What is a critical article. Literary criticism

Article, review and essay are genres of literary criticism, designed to evaluate and interpret works of art and the phenomena of life reflected in them.

Literary criticism considers both modern and classic literature(its modern reading), it is closely connected with aesthetics, theory and history of literature.

The nature of literary criticism has changed over time. At first it was mainly overall score works, recommending it to other readers. Then its goals and objectives become more complicated. The aesthetic, social and moral significance of the work, which is considered as an integral artistic phenomenon in the unity of form and content, becomes important evaluation criteria.

However, often some critics considered and evaluated works of art mainly from the standpoint of aesthetic significance (aesthetic criticism), while others examined the content of the work, comparing it with life itself, subjected to analysis social processes, identified typical phenomena, endured sentence of life, captured by the writer ( real criticism). There were other directions as well. Criticism Soviet period was guided by class and party criteria in evaluating works.

Criticism seeks to consider piece of art in the unity of all its qualities: social, aesthetic, moral significance and humanistic orientation. The critic helps the reader to comprehend the ideas and images given by the author. At the same time, he takes into account the peculiarities of the language and style of the writer, his artistic manner.

It is important for a critic to be friendly in his treatment, accurate, sincere and honest in his argument.

A critical article is one of the main genres of literary criticism. It provides an analysis and evaluation of the book, its topics, ideological content, language and style, the significance in a number of other works of the writer is indicated, etc.

Often literary-critical articles are journalistic in nature, i.e., along with the analysis and evaluation of the work, they consider public problems raised by the writer.

School essays in the genre of a literary-critical article can be devoted to a character or group of characters of one work (“Tatiana’s dear ideal” in A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”, “Noble Moscow in A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” ), comparing the characters of one or two works (“The meaning of the opposition of Oblomov and Stolz in the novel by I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, “Onegin and Pechorin are heroes of their time”), as well as a holistic interpretation of the work or the problem posed in it or theoretical literary question (“Ideological and artistic originality of M. Yu. Lermontov’s poem “Mtsyri”, “L. N. Tolstoy on the role of personality in history” (based on the novel “War and Peace”), “Landscape and its role in the novel by I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons").

Literary-critical writings require, first of all, good knowledge text and the ability to interpret it. However, the school interpretation of a literary text differs from the literary one.

Mastering the genre of the article allows reading and analyzing articles by Russian critics.

Sample questions to help parse a literary-critical article:

What time was the article written?

In the name of what was the article written, what goals and objectives did the critic set?

What methods of interpretation of the text does he use?

How does he prove his point of view, how does he draw conclusions and generalizations, with whom does he argue? The culture of controversy.

What other articles have been written about this work? What is the point of view of their authors?

What thoughts and feelings does the critic seek to arouse in the reader?

How does the article start? Her composition, language and style.

How do you feel about critics' assessments? Use the text of a work of art to prove it.

When studying the content of a particular critical article, you can use the following techniques: give a historical and literary background, organize a commented reading of the article, help draw up a plan and abstracts for it, suggest writing independent work in the form of an answer to questions on the most difficult provisions of the article.

When teaching to write essays on a topic related to a theoretical literary concept, it must be taken into account that the theory of literature has applied value V school learning and serves as a means of competent interpretation and comprehension artistic text.

• Even if the author of the article has conducted his own research and quotes authoritative experts, analyze the feasibility and applicability of the idea in real conditions.
• Explore the introduction and conclusion, which should be consistent and represent compelling supporting elements of the article.

Examine the article for accidental and intentional biases. If the conclusions made are beneficial to the author of the article, then his conclusions may turn out to be subjective.

• The biased author ignores counter-arguments, misinterprets the facts in order to distort the conclusions, and imposes his own unsubstantiated opinion on the reader. Substantiated opinion is not objectionable, but allegations should always be treated with skepticism.
• Also, bias can be based on prejudice (racial, ethnic, gender, class or political affiliation).

