The author in his works raises burning issues of Ukrainian, peasant life.
The author in his works raises burning issues of Ukrainian, peasant life.
Great merit for the fact that not to the end, but created a biographical canvas-novel-epic of the life and work of Taras Shevchenko. The best works of the talented artist and teacher S. Vasylchenko, written on folk, realistic principles, which belong to the real heritage of Ukrainian national culture, are firmly entrenched in the present. Personal impressions from acquaintance with the works of S. Vasylchenko Among the classics of Ukrainian literature an important place is occupied by the realist writer Stepan Vasylchenko. He is a famous teacher, a developed personality and just a creative person. Its versatility is impressive. It is the fruit of a working society that is closely connected with the people. The author in his works raises burning issues of Ukrainian, peasant life. To cover the aspirations and desires of the people, the struggle for liberation and the independence of the working man, the hope for a happy, bright future – It was his duty, like other famous writers. In his works, in my opinion, combined energy, strength, “engine” to achieve, and pain, sorrow for his homeland. The writer shows a close connection with life with his sense of the spirit of the time, understanding of changes in human psychology. The theme of the labor union of town and country was, without a doubt, historically far-reaching. In his work, Vasylchenko asserts the morally healing effect of physical labor on children, asserts the poetic beauty and moral necessity of the way of life led by his young heroes in the Soviet school. Although Stepan Vasylchenko has a great legacy for us – important life lessons that need to be understood faster, many of his works are close to the people, but personally I did not like his work.
Reflection of the process of de-Stalinization in the literature of the 60’s
Attempts by the new Kremlin leadership to gain wider support from non-Russian peoples, and especially Ukrainians, were part of a grand reform agenda
In 1954, in order to celebrate the Ukrainian-Russian partnership throughout the Soviet Union, the celebrations of the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Agreement were celebrated with extraordinary pomp. In addition to numerous celebrations, the Central Committee of the CPSU published 13 “theses” proving the steadfastness of the “eternal union” of Ukrainians with Russians. On the eve of the celebration, a number of pathetic works of art were created to reflect the importance of this event. They were created to please the Communist Party and the Soviet government. In 1956. At the twentieth party congress, Khrushchev delivered one of the most dramatic speeches in Soviet history. This speech was a signal of de-Stalinization. It began to undergo significant positive changes in the life of the country. Thus, the ideological guidelines that began the “thaw” in cultural life were weakened. Initially, Ukrainians responded to these changes with the caution they had learned during Stalin’s rule. But when it became clear that the cult of Stalin’s cult of personality was being conducted openly and on a large scale, they joined it with a whole stream of their own complaints and demands. As expected, there was a particularly strong dissatisfaction among cultural figures. one of the first was the accusation of the miserable condition in which the Ukrainian language found itself. The intelligentsia, students, workers, and even party officials all repeated that the special status of the Russian language in the USSR did not mean that the Ukrainian language should be discriminated against. Slogans such as “Let’s protect the Ukrainian language!” and “Let’s speak Ukrainian!” increasingly heard throughout the country, especially among university students. Another issue that was discussed was the decline of Ukrainian science. Some historians opposed Moscow’s brutal ideological control over their industry, which led to the “impoverishment of history.” In 1957, Ukrainian historians received permission to establish their own journal called the Ukrainian Historical Journal. This was followed by such important multi-volume publications as “Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language”, “History of Ukrainian Literature”, “History of Ukrainian Art” and a very detailed “History of Cities and Villages of Ukraine”. Numerous Ukrainian-language journals on natural and social sciences have appeared. The Ukrainian intellectual elite was going to use the opportunities created by de-Stalinization to spread modern knowledge in the Ukrainian language. As Khrushchev acknowledged that many victims of Stalin’s terror had been illegally repressed, demands for their rehabilitation became louder and louder. M. Skrypnyk and M. Khvylovy were the first to be given back their good name posthumously. It was soon proposed to rehabilitate key figures of cultural figures, playwright Mykola Kulish, theater director Lesya Kurbas, film director Oleksandr Dovzhenko, and a prominent 19th-century thinker. Mikhail Dragomanov. Since restoring the good name of these figures to such a politically