Correctly interpreting, evaluating a literary work, finding its merits and identifying shortcomings is possible only with a considerable amount of knowledge in literary criticism, linguistics, logic, psychology, history, philosophy, etc. It is necessary to know the rules for constructing a text, defining a plot, using various literary devices, analyzing a figurative system, etc.

To do this, you have to be a writer, too. It is philological education that provides the knowledge necessary for this profession and directs them in the right direction. Although the connection between literary criticism and journalism is undoubted, since the first is of a journalistic nature.

The Indivisibility of Literature and Criticism

It is impossible to become a literary critic without a great love of reading various literature. Immerse yourself in the world of literary works, read as many classical and modern works of different eras and peoples as possible. As you know, everything is known in comparison. There is a possibility that a work similar to the work you are studying as a critic has already been encountered in foreign or domestic literature before. Only by learning the history of literature, reading the works of famous authors, one can reveal something new, special.

Yet knowledge alone is not enough in this creative work. Only a talented critic with an innate literary flair recognizes the "soul" of any work, reveals the writer's intention and can convey it to the reader. Sometimes the idea that the author put into the work is so veiled that a professional critic is indispensable.

Undoubtedly, an excursion into the history of literary criticism will be useful in mastering this profession. This will allow you, by studying reviews, articles by such world-famous critics as N.A. Dobrolyubov, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and others see the intricacies of this profession. Many of them are talented prose writers, poets, playwrights.

In general, the activity of criticism of literary works is rather unusual and attractive. If you are educated, have a literary flair, are talented, then, of course, you can safely try yourself in this creative work.

In search of valuable advice, you, being a beginner on this path, can turn to various associations and unions of professionals, including the Academy of Russian Modern Literature, the International Association of Literary Critics, the Norwegian Association of Literary Critics.

The importance of literary criticism in any era is difficult to overestimate. It is these experts who do not just pass their verdict on this or that work, but also form public opinion and set the tone for cultural trends.

How Literary Critics Came to Be

Literary criticism arose simultaneously with literature itself, since the processes of creating a work of art and its professional evaluation are closely interconnected. For centuries, literary critics belonged to the cultural elite, because they had to have exceptional education, serious analytical skills and impressive experience.

Despite the fact that literary criticism appeared in antiquity, it took shape as an independent profession only in the 15th-16th centuries. Then the critic was considered an impartial "judge", who had to consider the literary value of the work, its compliance with genre canons, and the verbal and dramatic skill of the author. However, literary criticism gradually began to reach a new level, since literary criticism itself developed at a rapid pace and was closely intertwined with other sciences of the humanities cycle.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, literary critics were, without exaggeration, "arbiters of fate", since the career of a writer often depended on their opinion. If today public opinion is formed in somewhat different ways, then in those days it was criticism that had a paramount influence on the cultural environment.

Tasks of a literary critic

It was possible to become a literary critic only by understanding literature as deeply as possible. Nowadays, a journalist can write a review of a work of art, and even an author who is generally far from philology. However, during the heyday of literary criticism, this function could only be performed by a literary scholar who was no less well versed in philosophy, political science, sociology, and history. The minimum tasks of the critic were as follows:

1. Interpretation and literary analysis of a work of art;
2. Evaluation of the author from a social, political and historical point of view;
3. Revealing the deep meaning of the book, determining its place in world literature through comparison with other works.

The professional critic invariably influences society by broadcasting his own beliefs. That is why professional reviews are often distinguished by irony and a sharp presentation of the material.

The most famous literary critics

In the West, the strongest literary critics were originally philosophers, among them - G. Lessing, D. Diderot, G. Heine. Often, reviews of new and popular authors were also given by venerable contemporary writers, for example, V. Hugo and E. Zola.

In North America, literary criticism as a separate cultural sphere - for historical reasons - developed much later, so its heyday falls already at the beginning of the 20th century. During this period, V.V. Brooks and W.L. Parrington: It was they who had the strongest influence on the development of American literature.

The golden age of Russian literature was famous for its strongest critics, the most influential of which are:

• DI. Pisarev,
• N.G. Chernyshevsky,
• ON THE. Dobrolyubov
• A.V. Druzhinin,
• V.G. Belinsky.

