Creative routine: famous writers about the routine of the day. Famous writers

How were the great books created? How Nabokov wrote "Lolita"? Where did the Agatha Christie? What day mode was Hemingway? These and other details of the creative process of famous authors are in our release.

To write a book, you must first inspire. However, each writer comes his muse, and it comes not always and not everywhere. What the famous authors went to which the famous authors was going to find the very place and the very moment when the plot and the characters of the book were in their head in the best way. Who would have thought that great works were created in such conditions!

1. Agatha Christie (1890-1976), after making a dozen books, in the questionnaire "Rod classes" indicated - "Housewife". She worked as crazy, having no separate cabinet, nor even a written table. She wrote in the bedroom behind the wash table or could have been kept behind the dinner table in the interruptions between meals. "I had a little embarrassing" go to write. " But if you managed to retire, close the door behind you and do so that no one bothered, I forgot about everything in the world. "

2. Francis Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940) His first novel "On the other side" wrote in a training camp on paper shoes in a free time. Having served, forgot about discipline and began to apply alcohol as a source of inspiration. I slept before dinner, sometimes worked, I cooked at night in bars. When the attacks of activity happened, could write 8000 words in one approach. It was enough for a big story, but it was not enough for a story. When Fitzgerald wrote "Night", he was able to withstand sober three to four hours with great difficulty. "Thin perception and judgment during editing are incompatible with drinking," Fitzgerald wrote, recognizing the publisher that alcohol interferes with creativity.

3. Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880) wrote Madame Bovari for five years. The work has moved too slowly and painfully: "Story" does not go. A week - two pages! There is from what to fill yourself a face of despair. " Flaubert woke up at ten in the morning, without getting up from bed, reading letters, newspapers, smoked the phone, talked with Mother. Then he took a bath, breakfast and dined at the same time and went for a walk. One hour he taught his nephew history and geography, then sank in a chair and read up to seven in the evening. After an abundant dinner, he talked for a few hours with her mother and, finally, began to compose with the night of the night. Years later, he wrote: "In the end, work is the best way to slip away from life."

4. Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961) all his life got up at dawn. Even if he dreamed on the day before, he rose not later than six in the morning, fresh and rested. Hemingway worked until noon, standing near the shelf. A printing machine was standing on the shelf, a wooden board was lying on a print sheet. After writing with a pencil, all the sheets, he filmed the board and reprinted written. Every day he calculated the number of written words and built a schedule. "When you finish, you feel empty, but not empty, but replenished, as if I made love with your loved one."

5. James Joyce (1882-1941) wrote about himself: "The man is low-grayscale, inclined to extravagance and alcoholism." Neither the regime nor the organization. I slept up to ten, I had breakfast in the bed of coffee and bagels, I earned the English and playing lessons on the piano, constantly took the money and distracted creditors with conversations about politics. To write "Ulysses", he needed seven years with breaks for eight diseases and eighteen moving to Switzerland, Italy, France. Over the years, he spent about 20 thousand hours at work.

6. Haruki Murakami (born 1949) gets up at four in the morning and writes six hours in a row. After work runs, swims, reads, listening to music. At nine in the evening Issue. Murakami believes that the repeated mode helps him plunge into trance, useful for creativity. Once he led a sedentary lifestyle, gained weight and smoked three packs of cigarettes per day. Then he moved to the village, began to eat fish and vegetables, threw smoking and is engaged in jogging. The only drawback is the lack of communication. To observe the mode, Murakami has to reject all invitations, and friends are offended. "Readers don't care what my day I have, if only the next book turned out to be better than the previous one."

7. Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) threw novels on small cards, which folded into a long box for directories. He recorded pieces of text on cards, and then folded from fragments of the page and the head of the book. Thus, the manuscript and the desktop fit in the box. "Lolita" Nabokov wrote on at night in the back seat of the car, believing that there is no noise and distracting factors. Becoming older, Nabokov never worked after lunch, looked football matchesSometimes I allowed myself a glass of wine and hunting butterflies, sometimes running over a rare instance of up to 25 kilometers.

8. Jane Austin (1775-1817), the author of the novels "Pride and Prejudice", "Feeling and Sensitivity", "Emma", "arguments of reason." Jane Austin lived with mother, sister, girlfriend and three servants. She never had the opportunity to retire. Jane had to work in a family living room, where she could prevent her at any time. She wrote on small blocks of paper, and as soon as the creaking door was heard, warning her about the visitor, she had time to hide notes and get a basket with a needlework. Later, the sister Jane Kassandra took care of the management of the economy. Grateful Jane wrote: "I can not imagine how you can compose when the brands and rhubaries are spinning in my head."

9. Marcel Prost (1871-1922) wrote a novel "In search of a lost time" without a small 14 years. During this time, he wrote one and a half million words. To fully focus at work, the prost disappeared from society and almost did not come out of his famous lubricant bedroom oak. Worked Proust at night, I slept until three or four hours. Immediately after the awakening, the powder containing opium was lit - so he treated asthma. Almost anything did not eat, only breakfast coffee with milk and croissant. He wrote a prost in bed while attaching a notebook on his knees and laying the pillows under the head. In order not to fall asleep, took caffeine in the tablets, and when it came to sleep, I drown caffeine with a Veronal. Apparently, he tormented himself intentionally, believing that physical suffering allows to achieve heights in art.

10. Georges Sand (1804-1876) Usually wrote 20 pages per night. The work at night entered her in a habit of childhood when she cared for a sick grandmother and only at night could do a loved business. Later she threw the sleeping lover in bed and in the middle of the night he moved for a writing desk. The next morning she did not always remember that he wrote in a sleepy state. Although George Sand was an unusual person (wearing men's clothing, started novels and with women, and men), she condemned the abuse of coffee, alcohol or opium. In order not to fall asleep, ate chocolate, drank milk or smoked a cigarette. "When the moment comes to give your thoughts, you need to fully own yourself that on the stage of the scene, which is in the shelter of your office."

11. Mark Twain (1835-1910) wrote the "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" on a farm, where he was built a separate gazebo-office. He worked with open windows, pressing paper sheets with bricks. No one was allowed to approach the office, and if tween was very much needed, a homemade potted in Horn. In the evenings, tween read the family written. He continuously smoked cigars, and wherever Twine has appeared, after him I had to air the room. During his work, he was tormented by insomnia, and, on the memoirs of friends, he began to treat her champagne for the night. Champagne did not help - and Twain asked friends to stock beer. Then Twain stated that only the Scotch whiskey helps him. After a series of experiments, tween simply lay down to bed at ten pm and unexpectedly fell asleep. All this very entertained him. However, it was entertained by any life events.

12. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) worked three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening. The rest of the time occupied savor, Lunches and dinners, drink with friends and girlfriends, tobacco and drugs. This mode brought the philosopher to nervous exhaustion. Instead of rest, Sartre hits the corridor, an amphetamine mixture and aspirin, legal up to 1971. Instead of the usual dosage on a tablet twice a day, Sartre took twenty pieces. The first washed with strong coffee, the rest slowly chewing during work. One tablet is one page "Critics of a dialectic mind." According to the testimony of the biographer, the daily menu of Sartre included two packs of cigarettes, several tubes of black tobacco, more liter alcohol, including vodka and whiskey, 200 milligrams of amphetamine, barbiturates, tea, coffee and oily food.

13. Georges Siemenion (1903-1989) is considered the most prolific writer of the 20th century. On his account 425 books: 200 boulevard novels under pseudonyms and 220 under their own name. Moreover, Siemenon regime did not observe, worked by attacks for two or three weeks, from six to nine in the morning, giving out 80 printed pages at times. Then walked, drank coffee, slept and watched TV. Composing a novel, he was over the end of the work and the same clothes, supported himself with tranquilizers, never ruled written and weighed before and after work.