sensitive issue as Ukraine’s cultural independence, the Communist Party has responded to these demands cautiously and ambiguously. But the fact that the Ukrainian intelligentsia continued to seek the rehabilitation of these figures testified to the fact that the ideas of the repressed continued to be attractive. The half-heartedness of Soviet reforms was particularly pronounced in the field of education. For example, in 1958, a reform of education was introduced, some of the provisions of which concerned the language issue: students were required to learn their native language, but also Russian. The reform provided for the right of parents to choose the language of instruction for their children. In practice, this meant that one could study in Ukraine and not learn the Ukrainian language. In these conditions, the Ukrainian cultural elite makes new attempts to expand the boundaries of creative self-expression. Older writers continue to demand the rehabilitation of their repressed colleagues. Alexander Korniychuk called for the publication of the “Library of the Great 20’s” to promote the works of Blue, Kulish, Kurbas and others. Some sought to rehabilitate those who fell victim to the 1940s. Vingranovsky, Dmytro Pavlychko, who demanded to lab report writer cheap correct the “mistakes” made by Stalin in the past, and to provide guarantees that the cultural development of the people will not be further suppressed. Observing the inconsistency of de-Stalinization, they demanded an end to the Communist Party’s interference in literature and art, to determine the right to experiment with different styles, and to ensure the central role of the Ukrainian language in educational and cultural activities in the republic … In the early 1960s, members of this new generation in literature, known as the Sixties, not only rejected the interference of party officials, but also exposed the hypocrisy, opportunism, and excessive caution of their senior colleagues. Well-known literary critic Yevhen Sverstyuk notes: “The Sixties are a great phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century, surprising in their appearance in the great thaw and their standing opposition to neo-Stalinism and vital energy in the age of liberalization. ” In the mentality of the 60’s, exhausted by “work and days” suffered from all the pain, but at the same time vital, imbued with a high understanding of the moral and ethical limits of choice: everything can be chosen in the world, except mother and homeland. In the spring of 1963, a new offensive by the official authorities against “immature elements” in Ukrainian literature began in Ukraine. Literary critics such as E. Sverstyuk, I. Svitlychny, and I. Dziuba were the first to be criticized. New arrests began in Kyiv: about 2 dozen people were arrested, who were particularly critical of the existing system. In May 1964, the library department of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which housed thousands of priceless books and documents on Ukrainian history and culture, burned down in Ukraine. All this testified to the end of the thaw “in the style of Soviet leadership in public life and, above all, culture.” In 1968, Oles Honchar’s novel Sobor was published, in which the writer was one of the first in Soviet literature to raise the issue of a humanistic understanding of national history and the preservation of the people’s spiritual heritage. Rudenko, Vasyl Stus, Mykhailo Osadchy, Valery Marchenko, etc. Yu. Mushketyk’s novels “Position” and “Boundary” are imbued with a new approach in covering various aspects of life in the modern village. “Miracle” “Roksolana” “I, GodDan” P. Zagrebelny, “Manuscript from Ruska Street” “Water from a stone” Yu. “R. Ivanychuk,” Haidamaki and Yasa “Yu. Mushketyk,” Wrath of Perun “R. Ivanchenko. M. Shapoval dedicated his book about the prominent researcher of the Zaporozhian Sich D. Yavornytsky” In Search of Treasures “to the protection of Ukrainian national heritage.O. Ivanenko and S. Plachynda presented new historical and biographical works.New collections of poems by L. Kostenko, I. Drach, R. Lubkivsky, D. Pavlychko, and young poets P. Osadchuk and I. Rymaruk became a notable phenomenon in the national and cultural revival. The main content of their works is an ardent love for Ukraine, sympathy for the fate of its people, glorification of human feelings, work, nature, native land. For them, serving their people was no longer an episode, but a profession, a high vocation, honor and direct moral duty.Therefore, it is no coincidence that their philosophical poetry captures the soul, excites with its lyricism and sincerity, captures the diversity of topics and knowledge of history. Thus, despi te the fact that the totalitarian-bureaucratic system had a significant negative impact on cultural processes in Ukraine, inhibited their democratic national tendencies, the Ukrainian people lived, worked, created and even in difficult conditions of oppression and persecution lived and developed physically broken and spiritually mutilated Ukrainian culture, which compared to previous years has achieved considerable success and has made some contribution to the treasury of world culture.