Эльсберг

Over the past five or six years, literary scholarship in the Soviet Union has been undergoing a real renewal. One only has to think how many mistakes and misconceptions, how many incorrect views have been overcome in this short time! And the timid tone, and the empirical character of Literary Criticism, and the recurrence of a narrow Rappian conception of literature, and the intolerable backwardness of aesthetic and literary-theoretical thought, and often blatantly lowered aesthetic criteria. It seems as if the times were long gone when collections of current literary-critical articles and monographic essays on Soviet writers could be counted on the fingers; when there were no comprehensive studies of new Russian and Soviet literature, and no generalizing works on realism and socialist realism were written. The books that were published did not cover all literary phenomena, the more complex ones were overlooked, and entire periods of the history of Russian literature - for example, the late 19th and early 20th centuries - remained insufficiently illuminated. A number of circumstances prevented a more objective view and a more understanding assessment of even such a phenomenon as the proletarian poetry of the first years of Soviet power, not to mention the poetry of Blok and Yesenin or the satirical work of Ilfi Petrov. Writers who had played a significant role in literary life at the time were excluded from literary development. And as a natural result of all this, along with clever and serious books, illustrative, primitive-sociological writings began to appear one after another, flooded with an abundant number of quotations, behind which hid the lack of independent creative thought, of the ability to subtly and inspiredly penetrate artistic phenomena (which is associated with a natural gift, with a vocation), of truly profound knowledge.