14. Lion Tolstoy (1828-1910) during operation was beech. I got up late, the clock to nine, I did not talk to anyone, until I do not change, will not be changed and will not hurt the beard. Breakfast coffee and a pair of eggs schitzka and stuck to lunch in the office. Sometimes there the mouse was sitting there. The wife of his Sofya was sitting in case if he had to rewrite a couple of chapters "war and peace" or listen to another portion of the writings. Before Lunch, Tolstoy went for a walk. If returned to B. good mood, I could share impressions or engaged with children. If not, I read the book, put the solitaire and talked with the guests.

15. Somerset Maem (1874-1965) for 92 years of life published 78 books. Biographer Maem called his work to write not by calling, but rather dependence. Moem and compared the habit of writing with the habit of drinking. Both are easy to purchase and both difficult to get rid of. The first two phrases of Moem invented, lying in the bath. After that, he wrote the daily rate of one and a half thousand words. "When you write when you create a character, he is all the time with you, you are busy with him, he lives." Stop writing, Moem felt infinitely lonely.

What is the writer writes?

Everyone here has its own reasons. For one art - care from reality, for the other - the way to cope with it. But after all, you can get into the highlight, in madness, to death; Win with arms in hand. Why are writers who are written, realizing their escape or their victories in this way? Because for different purposes of authors there is a deeper and closer choice, one for everyone.

Let's try to clarify the essence of the choice. It is clear that by itself he forces the writer to distort. Any party of our perception is accompanied by consciousness that the reality of the human can be "exposed." This means that through it, we learn that "there is" a specific person, or, otherwise, the Being of Things is expressed. Only our presence in the world will multiple relationships, only we support the connection between this tree and this piece of the sky; Thanks to us, this star, a deceased millions of years ago, and this sickle of the moon, and this black river exhibit their unity, uniting in the landscape. The speed of our car or aircraft combines huge earthly spaces. Through each other, the world opens up an updated person. We realize that being is transmitted through us, but we know that not we are his creators. It is enough to turn away from the landscape, as he, remaining without a witness, drown in a hopeless darkness. It is drowning - it is unlikely to be able to find a madman, ready to believe that it will disappear at all. We will disappear, and the land will remain in a state of lethargy, until the consciousness of another person wakes it. This is how our inner confidence is that we are exposing, the confidence is joined in the fact that we have no essence in relation to the expositible object.

But our need to feel in the first place in relation to the world is one of the main motives. artistic creativity. If I leave on the canvas or in the literary work the image of the sea or the field that I exposed, combining them with each other, ordering, having endowed the variety of things by the unity of the Spirit, it will seem that I made them. I begin to consider myself more important than my work. But the created object eludes me: I can not expose it at the same time, and create. The object becomes secondary compared to the creative act. Even if this object is perceived by other people as complete, it always seems unfinished to us. We can change the line, some shade, word. The work is never imposed by the author from the outside. One student of the artist asked Teachers: "When should I understand that the picture is completed?" - "When you can look at her with surprise, asking yourself:" And I did it? ""

In other words - never. Because it would mean to look at her work a strange glance and expose what he himself created. The more meaning we give the creative act, the less realize the value of your creation. Pottery or carpentry products We create on ready-made recipes, using long-standing customs, the notorious "man" of Hydegger acts by our hands. In this case, the fruit of our work can be perceived by us quite alien to stay for us. But if we yourself come up with the rules of production, its measures and criteria, if our creative impulse comes from the depths of the heart, we see in our creation only themselves. This we ourselves came up with the laws for which he would be judged, we see our own history, our love, their joy. Even simply considering it, no longer touching him, we do not receive this joy from him, this love, but, on the contrary, we give them to him. The result obtained on a canvas or paper will never be objective in our eyes. We know too well as it is done all this. This method will be a personal find of the Creator. These are our ourselves, our inspiration, our ingenuity. If we are trying to perceive our creation again, we will definite it again, we mentally repeat those operations through which they made it on the light. Each aspect is the result for us.

We see that the object is important in the process of perception, and the subject is secondary; The latter is waiting for its exercise in creativity and gets it. Now the object becomes secondary.

Nowhere, this dialectic is not visible as clearly as in literary work. The literary object is a typper, existing, only while spinning. So that it appears, a specific act is needed, called reading, and the top is spinning until the reading lasts. Without reading there are only black icons on paper. The writer cannot read what he wrote, and the shoemaker can learn the shoes made by him, if they are in size, the architect can live in the house built by him. The reading person foresees, expects. He predicts the end of the phrase, the beginning of the next, the next page, they must confirm or refute his assumptions. The reading process consists of a variety of hypotheses, fantasies and awakening, rainbow hopes and bitter disappointments. The reader runs forward a line into the future, which partially collapses, is partly alleged as the book approaching the final, it retreats from the page to the page, like a movable horizon of the literary landscape.

There is no objectivity without waiting without the future, without uncertainty. In this way, literary creativity Spends a special clause of imaginary reading, which makes genuine reading is impracticable. As words arise under the author's pen, he, of course, sees them, but sees otherwise than the reader. He knows them even before writing: His look is designed not to wake sleeping words that they are waiting for them to be read, but to track the right markings. In fact, it is a purely technical task, and the eye notes only the minor errors of the writing.

The writer does not predict the future and does not build guesses - he plots. It is often looking for himself, waiting for inspiration. However, wait from ourselves - not at all what to expect from others - if he doubts he knows that there is no future that there is no future that it is only to be created own forces. If he does not yet know what happens to his hero, it means that he either did not think about it yet, or did not decide finally. Future for the author - blank sheetwhereas for the reader is two hundred page pages that separate it from the finals of the book.

The writer runs through his knowledge everywhere, his will, his ideas, in short, on himself. He enters contact only with his subjectivity, created by him the object is not available to him, he created it for others. When he reread his book, the thing has already been done, the phrase will never be in his eyes the thing from the beginning to the end. The author approaches the verge of subjective, but does not cross it. He appreciates the effect of a separate nuance, one or another saying, successfully used by the involvement, but they will produce an impression on others. He can predict this impression, but do not survive him.

The prunist found that Charle was a homosexual, he decided to create it so before he began to write his multi-volume romance. Has the work ever acquires an imaginary objectivity for the author, the time is 2. The author is not able to feel his brainchild and, of course, would not be able to write it today. So it was with Rousseau when he re-read the "public contract" in old age.

Therefore, it is impossible to say that the writer writes for himself. Here it would comprehend full Fiasco: transferring their feelings on paper, he is in best case It would achieve boring extension them. Creative act is just one of the moments during the creation of a work. If the author existed on an uninhabited island, he could write how much the soul, his creation as an object would never see the light. In the end, he would have to postpone the feather aside or go into despair. The writing process also implies the reading process, they form a dialectical unity. These two interrelated acts require the availability of both the author and the reader. Only their joint effort will make it an extremely concrete and at the same time an imaginary object, which is the creation of the Human Spirit. Art can only exist for others and through others.

In fact, reading looks like a synthesis of perception and creativity, it simultaneously believes materiality and subject and object. The object is significantly because it has the property of transcendence, offers its unique and unique structures, it must be perceived. However, the subject is also essential: it should not just expose the work (in other words, to make it to be an object), but to produce it (so that it is in the absolute sense of the word). The reader has a feeling that he simultaneously exposes and creates: exposes creating, creates with the help of exposure. In fact, reading is not just a mechanical operation, the impact of printed signs on the reader, like the effect of light on the film. If it is not focused, tired, stupid, superficient, the majority of links will remain unnoticed, he will be able to "cover" an object (in the sense, in which it is said that "covers" flames). The reader will remove the words from the darkness, as if emerging by chance. At best, he seeks for them a kind of synthetic form, the partial function of which will be each next: will find the "topic", "plot", "idea". Initially, the meaning is not contained in words, on the contrary, it is the meaning that makes it possible to understand the meaning of any word. The literary object is never given in the language, although only through it is implemented, on the contrary: in essence, he denies the sound word.