Their works are still included in the school and university curriculum, along with the masterpieces of literature themselves, to which these reviews were devoted.

For example, Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky, who could not finish either the gymnasium or the university, became one of the most influential figures in literary criticism of the 19th century. He wrote hundreds of reviews and dozens of monographs on the works of the most famous Russian authors from Pushkin and Lermontov to Derzhavin and Maikov. In his works, Belinsky not only considered the artistic value of the work, but also determined its place in the socio-cultural paradigm of that era. The position of the legendary critic was sometimes very tough, destroying stereotypes, but his authority to this day is at a high level.

Development of literary criticism in Russia

Perhaps the most interesting situation with literary criticism developed in Russia after 1917. No industry has ever been as politicized as it was in this era, and literature is no exception. Writers and critics have become an instrument of power, exerting a powerful influence on society. We can say that criticism no longer served lofty goals, but only solved the problems of power:

• hard screening of authors who did not fit into the political paradigm of the country;
• the formation of a "perverted" perception of literature;
• promotion of a galaxy of authors who created the "correct" samples of Soviet literature;
• maintaining the patriotism of the people.

Alas, from a cultural point of view, this was a “black” period in national literature, since any dissent was severely persecuted, and truly talented authors had no chance to create. That is why it is not at all surprising that representatives of the authorities acted as literary critics, among them - D.I. Bukharin, L.N. Trotsky, V.I. Lenin. Political figures had their own opinion about the most famous works of literature. Their critical articles were published in huge editions and were considered not only the primary source, but also the final authority in literary criticism.

Over the course of several decades of Soviet history, the profession of literary criticism became almost meaningless, and very few of its representatives remained due to mass repressions and executions.

In such "painful" conditions, the emergence of opposition-minded writers was inevitable, who at the same time acted as critics. Of course, their work was classified as prohibited, so many authors (E. Zamyatin, M. Bulgakov) were forced to work in immigration. However, it is their works that reflect the real picture in the literature of that time.

A new era in literary criticism began during Khrushchev's "thaw". The gradual debunking of the personality cult and a relative return to freedom of expression revived Russian literature.

Of course, the restrictions and politicization of literature have not gone away, but articles by A. Kron, I. Ehrenburg, V. Kaverin and many others began to appear in philological periodicals, who were not afraid to express their opinions and turned the minds of readers.

A real surge of literary criticism occurred only in the early nineties. Huge upheavals for the people were accompanied by an impressive pool of "free" authors, who could finally be read without a threat to life. The works of V. Astafiev, V. Vysotsky, A. Solzhenitsyn, Ch. Aitmatov and dozens of other talented masters of the word were vigorously discussed both in the professional environment and by ordinary readers. One-sided criticism was replaced by controversy, when everyone could express their opinion about the book.

Literary criticism is a highly specialized field these days. Professional evaluation of literature is in demand only in scientific circles, and is really interesting to a small circle of connoisseurs of literature. Public opinion about a particular writer is formed by a whole range of marketing and social tools that have nothing to do with professional criticism. And this state of affairs is only one of the inalienable attributes of our time.

A restaurant critic is a journalist, a connoisseur of culinary and restaurant business, who writes essays about the work of public catering establishments. The profession is suitable for those who are interested in world art culture and Russian language and literature (see the choice of profession for interest in school subjects).

Features of the profession

A food critic goes to restaurants, tastes the food and drinks served there, and then writes reviews about his experience.

First of all, he is interested in the quality of the cuisine and the wine list, as well as the atmosphere of the establishment and the level of service. These reviews can appear in the form of magazine columns, radio and television broadcasts, as well as in special guides for gourmets - in restaurant guides.

With all the love of this professional for food, he is by no means a glutton. He is a foodie. It is distinguished not by excess weight, but by a refined taste and sharp scent, sensitivity to the spirit of the institution and the beauty of serving. A real restaurant critic always feels if the recipe of a dish is grossly violated.

A food critic should not be confused with a food writer who specializes in recipe descriptions. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish a critic from an advertiser. If someone writes about restaurants, that alone does not make them a restaurant critic.

