[MUSIC] In the ninth part of our course, we will talk about the so-called new realism. And in more detail about the works of the Zakhar Prilepin, who can be called not only the new realist but a radical realist. We begin with the fact that realism in general was expected in the decade of the 2000s. It can be said that its appearance did not come as a surprise. There is a sort of principle according to which literature and art have been developing for many centuries. When literature seems to be boring, when it is at amortized and becomes too predictable. It usually causes the appearance of an opposite trend. After the socialist realism, with its seriousness, there should come playful post-modernism. But if you are playing for it too long time, you would like again, to get something serious. And it happened in the mid-2000s when the pendulum swung in the opposite direction to the return of serious social art realism. Here I should say at least a few words about what realism is. In fact, it's rather difficult to define it, and it is not easy even to say when it appears in the history of literature. In literary criticism, there was great controversy on the question when realism as a literary trend had risen. Some critics indicate the beginning of realistic art in ancient Russian literature, the medieval canonical one, in its most vivid fragments what is happening reminds life rather than a ready-made scheme. Our critics were writing about the realism of enlightenment of the 18th century. In fact, realism in the exact sense of the word arises only in the middle of the 19th century. And the works of well-known writers such Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Anton Chekhov and many others. When the reproduction of life in the forms of life itself becomes the intention of all these writers. And it imposes strict constraints on fantasy. As a rule, the fantasy of romantics is much stronger than the fantasy of realists. Realism limits the range of depicted phenomena to the three-dimensional world, the world of observed phenomena. And realist writers do not want to violate credibility. On the other hand, already between the framework of realism, critics were accusing some writers in photographism as soon as photography was invented. End of the 19th century, the opposite anti-realistic trends appeared. All these processes can be seen also now time. In this sense, nothing new happens in literature. In the 1990s, realist withdraws into the shadows. As I said, and it means that a lot of strong authors who debuted or reached their height day at this time, were not were missed by the critics and by the readers. They did not receive the recognition that they deserve that could receive under other historical circumstances. I will name all different names. Dmitri Bekyam, Alec Pavlov, and the Afghani writer. That is the writer who fought in Afghanistan, and was writing about this war, Alec Irmokhov. These three realist writers of the 1990s are little-known, although maybe in the circumstances. If the circumstances were different, the readers would know them better. As for post-modernism, by the beginning of the 2000s it seemed to be boring by many readers. It is evident from the publications where the word post-modernism constantly is mentioned with the addition of so-called post-modernism, even notorious post-modernism. What seemed to be a revelation only ten years ago now seem to be trite cliches and the critic, Valeria Pustovaya, who was born in 1982. One of the Herald's of the new realism, declared that now intuitive steaks on new realism prevail. And Valeria Pustovaya has offered this term, the new realism for current literary tendencies. But what is this new realism? What is so new about it? The critical answers are different. Let's listen to some of them. Vladimir Bondarenko, a patriotically minded critic is trying to determine the distinctive features of the new realism in relation to the previous literature. Firstly he argues the new realism is a direct opposition to post-modernism, which was a fluctuation, a contortion of the main line in the development of Russian literature. And the difference is that modern realist is serious. It's obvious, I think. Secondly, says Bondarenko, the new realism is distinguished by physiology, physiological details. The life of the body was totally absent from Soviet literature from socialist realism. But modern pros, especially written by young writers is paying attention mostly to human physiology. That's why it is often accused of naturalism or even of pornography. This features of course, do exist. But nevertheless, Bondarenko misses the point. He doesn't see the main one. This feature was indicated by Valeria Pustovaya, who determined what the new realism is in more romantic and more clear-cut terms. I quote, new realism transforms the experience of pain into beauty, the experience of work into thought. It transforms objects into images, persons into creators, deeds into words. And she calls it a symbolic realism, which for her is a synonym for new one. That is an attempt is being made to define novelty of this new realism in relation to the old one, and not in relation to post-modernism. From this point of view, it differs from the definition given by Friedrich Engels in one of his later letters. Realism is the truthful reproduction of typical characters and the typical circumstances with the truth of details. This formula in general fits into very many traditions of realistic literature, including the Russian one. Life is depicted as it is. The writer is interested in average ordinary life. The novelty of the new realism, Valeria Pustovaya argues, is that it doesn't at all strive to present ordinary life. On the contrary, the hero becomes not typical but exceptional. Literature depicts events, which happened not often but rarely, and in these exceptional events the inner essence of people manifest itself clearly. In other words, it is a kind of existential realism where a person is always on the edge of something, and the extreme circumstances. When all his qualities are to be tested. It means whether the new realism transforms the experience of pain into beauty, the experience of work into thought, and so on. Valeria Pustovaya illustrates her idea by comparing three writers of about the same age, belonging to one generation who debuted in early 2000s. She chooses three stories of the same theme and shows the difference between these author's interpretation of the theme. These are three stories about young people from Moscow going to provincial town to go on the spring. Everything is cheaper in the province and now they want as they say to hang out. And nothing is going right, they fail in their wish, and the reason is that they do not have any internal fun. No matter how they encourage themselves, joy doesn't come to them. And examine in detail these three stories of free writers, Pustovaya shows with one of them, Ramon Sension, is intended to picture the life as it is in minor detail. To make an effect of tangible great reality. And the other writer, Dmitri Norica is trying to rise the events on the higher level of symbol. Looking to the events from the point of view of eternity. And this last writer deserve the name of symbolic new realist. But it turned out that ironically, the title of the new realist was not entrusted to the wonderful writer, Dmitri Norica. But exactly to Ramon Sension, who of all new realists is the closest to the old classical realism. Because he quite consciously seeks to depict life as it is. Let's talk about this writer in more detail. Thank you.