One hundred thousand words laid in the book lines, Mo-Gut to be read one after another in such a way that of them will not flow into the slightest meaning. After all, the meaning is not arithmetic amount words, and their OPGanic unity. The reader should immediately and almost without a conductor climb to the height of silence. He must keep on it caused by himself to the new life of the word and phrase. Do you say that such a procedure would be referred to as a secondary fiction or a reservation again? Firstly, such a fiction would be as new and original as the original one. Secondly, this is the main thing: if the object has not existed before, it is impossible to talk about a secondary fiction, or about the opening re-on. If the silence, which I mean, is indeed the purpose of the author, he himself is not aware of this. His silence is executed subjectivity and precedes speech. The object should be considered exactly the absence of words, undifferentiated silence caused by inspiration, which is very implemented very soon in the text, and not the silence of the reader. Inside the very object there are defaults: what the author does not speak about. With such specific intentions, the meaning cannot be kept outside the object that occurs during the reading process; But it is these intentions that give objects and a specific appearance.

It is not enough to say that they are not expressed, they cannot be expressed in principle. That is why they are impossible to recognize when reading - they are everywhere and nowhere. All the advantages of the "Big Molna", "Babylon" "Armans", the accuracy and realism of the Kafkian mythology - all this is not given in the finished form, the reader must come up with this, once again going beyond the borders of the text. Of course, the author plays the role of the conductor, but he only leads the reader, the milestones on this road are separated by emptiness, it is necessary to connect them, you need to go beyond their limits.

Reading can be called creativity under the guidance of the author. On the one hand, the object of the literature has no other substance, except for readership. Waiting for Raskolnikova is my own expectation, which I put it, without reading impatiences would be only boring letters on paper. His hatred for the investigator is my hatred born by printed pages, and the investigator himself could not exist without it acute feelingI feed on it through the Raskolnikov. Hate gives it at the same time soul and flesh.

On the other hand, words are a kind of traps who serve to excite the feelings and reflect their back to our side. Each word is the road to transcendence, it forms our feelings, supplies them with shortcuts, attributes to the literary hero, which takes to survive them for us and does not have another substance, except for other people's borrowed passions. The word gives characters a goal, prospects, horizon.

Everything for him is made for the reader and still be to him to make himself. The book exists at the level of reading abilities: while a person reads, he creates, it seems to him that he could follow, create something deeper. For this reason, the book seems to him inexhaustible, endowed with density things. Before us is the production of properties, standing out from our subjectivity, they frozen in front of real, dense objects. This process somehow reminds us of "rational intuition", which Kant in his philosophy endowed the divine mind.

If the creativity is destined to find completion only during the reading process, if the artist is forced to hand over another end of the end, if you become the main thing in my work, it can only through reader consciousness, which means every book there is a call. Write - means writing to the reader, which should translate into the area of \u200b\u200bobjective existence exposure carried out through the language. If you ask a question, what exactly the writer calls for, the answer will be simple. We do not see in the book sufficient grounds for the phenomenon of the aesthetic object, there is only a desire to create it. These grounds are lacking in the consciousness of the author. Subjectivity from which he does not exit does not give prerequisites for transition to objectivity. That is why the birth of the work of art is a fundamentally new event and cannot be explained based on the preceding material.

Reading is a guide creativity, an absolute beginning. It is carried out by the goodwill of the reader as a manifestation of his freedom in pure form. Thus, the writer addresses the freedom of the reader, which should be the co-author of his work. I may argue that any instrument of labor is addressed to this freedom, and in this regard, the work of art has no need to allocate. The instrument of labor is a certain sketch of the action produced by him. But it remains at the level of the hypothetical imperative: I can use the hammer to knock down the box or make a neighbor. "The hammer itself does not appeal to my freedom, does not put me in front of her. He just wants to serve her by replacing my free creativity with standard techniques of handling tool.

The book does not serve my freedom - she assumes it. To human freedom can not be called, forcing, sewing or begging. The only way to gain freedom is at first to recognize it, then trust and eventually demand from it actions in the name of Herself, that is, in the name of your trust. The book differs from the tool of labor - this is not a means of achieving a certain goal, it itself is proposed as a goal for the free will of the reader, developed by Cant, the concept of "feasibility without purpose" cannot be applied to the work of art. It suggests that the aesthetic object is one only visibility of the target. It cares only about free and ordered imagination. It misses what the audience and reader imagination has not only ordering, but also the creative function; It does not engage in games, it is designed to complete the object, even beyond the limits of the artist's hand.

Like other abilities of the human spirit, imagination is not able to enjoy itself, it is always directed in external world, always participates in the creative process. Features without a goal could exist if an obvious organization was present in the facility, indicating a certain, even an intention unknown to us. Identifying aesthetically beautiful in this way, it is possible - this is exactly the goal of Kant - to lead to a single denominator beauty in art and nature. After all, the flower, for example, has such symmetry, such a harmony of paints, such as perfect contours, which will immediately arise the temptation to find a certain goal, to which all its properties are directed, to see in their synthesis only means of achieving this goal. But then the error is waiting for us: natural beauty is incomparable with beauty in art. The work of art does not have a goal, in this we share the point of view of Cant. It does not matter for the reason that it itself is a goal. The Cant formula discrepanses the call emanating from every painting, statues, books. Kant believes that the work exists primarily as a fact, and then it is perceived already. In fact, it exists only when they see it, - first it is only a pure call, only the requirement to exist. This is not a tool that can exist only with an indefinite purpose.

The work appears as a task that needs to be solved and this is immediately towers to the level of an ultimative imperative. In your authority, leave this book lying on the table. But if you open it, you take responsibility for it. For freedom is felt not in free subjective action, but in a creative act caused by the imperative. This is a transcendental and at the same time voluntary perceived imperative. It is such an absolute goal taken by the Freedom itself, and there is something that we call value. The work of art can be considered value, because it is imperative.

When I try to finish the reader in my work, then, no doubt, I consider it as pure freedom, creative strength, an active position; I can never contact his passivity, that is, try to influence him, call him such emotions at once, as fear, desire or anger. Of course, there are authors, seeking precisely to this, concerned about the desire to cause such emotions from the reader. This is due to the fact that such emotions are predictable, managed, and at the disposal of the writer there are tested funds in order to call them. That is what often put Writers in the guilt. So it was in antiquity with Euripid, which took to the scene of children.

In passion, freedom is separated: drowned in detail, she forgets about its main task - the creation of an absolute goal. Now the book is no more than a means to cause hatred or desire. The task of the writer is not to shake the reader, then it will be in contradiction with himself. If he intends to demand, he just suggests the reader to the task for solving. So we came to a purely demonstrative nature of the work of art as its most important sign. Some aesthetic distance is simply necessary for the reader. This is what Gautier confused so stupid with "art for art", and Parnastsy - with the detachment of the artist. We are talking only about prudency. WHEN more accurately called it the courtesy of the author in relation to the reader. But it should not be thought that the writer appeals to some abstract, conceptual freedom. Aesthetic object is proceeded again through feelings. If he is touching, then we see it only through the tears, if it is ridiculous, it is realized through laughter. Both of these feelings of a special kind - the basis of them is freedom, they are perceived. I still do not fully believe in the story that voluntarily decided to consider the truthful. These are passion B. christian understanding the words. Here, freedom, herself who set itself in a passive position in order to obtain a certain transcendental result through this sacrifice. The reader becomes gullible, he dip in the gullibility, and she - although accompanied by all the time consciousness that he is free, - in the end, envelops him as a dream. Sometimes, the author is forced to choose: "or believe in your story, and it is undesirable, or not believe, then it's funny."

But this approach is completely incorrect, because the aesthetic consciousness includes faith - according to the generally accepted agreement, according to this oath. Faith, which is based on loyalty to itself and the author, on a constantly repeating my choice. I can wake up in any moment and know it, but I do not want it. Reading is a voluntary dream. As can be seen, the feelings laid down in the very depths of this imaginary faith, simply modulating my freedom. They do not absorb and do not close it, but appear in front of it only as she herself chooses. I have already spoken, the splitters would remain only a shadow without a mixture of sympathy and disgust, which I feel to him. This is what makes him live. But due to the contradictory of imaginary objects, it is not his actions cause these feelings in me, and my indignation, my respect makes his actions durable and life.

