Narrative and character of the narrator. What is the narrator's purpose in telling the reader a story?

Narration in work of art is not always carried out on behalf of the author.

The author is a real man who lives in the real world. It is he who thinks through his work from the beginning (sometimes, from the epigraph, even from the numbering (Arabic or Roman) to the last dot or ellipsis. It is he who develops the system of heroes, their portraits and relationships, it is he who divides the work into chapters. For him, it does not exist " unnecessary "details - if there is a pot of balsam on the window in the stationmaster's house, then the author needed that flower.

Examples of works where the author himself is present are “Eugene Onegin” a. Pushkin and "dead souls" by N. Gogol.

Difference Between Narrator and Narrator

The narrator is a storyteller, this is a character of the artistic world. The narrator is the author who tells through the mouth of the character. The narrator lives in each specific text - this is, for example, an old man and an old woman who lived near the blue sea. He is a direct participant in some events.

And the narrator is always above the narrator, he tells the story in its entirety, being a participant in the events or a witness to the life of the characters. The narrator is a character who is presented as a writer in a work, but at the same time he retains the features of his speech, his thoughts.

The narrator is the one who wrote the story. It can be fictional or real (then the concept of the author is introduced; that is, the author and the narrator are the same).

the narrator represents the writer in the work. Often the narrator is also called the "lyrical hero." This is someone whom the writer trusts and his own assessment of events and characters. Or these points of view - the author-creator and the narrator - may be close.

in order to present and reveal his idea in its entirety, the author puts on various masks - including the narrator and storytellers. The last two are eyewitnesses of events, the reader believes them. This gives rise to a sense of authenticity. The author, as if on the stage - the pages of the work - plays one many roles of the performance he created. That's why it's so exciting to be a writer!

Who tells the story of Silvio?

To such a reception?

Pushkin went to Boldino as a fiance. However, financial difficulties prevented marriage. Neither Pushkin nor the bride's parents had an excess of money. Pushkin's mood was also influenced by the cholera epidemic in Moscow, which did not allow him to travel from Boldino. It was during the Boldin autumn, among many other things, that Belkin's stories were written.

In fact, the entire cycle was written by Pushkin, but the title and preface indicate another author, the pseudo-author Ivan Petrovich Belkin, but Belkin died and his stories were published by a certain publisher, A.P. it is also known that Belkin wrote each story based on the stories of several "persons".

The cycle begins with a preface "from the publisher", written on behalf of a certain a.p. Pushkinists believe that this is not Alexander Pushkin himself, since the style is not at all Pushkin's, but some kind of ornate, semi-clerical. The publisher was not personally acquainted with Belkin and therefore turned to the late author's neighbor for biographical information about him. A letter from a neighbor, a certain Nenaradovo landowner, is given in full in the preface.

Pushkin presents Belkin to the reader as a writer. Belkin himself conveys the narration to a certain narrator - lieutenant colonel and. L. P. (about which the message is given in a footnote: (note by A. S. Pushkin.)

The answer to the question: who tells the story of Silvio - is revealed as a matryoshka:

Pushkin biographical (it is known that once the poet himself ate cherries in a duel, he did not shoot) →

Publisher a.p. (but not Alexander Sergeevich himself) →

Nenaradovsky landowner (neighbor of Belkin, deceased by that time) →

Belkin biographical (a neighbor told about him in detail as best he could) →

Narrator (an officer who knew both Silvio and the lucky count) →

Narrators = heroes (silvio, count, "a man of about thirty-two, beautiful in appearance").

The story is told in the first person: the narrator takes part in the action, it is to him, a young army officer, that Silvio confides the secret of an unfinished duel. It is interesting that the finale of her i.l.p. learns Silvio from the enemy. Thus, the narrator in the story also becomes the attorney of two characters, each of whom tells his own part of the story, which is given in the first person and in the past tense. Therefore, the story told seems to be true.

this is such a complex construction of a seemingly uncomplicated story.

"Belkin's stories" is not just a cheerful Pushkin's work with funny plots. People who start playing literary heroes find themselves at the mercy of certain plot patterns and become not only funny, funny, but actually risk dying in a duel ... ”it turns out that these“ tales of Belkin ”are not so simple.

