new absolute, definite, deity, principle. All human beings live by a sincere belief in the new, prone to disorder and deviation from the norm and therefore must be subordinated to this rough principle: “all you have to pay!”.
Need to pay for children’s education, you need to pay for food and water: “Every SIP is worth the money” – is suggested in a level voice students, and it should work (your parents, then you).
And this is not the fault of the individual – this whole society was so reconstructed.
Professed the “new” postulates are nothing new; they are well known. “Everyone needs to own”, “I work and used to appreciate the work of others”, know how to eat, learn and work” – there is nothing to argue. All as in the famous fable “the Ant and the Grasshopper”: “summer red sang, you sang this, so let’s go and I will dance”.
People now preach from childhood with a deep conviction that it is the immutable laws of existence. And already grown-up young people feel constant violators of these laws, when someone selflessly helps them, or when they do someone will decide to help out of simple humanity.
“To have extra children, you need to have extra money”, proclaims one of the young doctors that working in a private clinic. On the face of mothers displayed a guilty expression, as if she gave birth to a living being without permission, from an empty whim. The world is tough enough.
Literature – a reflection of the time. And writers feel the change earlier and respond to them. In the literature of each era, there are many honest, ordinary workers, who often lack even the development of their creative abilities choose modestly in the existing art system, the most, in their opinion, committed principles, and to the best of their ability strive to master them. Such writers easily meet the running demands of his contemporaries, can immediately attract attention and become a celebrity. For example, at the time, the prose of F. Bulgarin was more alive than the prose of Pushkin and Gogol. In the 1890s, many critics quite seriously wrote about the superiority of the I. Potapenko with his “fresh talent” over Chekhov; then plays V. Krylov and A. Shpazhinskogo enjoyed greater success than the plays of Chekhov. Examples of this kind and many other early era. But who except historians of literature, knows in our days something of the same Potapenko or about the same Krylov and Spaincom? Time proves that these darlings of success and of fashion had only one undoubted talent – adaptive plasticity.
Small stories are better unsaid than to tell, because… because… I don’t know why” – Chekhov wrote in a letter to a friend. Quite simply – we are quite counting on readers believing that all the missing in the story subjective elements he will think of, will add myself.
In our days the connoisseurs of aesthetics and literary theory used to say that every big artist has their own model of the world, – that is, their deeply thoughtful, experienced and hard-won understanding of life, meaning in this case primarily the understanding of man in all his infinite complexity of relationships: to nature, to others, to society.
But taking this compromised fashion term – it should be borne in mind that the Identity of any such model of the writer relative.
Every true artist, whatever it was massive – even if he is Shakespeare himself, is bound to enter a certain system of literary values, which are based on the most influential or the most common views on life and the world. A “case” of this system form corresponding to these views aesthetic views and artistic taste of our time, and the methods and techniques of the images of reality in modern times.
Therefore, during the time when it was fashionable to describe numerous related factors: sideburns, ruches ruffles dresses, and other details. The style of Chekhov are not taken seriously.
Conscious self-determination in the system of values of the epoch, as a rule, begins only when time passes first attempt of creativity. The case is infinitely complex, and in many cases even tragically painful. A lot here depends on the scale of talent and what is the ability of media to resist the pressure of hostile work circumstances, corrupting and eventually overwhelming and sometimes even very large talents.
Right incredibly ancient. The history of mankind “goes in circles”, as said the notorious wisest Solomon. And rather, everything is cyclical: improving environment, and morals back to the last century, every time.
Nobody can deny the fact of strengthening of the bourgeois (caps) in all spheres of public life. All the development of society, all changes occur under the pressure of capitalist beginning.
It all started long ago in the days of L. N. Tolstoy. He wrote in “Anna Karenina” in the mouth of Levin what was the “pass” Russian history after 1861: “we now Have all this prioroties and only fit” – it’s hard to imagine a more apt characteristic of the period 1861-1905 years. That “prioroties”, it is serfdom and the entire “old order”, it is appropriate. That “just fit”, completely unfamiliar, alien, it was not clear to the broad masses of the population.
It would seem that before the literature of the time, of course, was a task which no notice was simply impossible, to capture and comprehend the traits of the new “only ukladyvaetsya” the order of life. But as one of the most important was understood not as soon as you might think. First of all, it proved to be extremely difficult.
Here again it is necessary to remind that the history is returned “to normal”.
And in our times happened – the change in society, led to the same, the situation as it was after the abolition of serfdom. Nothing new and society has not come up since. Again, on a fork of ways: one part of society craves a new bourgeois capitalist apparatus, the other in memory wants to restore the days of the nobility: the master, the master of the estate, the servants and “serfs”, under the new “farming”.
While the situation is assessed and understood Dostoevsky. In the January issue of “writer’s Diary” in 1877, he wrote that in Russian society there are “lines of a new reality”….
Is this reality different from that which had been in the same aristocratic circle, a historian who, in his opinion, was Tolstoy. Here is how he wrote: “there’s a new, yet unknown, but radical change, at least, a huge rebirth in the new and upcoming, almost unknown form…” you Can draw a parallel for our time. There is a desire to build a new society, and the light at the end of the tunnel from the old past is not visible: on the one hand capitalism, and on the other the peasant and farming community.
“It felt…, – wrote in his “diary of a writer” Dostoyevsky – that huge part of the Russian order of life is left without monitoring or historian. At least, it is clear that the life of a middle-high our especially the circle of the nobility, so vividly described by our novelists, is already too small and isolated area of Russian life. Who is the Historian the rest of the corners, seems scary numerous? And if in this chaos in which for a long time already, but now especially, is social life, and it is impossible to find a normal law and the guiding thread even, perhaps, Shakespearean in size, the artist, at least, who will cover at least part of this chaos, and though not dreaming of a guiding thread? Most importantly, like everyone else does, not to what it’s like too early for our greatest artists. We have, undoubtedly, life is decaying… but is necessary, and life is again emerging. On new basis”.
The majority of young writers of the time, those of 1880-ies was not shoulder the pathos of the work of the great predecessors, the force of their protest against social evil, the courage of their philosophical quest. But that the works of these writers was obviously predetermined by influence of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, Shchedrin, Nekrasov, weakening sounded muffled. However, it is not only not hindered, but rather contributed to the popularity of such works.
To draw Parallels to our time again is not difficult.
Exhausted of ideas, the shadows, and then just almost a caricature of the great similarity of the samples was just the taste of the reading that the person is not already in those years that had a decisive impact on the state of the book market. But at the time appeared, and was bound to occur and a counter-movement: there were the writers consciously and intentionally adapt to the needs of the reader. There could be no question of any consistency of direction; more widely eclectic heritance: a little from Dostoevsky, something from Tolstoy and Turgenev and very slightly such that it resembles Shchedrin.
That’s about as written by our modern writers. History repeats itself.
© 2017, micetimes.asia. All rights reserved