On the Typology of Writers’ Letters to the Editor in the Early 20th Century: Answers to Readers, Critics, and Opponents

Abstract

Based on the analysis of little-known and forgotten letters of Russian writers, most of them introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time, this article clarifies the existing perceptions of various types of letters to the editor. The purpose of the work is to identify and describe cases of changing conventions between the writer, the critic, and the reader in the early twentieth century. The notice form of the letter, traditionally used to notify readers of ongoing rearrangements in editorial boards or groups, as well as the writer’s membership in a particular literary publication, remained unchanged. Conversely, the writer’s letter as a response to a reader, a critic, or an opponent were forms influenced by a new sociocultural situation, characterised by an increasing number of printed publications and the appearance of a new type of reader and critic. The article establishes that, when replying to a reader, a social or political opponent via a newspaper, the writer turned his response into a public statement, expressed in accordance with their reputation and social stance. The writer’s reply to an opponent often took the form of an open letter and became an instance of civic action. As a response to a critic, the writer’s letter to the editor indicated his refusal to regard the critic as an authoritative participant of the literary process, one equal in status to the writer. When addressing the reader through the medium of a newspaper, the writer discussed the factual aspect of the critic’s statement, not their opinion of the writer’s work, thus emphasising the insignificance of their role. A response to a critic the writer found authoritative instead took the form of an article, or a column. Writers’ letters to the editor of the early twentieth century reflect contradictory phenomena in the literary process, caused by the emergence of mass readership and a reconsideration of the terms set between it, the writer and the critic.