The genre of the article is the main one in analytical journalism. The term "article" comes from Latin word"articulus" and originally meant the same thing as "joint", "member", "part of the Whole". This explains why in journalistic practice any single publication, being part of, for example, the entire text of a newspaper issue, can be called an "article". It is also no coincidence that, perhaps, with the exception of short messages, articles are a huge number of publications of various genres. But when it comes to a well-defined genre of "article" (in the narrow sense of the word), then it is understood as publications that analyze certain situations, processes, phenomena, underlying natural relationships in order to determine their political, economic or other significance and finding out what positions should be taken, how to behave in order to support or eliminate such a situation, such a process, such a phenomenon.

Even more precisely, one can define an article as a genre intended primarily for the analysis of topical, socially significant processes, situations, phenomena and laws governing them. An analytical discussion of the subject in the article should be conducted in such a way that readers can, using the publication, reflect further on issues of interest to them. Thus, we can talk about the special function of the article. It consists in the fact that the article explains to readers both the social and personal significance of current processes, situations, phenomena, their cause-and-effect relationships, and thus initiates reader reflections and actions related to the subject of display in the publication. In addition, it draws the attention of the audience to the tasks and problems that arise in connection with the situations described, shows what strategic or tactical interests certain participants in these situations have. A successful article creates a real idea of ​​the current situation, serves as a basis for the development of ideas, impulses that precede the adoption of practical measures. A "correct" article is always associated with the display of a subject of a very definite nature.

The subject of the genre of the article can be seen both in those contradictions and problems that are contained in actual situations and processes, and in the tasks arising from them, in the conditions of their solution, ordering and in the trends, prospects, patterns of social development associated with them.

Currently, there are relatively stable forms of manifestation of the article genre in the press. The main ones can be considered as follows.

General Research Article

This group includes publications that analyze generally significant, broad issues. For example, the author of such an article may talk about the directions of the political or economic development country or talk about the level of morality that exists today in society as a whole, or about the possibility of a union of church and state, or about the country's relations with foreign states, or about the problems of creating a pan-Slavic federation, etc.

Such publications differ high level generalizations, global thinking of the authors. The purpose of the general research article is to study various patterns, trends, development prospects modern society. In the practice of Soviet journalism, a modern general research article corresponded to a theoretical and propaganda article that considered the same global problems, but from the dialectical positions of Marxism-Leninism.

From the publication "Intelligentsia and Capitalism (Russian Thought. No. 4283. 1999)

I remember that at the beginning of the century there was such a classic article "Intelligentsia and socialism", which raised the question of how, in what forms, the intelligentsia accepts socialist transformations and participates in them. Now is the time to consider the opposite case: the place of the intelligentsia in the capitalist systemic transformation of Russia.

On the one hand, all prominent reformers are representatives of the educated class, coming from, in the words of Solzhenitsyn, "educated". The Russian reformation is the reformation of the heads of the labs and the menes. On the other hand, the Counter-Reformation feeds on juices from the same environment, the higher educational establishments represent a stronghold of the intellectual "Vendee", the staff of the Academy of Sciences merge in their demands with representatives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, writers, musicians and theatrical figures hover around solid retrogrades like the Moscow mayor Luzhkov.

It seems that this phenomenon has a materialistic explanation. The driving force that pushed forward the mechanism of reformation was the consensus formed on the basis of the ideas of democracy and the market. These ideas, like never before seen overseas goods and services, turned out to be undifferentiated for neophytes, merged together and turned into a center of aspiration as those who, in their own way, social essence and life experience was guided by democratic values ​​(intelligentsia), and those who were guided by the values ​​of market capitalism (nascent business, advanced part of the bureaucracy). The consensus proved to be short-lived, although historical role played successfully: ideas, having mastered the masses, became driving force, driving force moved the walls, destroying them - from Berlin to China.