It turns out that the object never dominates over mental life reader. But no other external reality can cause them. Their constant source is freedom, that is, they are caused by generosity. Under generosity, I understand this brass trafficwhich has its own origin and the goal of freedom. It turns out that reading is the manifestation of generosity. The writer demands that the reader is not manifestation of abstract freedom, but the full return of his personality. He needs all her passions, prejudices, sympathy, sexual temperament, its scale of values. The personality gives generously, she is all imbued with freedom, which permeates her through and transforms the darkest masses of her feelings. In the same way, the activity becomes passivity in order to more successfully create an object and passivity turns into action. The reading person is on the most big height. That is why even the most insensible people can shed tears over the stories about invented misfortunes. They just became such as if they were, if they always did not hide their freedom from themselves.

We see that the author writes to refer to freedom of readers. Without it, his work will not be able to exist. But this is not enough for him, he demands that readers return to him that he had the trust. The reader must recognize his creative freedom and to turn to her for its part. Here is another dialectical reading paradox: the more we are free, the more we recognize the freedom of the other. The more he is waiting for us, the more we are waiting for him.

When I am pleased with the landscape, I am perfectly aware that I did not create it. But I know that the relationship arising from my view between trees, foliage, land, grass, without me, would not exist without me. I can not understand the reasons for the purposefulness, which I see in the combination of colors, the harmony of forms and movements caused by the wind. But she is, she is here, in front of my eyes. Finally, in my power to make it so that it was only if there is already existing, but if I believe V. Bog, I can not allow any transition, except for verbal, between the universal fishing of God and a specific view that I look. It is necessary that he made a landscape so that I like him, or what created me, so that I am pleased with the landscape. This would mean to take the answer. Is it consciously combined with this blue with green? How can I know this? The idea of \u200b\u200buniversal can not guarantee any personal desire, especially in our case. Green color Herbs are explained by biological laws, specific factors, geographical conditions, and the blue of water is explained by the depth of the river, the structure of the soil, the speed of the flow. Consciously choose these paints could only be backdating. Here is the meeting of two causal series, which, at first glance, it seems an accident. The focus remains problematic even at best. All relations offered here are only hypotheses. No goal is perceived by us as an imperative, because no goal is disclosed to us, as a goal, assigned to its creator.

The beauty of nature is never directly referring to our freedom. More precisely, in the aggregate of foliage, forms and movements there is a seeming order, which means that the illusion of the call, which, as if requires this freedom, but immediately pulls under our gaze. We should look at this order, as a call disappears, we can connect this color at our request this color with another or third, establish a link between wood and water, wood and sky or wood, sky and water. My freedom turns into my whim: as new connections establish, I leave further from the imaginary objectivity, which calls me: I dream of some motifs, unclear inspired things. The reality of nature is just an excuse for a dream.

Sometimes I am upgraded to the depths of the soul by the fact that this for a moment aware of the order, I was not proposed for me, and therefore cannot claim the truth. Then I fix my fantasy, I transfer it to the canvas, on the page of the book. At this point, I turn into an intermediary link between the aimless goal of nature, and the views of other people. I hand it over it, thanks to such a gear, it becomes human.

Here art can be considered an act of imposing a gift, and one this gift is already provided by metamorphosis. There is something similar to the transfer of title and powerful powers when Matronimat, when the mother itself is not a carrier name, but remains the mandatory mediation between the uncle and the nephew. If I grabbed the illusion on the summer, if I hand it with another, freeing and changed my mind, they can take a gift with complete trust - the illusion was intense. The author, of course, remains on the border of the subjective and objective and is not able to estimate the objective order of the gift.

On the contrary, the reader acquires increasing security. No matter how far he climbed, the author has done an even greater way further. No matter how relatives it is among themselves the elements of books, chapters, pages, words - he has a guarantee that they were written and arranged by the author in a certain way. He can even inspire himself, like Descarte, as if there is a hidden order in the location of non-interconnected elements. The Creator was ahead of him here, because the most beautiful mess is the artistic effects that still represent some orderly. The reading process contains induction, interpolation, extrapolation. The basis of all these operations is laid in the author's will, just as scientific induction was once considered laid in the will of the Divine.

From the first to last page We are conducted unknown unobtrusive power. This does not mean that we just decipher the intentions of the artist. I have already said that we can only guess about them, the reader's experience is played here. But our discoveries are supported by solid confidence that the beauty that we have seen in the book is never the result of only the meeting. Accidentally combine only the tree, the sky in nature. In the novel - all the opposite: the heroes go somewhere, turn out to be in such a prison. If they walk through this particular garden, we are dealing immediately and with the coincidence of independent causes of the series (the hero was in some mental state, caused by a number of psychological or public events; but he once sent to a specific place, and the planning of the city led him to this Park), and with the manifestation of deeper conditionality. After all, the park is called to life in order to fit a certain mental state to express this condition through things, and make it the most relief. And the mental state itself arose in connection with the landscape. Here, the causal relationship is only apparent, it can be called "unfortunate causality", and the deepest reality is conditionality.

But if I am fully confident in the sequence of goals disguised as a sequence of reasons, it means that opening a book, I mean: the object is born of human freedom. If I assumed that the artist wrote Passion and driven into a rustling, then my trust would immediately evaporate. In this case, maintaining the sequence of reasons for the sequence of objectives would not have led to anything, because the latter is determined by psychological causality, and then the work of art would return to the determinism chain. Of course, when I read, I fully admit that the author could be excited to them, and I guess that the first sketch of the work was born under his influence of passion. But the decision itself to write suggests that the author has departed from his passions, that he will make his subordinate emotions free, as I do in the process of reading. All this means that it will be in the position of generosity.

In short, reading is a kind of generosity agreement between the author and the reader. Both trust each other, both are counting on each other, and prevent each other the same requirements as to themselves. Such trust is already in itself there are generosity: nothing causes the author to believe that the reader uses his freedom, as well as nothing forces the reader to believe that the author will take advantage of his. Both are completely free in choosing a solution. Therefore, the dialectical movement is made there and back: when I read, I expect something; If my expectations are justified, then read let me expect even more, which means it means to demand from the author so that it presented to me the most greater requirements. Conversely: the author's expectations are to raise the level of its expectations even higher. It turns out that the manifestation of my freedom causes a manifestation of freedom of another.

It does not matter how the aesthetic object is: "realistic" (or claiming it) or "formalistic". In any case, natural relationships are violated. This is only a tree in the foreground of the picture Cezanne, at first glance, it seems a product. causes of connections. But here is the causality - just an illusion. Of course, it is present in the form of proportions while we look at the picture. But it supports deep conditioner: if the tree is located here, then because the whole of the rest led to the appearance of such a form and such paints in the foreground. So through an outstanding causality, our view sees the conditionality as a deep structure of the object, and the human freedom looks at it as its source and the initial basis. The realism of the Vermeer is so frank that at first it seems to us photographic. But if you really consider the tangibility of matter in its paintings, the relief of pink brick walls, rich in the blue honeysuckle branch, shimmering the dusk of his interiors, a little orange skin shade on the faces of his characters, resembling a polished stone of the Kroplitsy, then the enjoyment suddenly brings to our consciousness that all this is due not so much forms or paints as its material imagination. Forms pass the substance and flesh itself. Communicating with such a reality, we are probably as close as possible to absolute creativity.

Indeed, in the most passivity of matter, we learn the bottomless freedom of man.

As you can see, creativity is not only the creation of a drawn, broken or written object. Just as we see things on the background of the world, and the objects presented by the art stand up in front of us on the background of the Universe. In the second adventure plan, Fabrizio is visible to Italy, 1820, Austria and France, and the stars of the sky, to which Abbot Blanes, and, finally, the whole earth is entirely. If the artist writes a field or a vase with flowers, then its picture becomes a window opened into the world. On a red path running in rye, we leave much further than wrote Van Gogh in my picture. We are moving along other rye shares, under the other skies, to the river itself, flowing into the sea. Our path continues to infinity, to the other end of the world, in the thickness of the Earth, which causes the existence of fields and limbs. So through the sequence of produced or reproducible objects, the creative act wants to argue the whole world. Each picture, each book concludes all completeness of the event; Each of them gives the freedom of the viewer this completeness. For so we see the ultimate goal of art. To absorb the whole world, showing it as it is, but it is necessary to do it as if his source is the freedom of humans. At the same time, the creation of the author becomes an objective reality only in the eyes of the contemplate. This is happening through the participation in the ritual of the spectacle, especially reading.