Restaurant criticism is a real analysis of specific restaurants and the dishes served there. An article by a restaurant critic necessarily contains an assessment of the service, the wine list, the restaurant's cuisine and the atmosphere that reigns in it. If there is nothing of this in the essay, but only praises and delights, then we have before us an ordinary advertising article.

A true restaurant critic is incorruptible. If he praises a restaurant that serves yesterday's vinaigrette and the day before yesterday's overcooked cutlets, his articles will not be trusted. Open hostility and, moreover, slander against the institution also does not bode well for critics. In countries with a well-developed judicial system, such habits are severely punished with fines and large payments in favor of the injured party.

For example, when in 2003 Italian restaurant critic Eduardo Raspelli called the Big Mac served at McDonald's "bestial food", he received a $20 million lawsuit. However, criticism of fast food from McDonald's does not surprise anyone. The British radio station BBC even awarded the company the "Moldy Pork Pie" award with the wording "for undermining the foundations of high-quality, timely and original nutrition." McDonald's refused such an insulting bonus, because. considered the opinion of restaurant experts unfair.

In Russia, the works of a restaurant critic are relevant only for a narrow circle of people. In developed countries, where visiting a cafe or restaurant is not something out of the ordinary, restaurant reviews are read by the general public.

The famous British restaurant critic Egon Roni (1915-2010) said that his goal was to make delicious food accessible to every Briton, not just the elite. He believed that this could be achieved by talking in detail about how to distinguish a truly exquisite dish from a mediocre one.

He was said to have helped restore the richness of the traditional British meal after years of war poverty. For some time, Egon Roni worked as a restaurant manager, then opened his own business. A little later, he began to write about food for The Daily Telegraph. And in 1957 he created the Egon Ronay`s Seagram Guide (“Egon Roni”), the first guide to restaurants in London. Later, the geography of the directory expanded greatly.

In the mid-1990s, it already covered Eastern Europe. For 30 years, this authoritative independent guide has recommended the best hotels and restaurants. It comes out in England, and is distributed not only in Europe, but also in America and Australia.

Such success of the restaurant guide was possible only due to the trust in what is written in it. The guide is being developed by specialists who conduct their independent inspections of hotels and restaurants. As restaurateurs rightly believe, guidebook recommendations are not for sale, but are expensive.

Egon Roni himself, already the head of a successful enterprise, was in no hurry to retire. In 1993, he even insured his palate, which he considered his working tool, for $350,000.

Workplace

A restaurant critic can collaborate with periodicals, Internet sites that publish reviews of restaurants, bars, etc. He can conduct thematic programs on radio or television.

Important qualities

The profession of a restaurant critic implies an interest in cooking, a good sense of smell, tasting abilities, competent expressive speech, goodwill combined with honesty, and sociability.

Knowledge and skills

A restaurant critic needs knowledge in the field of culinary and restaurant business. He must be experienced in tasting various dishes. In any case, he has no right to confuse the meat broth and liquid with a dissolved bouillon cube. He must also learn a lot about serving and quality service.

And he should be able to describe his impressions in articles.

Salary

Salary as of 04/17/2019

Russia 36000—37000 ₽

Where do they teach

A restaurant critic can become both a certified journalist who graduated from the faculty of journalism, and a culinary specialist who graduated from college or university with a degree in cooking.

Read also

Interview with retourist critic Mikhail Kostin ""

How to manage reputation and scenarios of your life Alexander Kichaev

How to become a realistic dreaming critic?

My name is Dmitry. I work as a marketing director in a trading company. We recently changed owners. They have big plans. From me and other top managers of the company, they demanded ideas and proposals for a fundamental change in the business. However, my proposals do not suit them. Like, nothing new, too narrow and mundane. I tried to explain to them that marketing is, first of all, analysis, planning and practical recommendations. And I don't have to experiment and generate ideas. But they believe that these are outdated ideas and that for my position the main thing is the combination of the qualities of an analyst, practitioner, creative and strategist.

They also don’t like the fact that at meetings I “only criticize the proposals of others” and my criticism is “unconstructive”. In general, I feel that if I don’t come up with some “brilliant” idea in the near future, I will have to leave the company.

I (and not only me) consider myself a good practitioner, I know the market, I can effectively promote our products. Prior to their arrival, my "outdated" ideas gave a good profit to the company. Most likely, putting forward too high demands, they just want to get rid of me and are looking for a reason.

