Критикът

Every unbiased reader cannot fail to notice that in his new book of literary-critical articles "Writers and Time" Pencho Danchev embarks on a very interesting discussion about the significant achievements and painful new searches, about the inevitable difficulties, experimental passions and obstacles in the development of our contemporary poetry. He does not hide his justified enthusiasm for the fact that in our contemporary literature there are different and very good poets, broadly reflecting life, its clashes, sharp conflicts and rapid changes. He shares his own reflections, generated by the creative originality of such an outstanding master of lyric poetry as Nikola Furnadzhiev. He analyzes the most significant in the work of the poets Veselin Hanchev, Valeri Petrov, Radoy Ralin and Penyo Penev. He rejoices in the irrepressible impulses and the excited discovery of the "young" - Lyubomir Levchev, Vladimir Bashev, Hristo Fotev and Damyan Damyanov. With concern and love he guides the "youngest" - Stefan Tsanev, Ivan Dinkov, Nikola Indjov, Ivan Trenev, Atanas Mochurov, Konstantin Pavlov, Alexander Milanov, Hristo Katsarov, Krastyo Stanishev, Minko Tsonevski, Slav Hr. Karaslavov.

It is easy to say that our literary criticism is lagging behind in its tasks, that it has not yet taken up a serious and concrete conversation, that it has lost some of its combat capability and efficiency; instead of disputes and discussions on contemporary artistic phenomena, there are deep-seated arguments that do no one any good. But I am not saying this because, instead of the statement, I am more concerned with the reasons for this state of affairs and the ways to overcome it. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that at least one reason is very obvious. Some literary critics were simply stunned by the sudden expanse that has recently opened up to them. Previously, they were used to seeing themselves as performers. And as is known, being a performer in literature is not difficult: they tell you what is good and what is bad, you go home, sit down at the typewriter, and by morning the article is that. And you are convinced that you are leading the literary process and speaking on behalf of the party. Thus, little by little you lose a sense of reality, you detach yourself from practice and you live with the obsession for a special role in literature. But with the decisions of its April Plenum, the party changed the situation: all matters returned to their true essence, including the matters of literary criticism. However, it took time to achieve results. It had to be understood that literary criticism does not enjoy any special rights, that it is an ordinary literary genre, like other literary genres. The task turned out to be more complex than before: now the literary critic is required to be competent, independent, well-intentioned, and principled in his assessments. He can no longer excuse his mistakes with instructions "from above" but is obliged to answer for his activities before the party and the people in the same way as all writers.

Boyan Nichev is one of our contemporary critics who shows a certain interest in problematic thinking, in the complexity of literary phenomena. He combines a subtle critical observation and a talent for generalizing, for getting to the root of the relevant literary facts. In his writing, he is not spontaneous in the least, passion does not pursue him frantically. On the contrary, you feel how the mind slowly but persistently spreads before us the picture of the relevant literary reality, in order to then reach the regularities and new features of the whole. B. Nichev simply revels in the opportunity to enter the literary phenomenon, for him this is equal to an aesthetic experience. Therefore, he strives for the spiritual discovery to receive a corresponding plastic equivalent, to become visible, "visible" to the reader.