Market reality quickly began to destroy the illusions characteristic of the Russian intelligentsia. It turned out that the very fact of the mind, education, spirituality and creative aspirations does not at all create public recognition the need for services provided by the bearers of these valuable qualities, all the more so - promises that these services will someday be provided. Scientists who have firmly grasped that science is a way to satisfy their curiosity at public expense, cultural figures who firmly believe that the state is obliged to buy up their highly artistic works in the bud, it turned out to be extremely difficult to realize the rigidity of budget restrictions.

Previously, there was a guaranteed demand for the services of scientists, cultural figures, educators, etc. In fact, this explained that the entire educated class was a Soviet employee. Hence the huge overproduction of engineers, doctors, physicists and lyricists, which continues to this day: excess teachers produce excess engineers.

This article outlines the theoretical concept of the place and role of the modern Russian intelligentsia in the capitalization of society and in the processes of formation of market relations. By its nature, this concept is socio-economic. What subject feature this publication? First of all, the article deals with such an important social phenomenon, which is Russian intelligentsia at the time of its transformation under the influence of the laws that govern the transition from the distribution system of relations in society - to the market. The purpose of this publication is to explain why the Russian intelligentsia, which was one of the most important forces that gave rise to perestroika, has now become an active opponent of it. Such a purely "explanatory" goal is the most important feature of publications of a theoretical orientation (scientific publications in the first place).

In the course of presenting his concept, the author relies not on concrete examples, but on generalized judgments, on representations that include a cumulative past experience, on the patterns underlying capitalist relations in society. This article does not suggest any program of action related to the subject under discussion. Firstly, it is very difficult to formulate it, and secondly, if it could be done, then it would look (due to the complexity of the relationships under consideration) too generalized, abstract. Usually, in publications of this type, recommendations are usually absent.

In everyday communication, the true motives and desires of a critic sometimes look frankly irrational and naive, therefore, with the help of simple manipulation, he wraps his ingenuous claims in a camouflage of strict seriousness, in the hope that this bitter pill will be taken at face value and swallowed without choking. Interestingly, not only the victim of the critic, but he himself buys into his own manipulations, not noticing his real motives. What is behind the criticism? The site already has several articles about, which for the most part talk about the causes of the painful experiences of the injured party. Here we will focus on the attackers - picky critics.

Criticism - constructive and not very

Constructive criticism- this is such a "debriefing" that helps to identify errors and develop. And here the criticized defendant, if he is really interested in perfection, should cast aside the megalomania, stop making excuses, and pay uncomplaining attention to what is being said to him.

Such "criticism" is used in order to unobtrusively poke the client's nose into his delusions. But no constructive will help when the recipient is aimed not so much at development as at self-affirmation. Then any criticism, advice and comments will be perceived as an aggressive attack. That's probably all about constructive criticism.

Destructive criticism appears much richer and more intricate. Although her central motive is vulgarly simple, that's why it is covered by an abundance of disparate masks.

Without any disguise, that is - in pure form self-affirmation is not practiced, because it is built on self-deception - the substitution of the obvious fact of active self-love by covering up some plausible reason, for example, constructive criticism or righteous anger. And when self-deception is exposed, the very structure of self-affirmation is undermined. Therefore, if you stick out your ego, then consciously - so, at least there is a chance to recognize your self-deception and psychologically "simplify".

Therefore, critics with a coarsened consciousness assert themselves in a rude way. Their uncouth motives are not obvious to them. Refined people fool themselves subtly by exposing themselves to best light masterfully elegant.

In general, by any form of his destructive criticism, the critic is trying to convey to us a simple message that he is better than us. Everything else - details - a smokescreen of false justifications and justifications.

"Figures" of destructive criticism

Often destructive criticism is charged with envy. The critic wants to be of the same quality, or even better. And to admit this desire of his means for him to sink, to realize that he is unfavorably different from the recipient of his envy. I even admit that envy is repressed sympathy. A critic can adore you, and when these feelings go unanswered, they become humiliating and covered up with criticism. "From love to hate one step".

