Georgi Dzhagarov

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.

I start with the last question, because I think it is very important. Is there a difference between intimate and civic poetry? As much as we would like not to see a difference, it does exist. I do not agree that every poem that is imbued with intimacy should be called intimate poetry. In "Fight" and "Farewell," Hristo Botev is intimate, but hardly anyone would dare to include these poems in intimate poetry. When we talk about intimate poetry, we mean that poetry that is born in the sphere of personal relationships. Mother and beloved, relatives and acquaintances, friends and comrades - these are the ones who cause intimate excitement in us. For all their significance, they do not affect other people or society. Perhaps I will be clearer if I cite as an example the poem dedicated to A. P. Kern by Pushkin. It is addressed only to her and to no one else. Here the world is closed between two people. Civic poetry is something else. When Pushkin wrote "To the Slanderers of Russia," he was not thinking only of his beloved, or even of his narrow circle of friends and acquaintances, but of all the people of Russia, of the entire nation, of the state, and of his fatherland.