After all, a specialist cannot be equally effective both as a strategist and as a tactician, and even “creative” under duress?!

I don't presume to judge how the new owners treat Dmitry, but it's clear that in the place of the marketing director they need a person with a pronounced archetype of the Seeker, the Creator, corresponding to their "grand" plans. Even if Dmitry is right in his assumptions about the desire of the owners to get rid of him, then this decision, probably, was not born immediately.

At first, new ideas were expected from Dmitry - they did not wait, moreover, he, apparently, took the position of a critic of the new that other colleagues offered, and actively defended the old systematic approaches.

And yet, can "a specialist be equally effective both as a strategist and as a tactician, and even "creative" under duress"? I answer: yes, maybe. You just need to learn how to use your states and skillfully apply different styles of thinking.

My client Valery worked as the head of the advertising and marketing department in a small bank. For a long time, his main responsibilities were advertising placement, media planning, monitoring and communication with advertising agencies. But when the bank's management changed and a course was taken to reorganize and re-profil the institution, it was decided that cooperation with advertising agencies was expensive and inefficient. They demanded creativity and “non-standard” ideas from Valery, which was for him, as well as for Dmitry, an unpleasant surprise ...

Why is generating ideas a pleasure for some and a punishment for others? It's all about the prevailing way of thinking. In each of us lives the Dreamer, the Critic and the Realist, who make themselves felt in various situations and contexts. For example, Dmitry at the meeting, apparently - Critic looking for potential problems. But after the meeting, when the decision is made, he becomes realist who implements the decisions made and develops action plans and business processes. And Dmitry's problem is that he cannot activate in himself dreamer who experiments, generates and selects the target state, the vision of the project as a whole, determines all possible alternatives.

Who will you be?

Often in a team, these roles are consciously or accidentally distributed depending on which psychotype this or that employee belongs to and, accordingly, what type of thinking prevails in him.

For example, Innovators and Masterminds have good intuition, strive to have a high level of IQ (intelligence quotient). They prefer to deal with global problems. These are ideological individuals with radical and original thinking. Such a role requires a high level of strategic thinking, the ability to carry out long-term forecasting and the ability to model any situations and problems that arise in the course of the organization's work. But such people are not suitable for solving tactical, routine tasks.

Implementers transform ideas into technologies, do not accept untested and unrealistic proposals. These are reliable and purposeful organizers and performers who need a stable structure and material and technical base. They lack flexibility and the ability to adapt to new conditions, they experience difficulties when emotional and psychological problems arise.

Systematizers able to organize incoming information. Objectively evaluate the qualities of a partner - both positive and negative; methodical and consistent. Everything that is started is brought to an end. But they cannot generate new ideas themselves.

There are also other psychotypes, which in their orientation refer either to the Dreamer, or to the Realist, or to the Critic.

However, not always in the team there are employees who have pronounced styles of thinking. Moreover, sometimes the Dreamers, for example, have to criticize, the Critics - to implement, and the Realists - to dream and "create". It is clear that in this case they are ineffective, since their weak role functions are in demand, and their creative, mental and business potential is practically not realized.

In addition, at each stage of business development, different styles of thinking are predominantly in demand. In the case of Dmitry, apparently, the new owners are starting to reorganize the business, it is important for them to strengthen the block of Dreamers who offer new ideas, who are ready for experiments and fundamental changes.

What should Dmitry do? Since Valery found himself in approximately the same situation, I will tell you what actions he took.

Well, firstly, Valery convincingly proved to the management that the generation of ideas is the first stage, and then these ideas will need to be implemented. Moreover, the implementation can be effective only if the ideas are pre-analyzed, the risks are calculated, and erroneous strategies are swept aside. And here a strong Critic and Realist in the person of Valery can come in handy.

In parallel, we decided that it is extremely important for him to develop the Dreamer in himself and thereby balance all three thinking styles in himself, which he can apply depending on tasks and situations.

Thinking styles

We used the system of R. Dilts, who described these three states, which are given below.