Now we can better answer the question justified. The writer appeals to the freedom of other people so that they, through the mutual exhibition of their claims, provided a person to the completeness of being and returned humanity into the universe.

But if we want to learn more, we must remember that the writer, like all the other artists, wants to transfer a certain feeling of readers, which is called aesthetic pleasure and which I personally called aesthetic joy. Only this joy suggests that the work is completed. So we should consider this feeling in the perspective of our previous considerations.

This aesthetic pleasure or joy, in which the Creator refused, while he creates, is available only to the aesthetic consciousness of the viewer, for our reader. This is a complex feeling, its components are interdepended and inseparable. At first, it coincides with the recognition of a transcendental and absolute goal, which is postponed by a number of utilitarian goals and means for a moment. For example, a call or, that is the same, value. My specific understanding of this value must occur against the background of the awareness of my freedom. And freedom is revealed for itself through a transcendental requirement. This is the perception of the freedom itself and there is joy. This part of the inesthetical consciousness encompasses another part. Let me remind you that reading is creativity, and my freedom opens up not only as pure independence, but also as creative activity. This means that it is not limited to its laws, but feels part of the object. At this level, a purely aesthetic phenomenon appears, that is, such creativity, in which the created object appears in front of its Creator as an object. This is the only case when the Creator enjoys the object being created. This word "enjoyment", attributed to a specific realization of the reading work, clearly suggests that we are faced with the deep structure of aesthetic joy. This pleasure received from the consciousness of his leadership in relation to the object, which is aware of how the chief, this part of the aesthetic consciousness would be a sense of security. It is it that gives the highest aesthetic feelings. It is a reducing of strict harmony of subjective and objective. But, in essence, the aesthetic object is the outside world, since creativity is directed through the worlds imaginary. Aesthetic joy is caused by the understanding that the world is value, or the burden offered to human freedom.

I call this aesthetic change in human thoughts. As a rule, the world is seen by us as the horizon of our situation, as an infinite distance separating us from themselves as the unity of obstacles and tools. But we never perceive the world as a requirement facing our freedom. It turns out that aesthetic joy brings the consciousness that absorbing the fact that I don't basically. I am converted to imperative, and the fact in value. The world, my burden, that is, the main and voluntarily taken function of my freedom. It is to give life to the only and absolute object, which is the universe. Thirdly, the considered elements contain a certain agreement between human freedoms. On the one hand, reading is a gullible and demanding recognition of the writer's freedom, and on the other hand, the aesthetic pleasure obtained in the aspect of value carries an absolute requirement in relation to another. This requirement that anyone, to the best of his freedom, experienced the same pleasure from reading the same book. So all of humanity turns out to be in the state of maximum freedom supporting the existence of the world, which at the same time its world and the world "external". Aesthetic joy brings conditional consciousness. This consciousness that creates the image of the world in all its completeness, the world, which is already there and, at the same time, should be like the world completely our and completely stranger. He all the more our, than he is more stranger. And the unconditional consciousness actually contains a harmonic set of human freedoms, as it creates an object from the confidence of all and the requirements of all. To write - it means to expose the world, and at the same time offer it as a non-generosity of the reader. This means use someone else's consciousness to achieve your leadership in the aggregate of being. So, want this leadership to be implemented through intermediaries. And on the other hand real world It is revealed only before action, and you can feel in it, only by making a step towards it to change it. The world of the novelist would not have enough relief, vitality, if the reader did not open it in the process of changing this world of movement. We often seen that the intensity of the life of some kind of subject in the narration is determined not by the number of its lengthy descriptions, but the complexity of its relationships with other characters. It will seem to us the more real than the more often they will manipulate, put in their hands, put in place. In short, the more often the characters will subjugate him on the way to their goals. Everything is completely exactly also for the world of the novel, that is, for the totality of people and things. For his maximum truth-like, it is necessary that the exposure is creativity through which the reader opens up this world - as if participation in action. In other words, the more you want the world of the novel, the more you live. The error of realism was that he believed that the reality was opened with contemplation and that therefore it is possible to create an unbiased picture. How can it be if the perception itself is predator if even the name of the subject already has its change? As a writer who seeks to be a leader in the created world, maybe want to be involved in injustices that exist in this world? However, it is necessary. But if he agrees to become a creator of injustices, then only under the condition of their destruction. Regarding the reader, it can be said that if he creates an unfair world and supports its existence, he cannot leave responsibility for it. And the author uses all his art to make the reader create what he exposed, that is, turn it on in creativity. Therefore, the responsibility for the world of the novel is carried by both. It happens because it is supported by the joint efforts of two freedoms and that the author tried through the reader to merge with humanity. It is necessary that this world will appear in the very deep its essence, looked through from all sides and was supported by freedom. This freedom is intended to be universal freedom. If the world of the novel is not a hail of the ultimate goals, how should it be, let him at least become on the way to this hail. To judge him and depict it should not be boring over us and threatening to destroy us, but from the point of view of how much he approached this is the goals. The work of art should always look generous, whatever evil and desperate humanity presented in it. Of course, it is not that this generosity is manifested in the duties and virtuous characters. It should not be deliberate. Only out good feelings Do not create a good book. But generosity should be the essence of the book, the tissue from which people and things are created. It does not depend on the plot - in the work there should be an organic ease, reminding us that the work of art is not at all natural mercy, but the requirement and gift. And if this world is presented to me together with his injustices, then not to treat them impassively. This is done so that my indignation breathe in them, exposed and recreated all this, while maintaining the nature of injustices, how to delete-evil-protections. The world of the writer is exposed to its very essence, only through his perception by his reader, reader indignation or admiration. His generous love is an oath to imitate, and generous indignation - the oath change. Despite the fact that literature and morality are completely different things, for the aesthetic imperative we always feel the imperative moral.

The writer by the fact that began to do this, recognizes the freedom of the reader, and the reader is one fact that he began to read, recognizes the freedom of the writer. This suggests that, from any point of view, the work of art is in essence, the act of confidence in human freedom. Both reader and the author recognize each other this freedom, only to demand its manifestation. So, the work of art can be defined as a mental representation of the world to the degree required by human freedom.

From this, first of all it follows that there are no black literature. In whatever gloomy tones, the world is drawn, it is done in order to be free] people experienced their freedom before him. Therefore, there are only good and bad novels. A bad novel is one that flatters to like, and a good requirement and act of confidence. It is important here that the only aspect in which the artist can offer the world reading freedoms, which he conceived all the time to implement, is such a world into which you can make as much freedom as possible.

It is impossible to imagine that a generosity caused by the writer could cause injustice. Similarly, the reader will not take advantage of his freedom to read the work that takes or simply refuses to condemn the enslavement of man by a person. It is possible that the black American will write good novel. Even if in it will be hatred for white, then through this hatred it will only require freedom for his race. He will suggest me to take the position of generosity, and when I will try as if I would like pure freedom, I will not be able to put out that I was counted for the white race of oppressors. Speaking against the White race and himself, as I part of it, I appeal to all the freedoms so that they demanded the liberation of non-ferrous. But, at the same time, no one can even imagine that you can write a good novel in defense of anti-Semitism. After all, it is impossible to expect that at the moment when I feel the inseparable connection of my freedom with the freedom of all other people, I freely agree with the enslavement of some of them. Therefore, for any writer, esseist, pamphletist, satiric or novelist, whether he only says about personal problems or refuses the social regime for a writer as a free man writing to free people, There is only one only topic - freedom.

