Skaitytoja Aldona Liobytė rašo: Liobytės literatūrinės pažiūros
LTStraipsnyje aptariami rašytojos Aldonos Liobytės laiškai, suteikiantys galimybę papildyti Lietuvoje negausius skaitymo istorijos tyrinėjimus. Siekiama rekonstruoti Aldonos Liobytės, kaip aktyvios sovietmečio literatūros lauko dalyvės, literatūrines pažiūras. Liobytės laiškuose ryškėja jos požiūris į literatūrą ir apskritai meno funkciją. Pastebima, kad nacionalinės kultūros ginties situacijoje Liobytė literatūrai ir menui paveda saugoti tautą, siūlyti tam tikrus moralinius kriterijus. Vis dėlto rašytojos svarstymuose apie meną ryškėja literatūros literatūriškumo suvokimas: literatūros kūrinys skaitomas kaip specifinis estetinis objektas. Jam keliami autentiškumo, kuriančio įtaigą, reikalavimai. Skirtingi ir netgi prieštaringi meno kūrinių vertinimo kriterijai leidžia kalbėti ne vien apie individualų rašytojos skonį, bet ir apie įtampą tarp estetinės ir visuomeninės meno funkcijų sovietmečio literatūroje. Kartu ir apie lėtą skaitytojų kaitą bei pamažu besiformavusią terpę moderniajai poezijai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Rašytojos laiškai; Literatūrinės pažiūros; Meno vaidmenys sovietmečiu; Writer’s letters; Literary attitudes; Roles of the arts in the Soviet period.
ENIn this paper, the author discusses the letters of the writer Aldona Liobytė that offer an opportunity to broaden the still scarce research on the history of reading in Lithuania. She aims to reconstruct the literary attitudes of Aldona Liobytė as an active player in the literary field of the Soviet period. The author m aintains that Aldona Liobytė was not an ordinary reader: she read a wide variety of literature and evaluated it with arguments in her letters where she criticised the ideas of the ideological plane of a literary work prevailing in the official literary field at the time, application of primitive Marxism in discussing literature and thus shaping the consumer of Soviet culture. This was the field in which modern literature and its readers slowly found their way as a peculiar opposition. Liobytė’s letters reveal her attitude to the function of literature and the arts in general. In the situation of the defence of national culture and resistance to the formation of the Soviet reader and consumer of culture, Liobytė entrusts literature and the arts with the protection of the nation and commits the writers to propose certain moral criteria to the people. Still, her reflections on the arts reveal her perception of the literary aspect of literature: a literary work is read as a specific aesthetic object. It is subject to the requirements of authenticity that creates persuasion. In discussing prose texts, Liobytė is looking for attractive and relevant plots and themes. She criticises the texts of many a prose writer for their exaggerated interest in carnality and sexuality and for diving into details. That is why she is critical of Jonas Avyžius, Mykolas Sluckis, and Vytautas Bubnys. She is somewhat kinder to Jonas Mikelinskas in whose texts she finds style, language, patience, and a decent literary level.As for the playwrights, she asks for more passion, sharper conflicts, and truth that hurts the reader. She appreciates the classics of the Lithuanian historical drama (Vincas Krėvės Skirgaila and Šarūnas, Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas’s Valdovas, and historical dramas by Balys Sruoga). To her, Kazys Saja was the most interesting Lithuanian author, and she singled out Sławomir Mrožek among foreign authors. Speaking of poetry, Liobytė refers to herself as a representative of the generation brought up by Maironis’s poetry. Since she was acquainted with formalism and the authors that based their work on the ideas of formalism, she recognised the shifts taking place in the changing field of poetry, its obvious modernisation, and artistic experiments. However, the most important for her was the authenticity and sincerity of poetry that would enable the reader to identify with the subject of a poem. Another requirement for poetry is its "Lithuanianism" that is lost in the works of some modernists thus implying a confrontation between Lithuanian centrism and cosmopolitanism. This is probably most obvious in Liobytė’s views on Justinas Marcinkevičius and Eduardas Mieželaitis, who are considered symbolic figures in the Soviet literary field and metonymically represent different aesthetical (the value of a work of art) and social (a writer’s standpoint, assum ing and granting a certain social role) paradigms. The above-mentioned different and even contradictory criteria for assessing works of art not only point to the writer’s individual taste but also to the tension between the aesthetic and public functions of the arts in the literature of the Soviet period.The imperative setting of the sincere, righteous, Lithuanian, traditional, and moving Justinas Marcinkevičius against the declarative, cosmopolitan, and modern Eduardas Mieželaitis in Liobytė’s letters to trusted correspondents reveals not only her understanding of poetry as a creator of the human and the Homeland, a protector of the nation, and an expression of sincerity. It also points to protracted changes in poetry readers and to the slow and somewhat complex emergence of the environment for modern poetry. [From the publication]