How to enter each state? Through physiology, the pose with which the description begins. The principle here is simple, they teach it in acting schools: startled - screamed - got scared. Accordingly, in order to dream, you need to take a relaxed posture, characteristic of dreamers, and then muscle memory will help to recreate a state of unfettered fantasy and uninhibited ideas. After all, it was difficult for Valery to become a Dreamer only in the context of the limitations of his work in a bank. But he had a hobby: he wrote computer game programs. And it was there that his creativity manifested itself to the fullest ...

Dreamer: "I want to"

Physiology: head and eyes are raised up; the posture is symmetrical and free.

Focus Level: what.

cognitive style: in and denie - the definition of the "big picture"; creativity.

Installation: everything is possible.

Basic microstrategy: synthesis and combination of feelings.

Definition of a specific, positively formulated goal and the benefits from its implementation.

1. What do you want to do? (But not something you want to avoid or not do.)

2. Why do you want to do this? What is your intention?

3. What are the effects/benefits of this?

4. How will you know that you have received them? (“The proof will be ____________________.”)

5. When do you expect to get the effect?

6. Where should/could this idea lead you in the future?

7. Who do you want to be or be like when presenting this idea?

Realist: "how"

Physiology: head is oriented straight; the gaze is directed in front of you or slightly away; the posture is symmetrical, the body is tilted slightly forward.

Focus Level: how.

cognitive style: action - definition of short-term steps.

Installation: acting "as if" the dream was achievable.

Basic microstrategy: relationship, specific actions.

Establishment of temporary s x frames (frames) and the main milestones of the path. Confirmation of readiness to start a project with a specific team and obtaining evidence in sensory experience.

1. When can the final goal be reached?

2. Who exactly will be involved in this? (Define accountability and ensure commitment from the people who will be doing the work.)

3. How exactly will the project be implemented? What will be the first step? Second? Third?

4. What kind of feedback will let you know if you are moving towards or away from your goal?

5. How will you know that the goal has been achieved?

Critic: "change to"

Physiology: eyes look down. The head is tilted down and slightly turned; posture is angular.

Focus Level: why.

cognitive style: logic - avoid problems by figuring out what's missing.

Installation: reasoning - "what if" problems arise.

Basic microstrategy: a view from the position of the audience.

Getting assurance that the plan preserves any positive by-products of the current way of achieving the goal.

1. Who can be influenced by this idea, and who can increase or decrease its effectiveness?

2. What are their needs and benefits?

3. What are some reasons why anyone might object to this plan or idea?

4. What are the advantages of the current way of doing things?

6. When and where might you not want to implement this plan or idea?

7. What now needs to be added (missed) in the plan?

Thinking styles

One of the claims of the new owners to Dmitry is that his "criticism is not constructive." Therefore, he needs to learn how to turn a critic into an adviser.

How to turn a critic into an adviser?

So, let me remind you, the critic is view from the outside in terms of his adaptation to consumers.

Evaluation of the project as a whole: are there any inconsistencies in it?

Evaluation of acting subjects and relationships: are they correctly selected, structured, motivated?

Evaluation of specific actions: will they be effective?

Being in the position of the Critic, we usually look for problems, mistakes (negative, shortcomings).

Critics should imitate good shepherd dogs: they lead, stop, tame, bark, but do not bite anyone.

P. Buast

In becoming a Critic-adviser, we should not be limited to remarks or objections such as: “This proposal is too weak, superficial and does not suit us!” Such phrases are usually characteristic of the non-constructive Critic.

The critical adviser must answer the following questions for himself.

1. What is the positive intention behind my comment? What do I want to achieve with criticism?

For example: "Radical and fundamental changes in the project, in which the previous developments and resources will not suffer."

2. What will be the question with the words HOW or WHAT, revealing this intention?

For example: “How can we ensure that the adoption of this proposal will create the conditions necessary for radical and fundamental change? What resources are needed for this? In what time frame will this be implemented?

In this case, our criticism will be constructive and will help to develop specific solutions.

The described system of thinking styles is quite simple and accessible to almost everyone. By the way, everything worked out for Valery. Their management is quite...

Exercise

Try on the roles of Critic, Dreamer, Realist.

Which one do you feel comfortable with and which one you don't? Where do you feel strong energy, and where do you feel helpless? Why?

Do you understand your growth areas? Then get to work!