Since it is so, then any attempt to enslave readers threatens the very essence of art. Fascism is able to cause sympathy of a blacksmith as a person, but it will not necessarily serve as a fascism with his craft. And the writer also serves as a person, and as an artist, moreover, the craft is in a much greater degree than a private life. I watched the writers who, before the war, with all his heart, they were given fascism and turned out to be fruitlessly when the Nazis trembled their honors. Here I mean, above all, Dryia La Rochelle. He was completely sincerely mistaken and proved it. The magazine inspired by the fascists, he immediately began to report, scold, relegate compatriots. There was no answer, because people were not free to do it. He was depressed because she no longer felt his readers. Despite his perseverance, there was not a single sign that he understood: neither hate, nor anger - nothing. Apparently, he was confused and, more and more losing self-control, began to bitely complain about the Germans. The articles were good, they became vascular. Finally, he began to beat himself in the chest. Silence. No response. Only sales newsmen, whom he despised, voice came. He left, returned to the magazine, again appealed to people - and again into the void. Finally, he fell silent, the silence of others made him do it. Previously, he demanded the enslavement of these people, but in his madness I thought that they would agree on it, which means it would be free. The people were enslaved. As a person, he could congratulate himself with this, but as a writer did not make it. At that time, others - fortunately, the majority - understood that freedom of creativity implies civil liberation. Do not write for slaves. The art of prose can coexist only with one regime, in which it makes sense - with democracy. When alone is alone, then in danger and the other. And then you need to protect not only the pen. The day will come when the pen needs to be postponed, and to take a weapon to the writer. How would you come to this, regardless of your beliefs, literature throws you into battle. Write - So, just thus so much to wish freedom. Since soon you decided to do this, forced or by your will, - you are engaged.

Drawn what? - You will be surprised. The answer is simple: to protect freedom. Do I need to become a worker of ideals, like cleric from Benda, before treason, or protect specific daily freedom, becoming a participant in the political and social struggle? This question is inextricably linked with the other, apparent obvious, but I never ask him: "For whom the writer writes?"

The book is impossible to finish. It can only break
Oscar Uald

Today there is a day of the Russian language and the birthday of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. And, of course, we cannot bypass this event. Do you know why and what did Orwell wrote? And Jennifer Igan, owner of the Pulitzer Prize? Or Isabel Alende, the world's most readable writer in the world?

If not, take a cup of fragrant tea, sit down more comfortably, wrap in the plaid and listen to read.

Why do people write?

Why do people write? The question that makes himself every writing person sitting in front of the screen and scorched in the hated cursor. Moreover, it sets not only at such moments, but also to other minutes of life too.

When the work is in full swing and under a watchful look of muses, the author was treated above the keyboard - then the author was painted by inspiration, interrupting the first sip of the cooled coffee, cooked in the morning, in admiring bewilderment, exclaims: "What happiness is given to me - do such a thing!"

But for moments of delight, there is definitely not the rainbow minutes, and they are still drawn not only for days, but not even for years. When the muse is injured by a serious work, painfully visiting the sands of creativity, and every word coming out from under the pen or crawling out of the printer, it turns out at all, not the wrong one - then the author with indignation appeals to the sky: "Why do I all of this?!"

But for what? Maybe it's all about the feeling of a celebration at the sight of your own words printed in the book?

However, judging by the available data, it does not become an intensive motive: not all manuscripts are printed, but only about 1%. Immediately exclude the material interest - the profit is brought only by 30% of published books. Sense of satisfaction? Also hardly. The author is always ready to correct the written hundreds of thousands of times.

So, why still someone chooses literary work?

George Orwell

"From the early childhoodPerhaps years from five to six, I knew that when I was growing up, I would definitely become a writer. With seventeen years and up to twenty-four, I tried to give up this thought, although I always realized that I change my genuine vocation and that sooner or later I would have to sit down and start writing books. "

With these words, George Orwell begins his essay of 1946 "Why I write" (Why I Write) and then leads "four main motive forcing writing."

1. Clean egoism. Thirst look smarter, desire to tell you, remembered after death, the desire to exceed those adults who humiliate you in childhood, etc., etc.
2. Aesthetic ecstasy. Perception of the beauty of the world or, on the other hand, the beauty of words, their exact organization. The ability to enjoy the effects of one sound to another, joy from the fortress of good prose, from the rhythm of a magnificent story.
3. Historical impulsefrom. The desire to see things and events as they are, search for truthful facts and keep them for offspring.
4. Political goal. After all, even the opinion is that art should not have anything in common with politics, is already a political position.

• Read more:

Jennifer Igan

Author famous novels, the owner of the Pulitzer Prize, admitted that before each new book, it was tormented by doubts and fears: "... It is terrible to spend time and invest in the plan, which has no clear outlines, even the genre is not yet defined. It is scary that my work will be unclaimed. Whether I'm afraid to hear from publishers: "We can't take such wild prose." But what is even worse - they will take my book, she will see the light and will not leave any trace in it. "

On the question of why she writes, Jennifer replies: "When I don't write, I feel that something in life is missing. If this continues for a long time, it becomes only worse, and I fall into depression. It does not happen vital. Slow destruction begins.

For some time I can live without writing, but then you begin to a few limbs. Something bad happens to me, and I know it. And the longer I am waiting, the harder to start.

P.S.: Subscribe to our useful newsletter. Once every two weeks send the 10 best materials from the blog of the myth. Not without gifts

In the jury 'The Top Ten: Writers Pick Their Favorite Books' under the leadership of the Columnist New York Times entered such famous writers Like: Jonathan Franzen, recognized by the Times magazine the best American novelist, the author of the novel "Children of the Emperor" Claire Mesrad, Joyce Carol Outs, a famous American novelist, and many others. Writers made up lists of 10 the best novels and writers, examined 544 headers. The novels received points from 1 to 10.

Ten greatest writers of all times, according to the total number of points scored:

1. Lion Tolstoy - 327

One of the most well-known Russian writers and thinkers, revered as one of the greatest writers of the world. Member of the Defense of Sevastopol.
The writer, recognized during the lifetime of the head of Russian literature, whose creativity marked a new stage in the development of Russian and world realism, becoming a kind of bridge between traditions classical Romana XIX century and literature of the 20th century.
The most famous works of Tolstoy, as the novels "War and Peace", "Anna Karenina", "Resurrection", autobiographical trilogy "Childhood", "adolescence", "Youth", the story "Cossacks", "Death of Ivan Ilich", "Creichera Sonata", "Haji Murat", the cycle of essays "Sevastopol stories", the drama "living corpse" and "Power of Darkness ", Autobiographical religious and philosophical works" Confession "and" What is my faith? " and etc.

2. William Shakespeare - 293

The English poet and the playwright, often considered the greatest English-language writer and one of the best playwrights of the world. It is often referred to as the National Poet of England. Recessed to us work, including some written in conjunction with other authors, consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, 4 poems and 3 epitaphy. Pieces of Shakespeare are translated into all major languages \u200b\u200band are placed more often than works by other playwrights.
Most of the work of Shakespeare was written in the period from 1589 to 1613. His early plays Basically refer to comedies and chronicles in which Shakespeare has succeeded significantly. Then, in his work, the period of tragedies, including the works of "Hamlet", "King Lire", "Othello" and Macbeth, who are considered one of the best in English. At the end of his work, Shakespeare wrote several tragicomedies, and also collaborated with other writers.

3. James Joyce - 194

Irish writer and poet, a representative of modernism, Joyce has greatly influenced world culture. He and in our time remains one of the most widely read by English-speaking prosaikov. In 1998, Modern Library published a list of "100 best novels of the newest library", in which all three novels James Joyce got: "Ulysses" (number 1 in the list), "Portrait of an artist in youth" (number 3) and "Pomping by Finnegano "(Number 77). In 1999, Time magazine included a writer in the list of "100 heroes and idols of the 20th century," saying that Joyce carried out a whole revolution. Ulysses was named "Demonstration and summing up under all modern movement [modernism]."

4. Vladimir Nabokov - 190

Russian and American writer, poet, translator and entomologist.