All other stories of the cycle are built in a similar way. Among other works, one can name the story "The Captain's Daughter", which is written on behalf of fictional character- Petra Grinev. He talks about himself.

Grinev is young, honest and fair - only from such a position can one assess the honor of Pugachev, who was recognized by the defenders of the state as an impostor, "a despicable rebel."

in the last chapter (“trial”), Grinev tells about the events that occurred during his imprisonment, according to his relatives.

one can also recall the red-haired panko, to whom Nikolai Gogol conveyed the story of the “enchanted place”.

In the same way, the chapter “Maxim Maksimych” is constructed from the “hero of our time” M. Lermontov.

In the same novel The White Guard (and in many other works, and by other authors), we are faced with another phenomenon: the narrator's speech is able to absorb the hero's voice, and it can be combined with the author's voice within one segment of the text, even within the same sentence:

“Aleksey, Elena, Talberg, and Anyuta, who grew up in Turbina’s house, and Nikolka, stunned by death, with a whirlwind hanging over her right eyebrow, stood at the feet of the old brown Saint Nicholas. Nikolka's blue eyes, set on the sides of a long bird's nose, looked bewildered, slain. Occasionally he erected them on the iconostasis, on the vault of the altar sinking in the twilight, where the sad and mysterious old god ascended, blinking. Why such an insult? Injustice? Why was it necessary to take away the mother when everyone had gathered, when relief had come?

The god flying away into the black, cracked sky did not give an answer, and Nikolka himself did not yet know that everything that happens is always the way it should be, and only for the better.

They sang the burial service, went out to the echoing slabs of the porch and accompanied the mother through the whole huge city to the cemetery, where under the black marble cross the father had long been lying. And they buried my mother. Eh ... eh ... ".

Here, in the scene when the Turbins bury their mother, the voice of the author and the voice of the hero are combined - despite the fact (it is worth emphasizing once again) that formally this entire fragment of the text belongs to the narrator. “A tuft hanging over the right eyebrow”, “blue heads planted on the sides of a long bird's nose ...” - this is how the hero himself cannot see himself: this is the author’s view of him. And at the same time, “the sad and mysterious old god” is clearly the perception of the seventeen-year-old Nikolka, as well as the words: “Why such an insult? Injustice? Why was it necessary to take away the mother…” and so on. This is how the voice of the author and the voice of the hero are combined in the narrator’s speech, up to the case when this combination occurs within one sentence: “God, flying away into the black, cracked sky, did not give an answer ...” Nikolka himself didn't know yet...” (author's voice zone).

This type of narration is called non-proprietary-author's. We can say that two subjects of consciousness (the author and the hero) are combined here, despite the fact that the subject of speech is one: it is the narrator.

Now the position of M.M. should become clear. Bakhtin about the "author's excess", expressed by him in his 1919 work "The Author and the Hero in Aesthetic Activity". Bakhtin separates, as we would now say, the biographical, real author and the author as an aesthetic category, the author dissolved in the text, and writes: “The author must be on the border of the world he creates as an active creator of it ... The author is necessary and authoritative for the reader who treats him not as a person, not as another person, not as a hero ... but as a principle which must be followed (only a biographical consideration of the author turns him into ... a person defined in being who can be contemplated). Inside the work for the reader, the author is a set of creative principles that must be implemented (i.e., in the mind of the reader following the author in the process of reading - E.O.)... His individuation as a person (i.e., the idea of ​​the author as a person, a real person - E.O.) there is already a secondary creative act of the reader, critic, historian, independent of the author as an active principle of vision ... The author knows and sees no longer only in the direction in which the hero looks and sees, but in another, fundamentally inaccessible to the hero himself .. The author not only knows and sees everything that each character knows and sees individually and all the characters together, but more than them, and he sees and knows something that is fundamentally inaccessible to them, and in this is always definite and stable excess visions and knowledge of the author in relation to each hero and are all the moments of completion of the whole ... work.

In other words, the hero is limited in his outlook by a special position in time and space, features of character, age, and many other circumstances. This is what distinguishes him from the author, who, in principle, is omniscient and omnipresent, although the degree of his “manifestation” in the text of the work may be different, including in the organization of the work from the point of view of the narrative. The author appears in every element of a work of art, and at the same time he cannot be identified with any of the characters, or with any one side of the work.

