Lyubomir Georgiev

The discussion of literature education in schools has become a necessity of life. Our society has already encountered serious weaknesses in the linguistic and literary culture of youth on several occasions. However, the reason for the nationwide interest in the quality of literary education has a deeper basis. It lies, first of all, in the special place that literature occupies in the system of general education subjects, in the nature of the knowledge it provides, in the strength and immediacy of the educational impact it has. The aesthetic specificity of literature is the basis of a complex and comprehensive impact not only on the mind, but also on the heart of the student, which cannot be replaced by anything. Literature as a subject of study most often poses problems that are directly related to the ideological and moral education of students. Therefore, any underestimation of the educational and educational significance of literature as a subject of study is in contradiction with the great tasks of the "communist construction of the younger generation." Hence the lively interest that the general public shows in the narrowly professional at first glance problems of literary education in schools. The questions that arise when discussing the teaching of literature are many and varied. However, there are some that are fundamental and decisive. Of the greatest importance, precisely for the teaching of literature, is the problem of the analysis of the literary work. Not only because the curriculum devotes the most time to studying the work of Bulgarian and foreign writers. First of all, because the specificity of the subject is determined by the specificity of the literary work, which becomes material for educational work in literature classes. Recently, however, the problem of literary analysis in the teaching of literature has not been studied in depth, despite its complexity and diversity, although this is the weakest point in the work of a number of teachers. The detachment of methodological science from this problem has also led to the lagging behind of the methodology in general from the latest achievements of literary theory and aesthetics. Therefore, it is entirely justified that the issues of literary analysis in school are at the center of the national discussion of literature education.

During the national discussion of literature education, one of the main issues, which was debated quite temperamentally, was the quality of literature textbooks. Despite some extreme and incorrect statements, to which enthusiasm and partly prejudice led some critics, the general assessment was unanimous and correct. The discussion confirmed that literature textbooks, although some authors have achieved partial success, lag behind the development of literary science, are not full-fledged assistants to students and teachers. Literature textbooks do not reveal clearly and fully the ideological depth and aesthetic value of the artistic work. The historical-literary process is not illuminated in its breadth and complexity. Errors of the most different nature are allowed - scientific, methodological. The language is dry, inexpressive, inaccurate, overloaded with formulaic phrases.

Our contemporary literary science and criticism already highlights figures who, in terms of the significance of their creative results, not only equal the objective value of what was achieved in the past by our most significant literary critics and historians, but also point to a higher, qualitatively new ideological and aesthetic development. Among them, Pantelei Zarev stands out with a true aesthetic feeling and the penetration of his research talent. The first volume of his new work "Panorama of Bulgarian Literature" is the beginning of a remarkable phenomenon in our contemporary literary science. It clearly reveals the peculiarities of Zarev's method and style as a literary critic and historian, and his great contribution to the construction of a Marxist, scientific history of Bulgarian literature, interpreting the literary process in its complexity and contradictions, with a view to its internal aesthetic laws, stands out convincingly.

It has become a tradition for every review of a new book studying Karavelov's work to begin with the statement that with his strong and complex personality the writer still attracts the attention of literary history and criticism today. And this statement does not sound clichéd, because it notes a significant literary-historical fact. Our modernity has precisely realized a complete edition of Karavelov's works and made a decisive contribution to Karavelov studies both with voluminous monographs and with individual studies that pose new and interesting issues. At the same time, the critical eye discovers in contemporary studies of Karavelov a more emphatically pronounced specific literary approach. In place of factual and biographical research, in place of the descriptive approach, there logically comes the aspiration for a more concrete consideration of the aesthetic and theoretical problems posed by Karavelov's work, for the study of his writing skills in relation to the laws of the Literary Process, the peculiarities of his talent, etc. Tsveta Undzhieva's book has its positive significance primarily as a phenomenon that supports this direction in the development of the science of Karavelov. It not only discovers and uses new factual material, not only enriches ideas and specifies accents, but above all seeks a solution to essential literary-historical, theoretical and stylistic problems posed by Karavelov's work. It is precisely this focus of the study that arouses interest in it and gives it its own appearance.

The merits of Boris Delchev's new book - the collection of memoir essays "I knew these people" I find in three directions: in the excitement with which the author communicates with the artists; in the erudition of the literary critic; in the conscientiousness of the scientific worker. And if all these features are expressed and collected through such a peculiar genre as the memoir essay, then the author would present us - and in our case it is so - an interesting and bright book. Moreover, here the concept of "memoir essay" is used very conditionally and should not be understood in the narrow sense. The subject of the image is not random communications or meetings, nor everyday details related to the personality of the artists under consideration: in a colorful way in Boris Delchev's essays, the memoir coexists with the actively expressed contemporary position; literary-critical assessments are intertwined with artistic journalism. The author does not seek the dimensions of moral and literary qualities of his characters through the concreteness of the situations. His ethical measure is much more voluminous and multifaceted, the concrete situation is skillfully woven as a detail of an overall picture. With each fragment, a creative profile stands out more and more brightly against a corresponding socio-historical background.