The works of Nabokov are characterized by a complex literary technique, deep analysis of the emotional state of characters in combination with unpredictable, sometimes almost a triller plot. Among the most famous samples of creativity Nabokov can be noted the novels "Masha", "Protection of Luzin", "invitation to execution", "Dar". Fame of the general public has received a writer after entering the light of the scandalous novel "Lolita", according to which several decrees were subsequently made (1962, 1997).

5. Fedor Dostoevsky - 177

One of the most significant and famous Russian writers and thinkers in the world. Dostoevsky's work had a great influence on Russian and world culture. Literary heritage The writer is estimated in different ways both at home and abroad. In the West, where Dostoevsky's novels are popular since the beginning of the twentieth century, his work has had a significant impact on such generally liberal movements as existentialism, expressionism and surrealism. The forerunner of existentialism see it many literary critics. However, Dostoevsky is usually assessed abroad, first of all, as an outstanding writer and psychologist, while his ideology is ignored or almost completely rejected.

Culture

This list contains the names of the greatest writers of all time from of different nationspissed by different languages. Those who at least somehow are interested in literature are undoubtedly familiar with them on their wonderful creations.

Today I would like to remember those who remained on the pages of history, as an outstanding authors of great works that are in demand for many years, decades, centuries, and even the Millennium.

1) Latin: Publi Virgil Maron

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Mark Tully Cicero, Guy Julius Caesar, Publics Ovidi Namon, Quint Horace Flacc

You need to know Virgil on his famous epic work "Aeneid"which is devoted to the fall of Troy. Virgil is probably the most stringent perfectionist in the history of literature. He wrote his poem with a strikingly slow speed - only 3 lines per day. He did not want to do it faster to be sure that it is better to write these three lines impossible.

IN latin Pressure proposal, dependent or independent, can be written in any order with several exceptions. So the poet has greater freedom In determining how his poetry sounds, without changing the values. Virgil considered any option at each stage.

Virgil also wrote two more works in Latin - "BULLES" (38 g BC) and "Georgiki" (29 years BC). "Georgiki" - 4 partially didactic poems on agriculture, including different kinds of tips, for example, that it is impossible to plant grapes next to olive trees: olive leaves are very flammable, and at the end of a dry summer they can catch fire, like everyone else because of the discharge of lightning.

He also praised the aristy, the god of beekeeping, because Honey was the only source of sugar for the European world until the sugar cane was taken to Europe from the Caribbean Islands. The bees were deified, and Vergili explained how to get the hives if there was no farmer: kill a deer, a boar or a bear, sucking them to belly and leave in the woods, praying to God Aristle. A week later, he will send bee hive to the animal carcass.

Vergili wrote that he would like his poem "Aeneid" burned after his death, as it remained unfinished. However, the Emperor Rome Guy Julius Caesar August refused to do this, thanks to which the poem had reached the present day.

2) ancient Greek: Homer

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Plato, Aristotle, Fucdide, Apostle Paul, Euripid, Aristophane

Homer, perhaps, can be called the greatest writer of all the times and peoples, but it is very well known about him. He was probably a blind man who told stories recorded 400 years later. Either actually worked on poems whole group Writers who added something about the Trojan War and Odyssey.

Anyway, "Iliad" and "Odyssey" They were written in ancient Greek, a dialect, who began to call Homerovsky, in contrast to the attic, who followed later and who changed it. "Iliad" Describes the last 10 years of combating Greeks with Trojans outside the walls of Troy. The main character is Ahill. It comes to rage from the fact that the king Agamemenon refers to him and his trophies, as to his property. Achille refused to participate in the war, which lasted for 10 years and in which the Greeks lost thousands of their warriors in the struggle for Troy.

But after the persuasion, Achille allowed her friend (and perhaps a lover) Patrole that no longer wanted to wait to join the war. However, Patrole was defeated and was killed by Hector, the leader of the Trojan troops. Achilles rushed into battle and forced the battalions of the Trojans to flee. Without an assistance, he killed many enemies, fought with the God of the River Scanander. Ultimately, Ahill killed the heaker, and the poem ends with funeral ceremonies.

"Odyssey" - an unsurpassed adventure masterpiece about 10-year-old wandering Odyssey, who tried to return home after graduation Trojan War Together with your people. Details of the Troy drop are mentioned very briefly. When Odyssey dared to go to the country of the dead, where Achilles find among others.

This is just two work of Homer, which preserved and reached us, however, whether others were not known. However, these works underlie the whole european literature. Poems are written by a dactilic hexameter. In memory of Homere by western tradition A lot of poems were written.

3) French: Victor Hugo

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: René Descartes, Voltaire, Alexander Duma, Moliere, Francois Rabl, Marseille Prost, Charles Bodler

The French have always been fans of long novels, the longest of which is cycle "In search of lost time" Marseille Pruts. However, Viktor Hugo is perhaps the most famous author of French prose and one of the greatest poets of the 19th century.

The most famous his works are "Cathedral Parisian Mother of God" (1831) and "Rejected" (1862). The first work even formed famous cartoon "Gorbun from Notre Dame"studio Walt Disney Pictures.However, in the real novel of the Hugo, it all ended far from fabulously.

Horbong Quasimodo was hopelessly in love with the Gypsy Esmeralda, which was well to him. However, Frollo, an evil priest, laid an eye on beauty. Frollo traced her and saw her almost turned out to be the mistress of captain Feba. As revenge Frollo passed the Gypsy justice, accusing the killing of the captain, which he actually killed himself.

After Torture, Esmeralda confessed that it was supposedly a crime, and should have been hanged, but at the last moment she was saved Quasimodo. Ultimately, Esmeralda was still executed, Frollo was reset from the cathedral, and Quasimodo died of hunger, hugging the corpse of his beloved.

"Rejected" Also, there is also no highly funny novel, at least one of the main characters - Kozetta - survives, despite the fact that she had to suffer almost all his life, as well as all the heroes of the novel. it classical history Fanatical following law, but almost no one can help those who really need help.

4) Spanish: Miguel de Cervantes Saoveoverov

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Jorge Louis Bruheses

The main work of Cervantes, of course, is famous Roman "Clear Hidalgo Don Quixote Laman". He also wrote collections of stories, romantic novel "Galatea", Roman "Persiles and Sikimund" And some other works.

Don Quixote is a sufficiently cheerful, even today, a character whose real name Alonso Kahahan. He studied so much about the militant knights and their honest ladies, which began to consider himself a knight, traveling by countryside And getting into a different kind of adventure, forcing everyone who meets him on the way, remember him for the recklessness. He made friends with the ordinary farmer of Sancho Pans, who tries to return Don Quixote to reality.

It is known that Don Quixote tried to fight with windmills, saved people who usually did not need his help, and many times were broken. The second part of the book was published 10 years after the first and is the first product of modern literature. Characters all know about the history of Don Quixote, which is told in the first part.

Now everything he meets is trying to ride him and Poleso, checking their faith in the Knight's Spirit. Ultimately, he returns to reality when the fight with the knights of the White Moon is losing, poisoned home, falls and dying, leaving all the money with his niece, provided that she won't marry a person who reads reckless stories about chivalry.

5) Netherlands: Yost Van Den Vonel

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Peter Hoft, Jacob Kat

Vonel - most outstanding writer Holland, who lived in the 17th century. He was a poet and playwright and was the representative of the "Golden Age" of Dutch literature. His famous play - "Geisbrecht Amsterdam", Historical drama, which was performed on the New Year's Day at the Amsterdam City Theater in the period from 1438 to 1968.

The play tells about the Gacebrecht IV, which, according to the play, invaded Amsterdam in 1303 to restore the honor of the family and return the title nobility. He founded something like a Baron title in these places. Historical sources of Vondel were wrong. In fact, the invasion committed the son of Geisbrecht, Yang, who turned out to be a real hero, overthrowing the tyranium reigned in Amsterdam. Today Geisbrecht is a national hero because of this writer's mistake.

Vaughn also wrote another masterpiece - an epic poem called "John the Baptist" (1662 year) about the life of John. This work is national Eposom Netherlands. Also Vondel is the author of the Piesen "Lucifer" (1654), in which the shower of the biblical character is investigated, as well as its character and motives in order to answer the question of why he did what he did. This play was inspired by the Englishman John Milton in writing 13 years later "Lost Paradise".