Similar motives guide the critic when he notices the success of newcomers. If a critic has signed up as a professional and builds self-esteem on this, the success of a beginner for him again borders on the humiliating awareness of his inadequately inflated self-esteem. For this reason, the critic stocks up in advance with the clipper of other people's wings, and joins the terrarium of professional hazing.

It also happens the opposite - when the layman distributes self-satisfied advice to professionals and criticizes them in order to immediately rise to highly authoritative spheres for free.

A powerful motive for criticism can be the bitter experience of one's own shortcomings. The critic wanted success and victories, but having lost faith in himself, he gave up, gave in to the suffocating framework into which society harnessed him. He is humiliated by the slave collar around his neck, and in order to justify his decision, he expects others to either suffer as well - with him on an equal footing, or express great respect to him for his martyrdom. And when others do not care, the martyr, in order not to feel like a burdock, and generally close himself from understanding the current situation, begins to justify his way of life and criticize the freedom for which he did not have the courage.

For a similar reason, we do not like arrogant arrogant and all sorts of non-standard personalities. It seems that this is, in general, a “trademark” neurosis of our country. We are addicted to which all respectable citizens, real girls and normal boys. We drive our pride into a corner, and harness it to the harness of social standards. And for those who did not pacify themselves with this team, we pass a “fashionable verdict”.

The proud person criticizes in order to show that he has access to much more advanced things and knowledge, in comparison with which the object of criticism is mass-produced stupidity. They say "we have seen such mountains, in comparison with which this one is just a plain."

The proud man criticizes in order to inspire himself with the feeling that everyone except him is an incurable sucker, and he is the master of life, or an alpha male who has bent under himself and therefore outstripped everyone he could in the hierarchy of existence. In a professional environment, such personnel are called tyrants.

The reason for criticism can also be a banal personal dislike. In this case, vindictive criticism can be disguised as any seemingly innocent remarks, advice and remarks.

In everyday life, criticism can cover up a typical manipulation designed to arouse feelings of guilt, so that the criticized realizes how wrong he was and, magically, embarked on the path of redemption for his sins and mistakes. Of course, as a rule, such fabulous transformations do not occur - at best, instead of guilt, the victim criticized remains in a calm understanding of the situation, otherwise he expresses indifference, but most often it is accepted to defend himself with reciprocal criticism.

In a dispute, when opinions differ, opponents descend to criticism in order to justify their way of life and their own. The critic in this case is not even inclined to think about what exactly he is criticizing. He is simply "right" because the ego cannot be wrong. The ego rests on the pillars of rightness, and for this it recruits all conceivable and inconceivable rationalizations, sometimes reaching the monstrous depth of the intricacies of philosophical "wisdom".

conclusions

In general, someone else's opinion is not necessarily an expression of truth, and in the case of destructive criticism, it is rather an expression of internal frustration than any real facts. It differs from the constructive one by not always adequate content, negative emotional energy and the presence of assessments.

In order not to be led by the provocation of a critic, one should not build self-esteem on the opinions of others. Other people's reviews can be anything, then self-esteem will be anything - forever fluctuating. Is it real? Praised - good. Scolded - bad. Why prove criticism that he is wrong? So that he understands how wrong he was in his bad opinion about our good person? So that we remain correct and approved even in his critical comments? Even if the critic is right in content and expressed constructively, there is no such obligation to worry about someone else's opinion.

Destructive criticism is always a winding up of negative karmic turns, where bad experiences that encourage criticism are fixed - they create complex knots in the natural course vital energy. The emotional background from this disgrace is methodically clouded, the mind projects more and more problems onto neutral life situations, and life begins to seem unfair and filled with stupid egoists.

The way out, as before, is self-knowledge, sober look on themselves, their motives and decisions. After any ambiguous situation, it is useful to introspect and meditate to distinguish between those fears that were covered by superficial reactions.