6) Portuguese: Louis de Kamense

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Jose Maria Esa de Cayosh, Fernanda Anthony Nyugiir Pesosa

Kamoens is considered the greatest poet of Portugal. The most famous work of his work - "Lusiada" (1572 year). Lusiada - the people who inhabited the Roman region of Lusitania, in the place of which modern Portugal is located. The name comes on behalf of Luza (Lusus), it was a friend of God of wine Bahus, he is considered the progenitor of the Portuguese people. "Lusiada" - Epic poem consisting of 10 songs.

The poem talks about all the famous Portuguese sea travel for the discovery, conquest and colonization of new countries and cultures. She looks like something "Odyssey" Homer, Kamoens praises Homer and Virgin many times. The work begins with the description of the travel of Vasco da Gama.

This is a historical poem that recreates many battles, the revolution of 1383-85, the opening of da Gama, trade with the city of Calcutta, India. I have always watched Louisiad greek godsAlthough yes Gama, being a Catholic, prayed to his own God. At the end of the poem mentions Magellan and speaks of the glorious future of Portuguese navigation.

7) German: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Friedrich von Schiller, Arthur Schopenhauer, Heinrich Heine, Franz Kafka

Speaking about German music, it is impossible not to mention the Bach, in the same way German literature would not be so complete without Goethe. Many great writers wrote about him or used his ideas in the formation of their style. Goethe wrote four novels, a great set of poems and documentaries, scientific essays.

Undoubtedly his most famous work is a book "The suffering of a young verte (1774 year). Goethe founded motion German romanticism. The 5th Symphony of Beethoven in the mood completely coincides with Getya "Wayer".

Novel "The suffering of a young verte It tells about the dissatisfied romanticism of the main character, which leads to his suicide. The story is told in the form of letters and made a popular epistolary novel, at least in the next and a half century.

However, the masterpiece of the feather Goethe still is the poem Faustwhich consists of 2 parts. The first part was published in 1808, the second - in 1832, in the year of death of the writer. The legend of Faust existed still long before Goethe, but the dramatic story of Guete remained the most famous history about this hero.

Faust is a scientist whose incredible knowledge and wisdom liked God. God sends Mephistofel or Devil to check Faust. The history of the transaction with the devil was often rising in the literature, but the most famous, perhaps the history of Faust Goethe. Faust signs an agreement with the devil, promising his soul in exchange for the fact that the devil will make on Earth what the Faust wishes.

He becomes young again and falls in love with Gretchen girl. Gretchen takes the potion from Faust, which should help her mother from insomnia, but the medicine poisoned it. It takes Gretchen crazy, she will turn his newborn baby, signing his death sentence. Faust and Mephistofel rushes into prison to rescue it, but Gretchen refuses to go with them. Faust and Mephistofel are hidden, and God grants Gretchen forgiveness at the time while she expects execution.

The second part is incredibly difficult to read, as the reader needs to be good in greek mythology. This is a kind of continuation of the story started in the first part. Faust with the help of Mephistofel becomes incredibly strong and corrupted to the very end of the narration. He remembers the pleasure to be a good man And immediately dies. Mephistofel comes for his soul, but the angels take it to themselves, they join the soul of Faust, which is reborn and rises to heaven.

8) Russian: Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: Lion Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

Today Pushkin recalls how the Father iseply Russian literature, unlike the Russian literature, which had an obvious shade of Western influence. First of all, Pushkin was a poet, but wrote in all genres. His masterpieces are considered drama "Boris Godunov" (1831) and poem "Eugene Onegin" (1825-32 years).

The first work is a play, the second is an affair in poetic form. "Onegin" written exclusively in the sonnets, and Pushkin invented new form Soneta, which distinguishes his work from the sonnets of Petrarki, Shakespeare and Edmund Spencer.

The main character of the poem - Evgeny Onegin is the model on which all Russians are based literary heroes. Onegin belongs to both a person who does not meet any norms adopted in society. He wores, plays gambling, beats on duels, is called a sociopath, although not cruel and not evil. This person, rather, do not care about the values \u200b\u200band rules that are adopted in society.

Many Pushkin's poems were based on ballets and operas. They are very difficult to translate to any other language mostly because poetry simply cannot sound the same in another language. That is what distinguishes poetry from prose. Languages \u200b\u200boften do not coincide in the possibilities of words. It is known that there are 45 different words in the language of snow for snow.

However, "Onegin" Translated into many languages. Vladimir Nabokov translated the poem into English, but instead of one volume he turned out as much as the Nabokov retained all definitions and descriptive details, but completely ignored the music of poetry.

All this is due to the fact that Pushkin had an incredibly unique style of writing, which made it possible to affect all aspects of the Russian language, even inventing new syntactic and grammatical forms and words, setting many rules that almost all Russian writers enjoy today.

9) Italian: Dante Aligiery

Other great authors wrote in the same language: no

Name Durante in Latin means "hardy" or "eternal". It was Dante who helped streamline various Italian dialects of his time in modern Italian. Dialect of the Tuscany region, where Dante was born in Florence, is the standard for all Italians thanks to "Divine Comedy" (1321), Dante Aligiery's masterpiece and one of the greatest works of world literature of all time.

At the time when this work was written, the Italian regions had each their own dialect, which were quite different from each other. Today, when you want to learn Italian, as a foreign, you will almost always begin with the Florentine Tuscany option because of its value in the literature.

Dante travels to hell and purgatory to learn about the punishments that sinners are serving. For different crimes there are different punishments. Those who are accused of lusting, forever persecutes by the wind, despite fatigue, because in life the wind is awkwards them.

Those who Dante considers hehetics, guilty is that the church split into several branches, among them also the Prophet Mohammed. They are sentenced to a split from the neck to the groin, and the punishment carries out the devil with a sword. In such a spell, they walk in a circle.

IN "Comedy" There are also descriptions of Paradise, which are also unforgettable. Dante uses the concept of paradise Ptolemy that heaven consist of 9 concentric spheres, each of which brings the author and Beatrice, his beloved and a guide, to God at the very top.

After meeting with different famous personalities Dante's Bible is face to face with the Lord God depicted in the form of three beautiful circles of light merging into one, from which Jesus comes out, the incarnation of God on Earth.

Dante is also the author of other smaller poems and essays. One of the works - "On folk eloquence" tells about the importance italian language as conversational. He also wrote a poem "New life" With passages in prose, in which protects noble love. No other writer owned the language so flawlessly as Dante owned Italian.

10) English: William Shakespeare

Other great authors who wrote in the same language: John Milton, Samuel Beckett, Jeffrey Choseer, Virginia Wulf, Charles Dickens

Voltaire called Shakespeare "This drunk fool", and his works "This huge dung bunch". Nevertheless, the influence of Shakespeare on the literature is indisputable and not only English, but also the literature most of the other languages \u200b\u200bof the world. Today, Shakespeare is one of the most translated writers, his full collection of works has been translated into 70 languages, and different plays and poems - for more than 200.

About 60 percent of all winged expressions, quotes and Idiome of English go from Bible King Yakov (English translation of the Bible), 30 percent from Shakespeare.

According to the rules of Shakespeare's time, the tragedy at the end demanded death, at least one main character, but in an ideal tragedy everything is dying: "Hamlet" (1599-1602), "King Lear" (1660), "Othello" (1603), "Romeo and Juliet" (1597).

In contrast to the tragedy, there is a comedy, in which someone is mandatory to marry at the end, and all the characters marry and get married in an ideal comedy: "A dream in a summer night" (1596), "Much ado about nothing" (1599), "Twelfth Night" (1601), "Windsor mockery" (1602).

Shakespeare masterfully knew how to exacerbate tension between heroes in an excellent combination with the plot. He knew how no one else can organically describe human nature. The present genius of Shakespeare can be called skepticism, which permeates all his work, sonnets, plays and poems. He, as it should be, praises the highest moral principles of humanity, but these principles are always expressed in the conditions of the ideal world.