Thus, it becomes clear that the narrator is only one of the forms of the author's consciousness, and it is impossible to completely identify him with the author.

Improperly direct speech.

Within the same objective narration (Erform), there is also such a variation of it, when the voice of the hero begins to prevail over the voice of the author, although formally the text belongs to the narrator. This is an improperly direct speech, which is distinguished from an improperly authorial narrative precisely by the predominance of the hero's voice within Erform. Let's consider two examples.

“Anfisa showed neither surprise nor sympathy. She did not like these boyish antics of her husband. They are waiting for him at home, they are killing themselves, they can’t find a place for themselves, but he, on the contrary, rode and rode, but Sinelga came to mind - and galloped. It’s as if this same Sinelga will fall through the ground, if you go there a day later.” (F. Abramov. Crossroads)

“Yesterday I was very drunk. Not that directly "in rags", but firmly. Yesterday, the day before yesterday and the third day. All because of that bastard Banin and his dear sister. Well, they split you into your labor rubles! ... After demobilization, he moved with a friend to Novorossiysk. A year later he was taken away. Some bastard stole spare parts from the garage ”(V. Aksenov. Halfway to the Moon) /

As you can see, with all the differences between the characters here, F. Abramov and V. Aksenov have a similar principle in the ratio of the voices of the author and the character. In the first case, it seems that only the first two sentences can be "attributed" to the author himself. Then his point of view is deliberately combined with that of Anfisa (or "disappears" in order to give a close-up of the heroine herself). In the second example, it is generally impossible to isolate the author's voice: the entire narrative is colored by the voice of the hero, his speech features. The case is especially difficult and interesting, because the intellectual vernacular characteristic of the character is not alien to the author, as anyone who reads the entire story of Aksenov can be convinced of. In general, such a desire to merge the voices of the author and the hero, as a rule, occurs when they are close and speaks of the writers' desire for the position of not an aloof judge, but a "son and brother" of their heroes. M. Zoshchenko called himself the “son and brother” of his characters in “Sentimental Tales”; “Your son and brother” was the name of V. Shukshin’s story, and although these words belong to the hero of the story, in many respects Shukshin’s authorial position is generally characterized by the narrator’s desire to get as close as possible to the characters. In studies on linguistic stylistics of the second half of the twentieth century. this trend (dating back to Chekhov) is noted as characteristic of Russian prose of the 1960s-1970s. This is consistent with the confessions of the writers themselves. "... One of my favorite tricks - it even began, perhaps, to be repeated too often - is the author's voice, which, as it were, is woven into the hero's internal monologue," Y. Trifonov admitted. Even earlier, V. Belov reflected on similar phenomena: “... I think that there is a certain thin, imperceptibly unsteady and having the right to exist line of contact between the author's language and the language of the depicted character. A deep, very specific separation of these two categories is just as unpleasant as their complete merging.

Non-proper-author's narration and non-self-direct speech are two varieties of Erform that are close to each other. If it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them sharply (and the researchers themselves admit this difficulty), then it is possible to single out not three, but two varieties of Erform and at the same time talk about what prevails in the text: “the author’s plan” or “character’s plan” ( according to the terminology of N.A. Kozhevnikova), that is, in the division adopted by us, the actual author's narration or two other varieties of Erform. But it is necessary to distinguish at least these two types of authorial activity, especially since, as we see, this problem also worries the writers themselves.

Icherzählung - first-person narration is less common in the literature. And here one can observe no less expressive possibilities for the writer. Consider this form - Icherzählung (according to the terminology accepted in world literary criticism; in Russian sounding - "icherzählung").

“What a pleasure it is for a third-person narrator to move on to the first! It's the same as after small and uncomfortable cups, thimbles, suddenly wave your hand, figure it out and drink straight from the tap of cold raw water ”(Mandelstam O. Egyptian stamp. L., 1928, p. 67).

To the researcher... this laconic and powerful remark says a lot. Firstly, it strongly reminds of the special essence of verbal art (in comparison with other types of speech activity)... Secondly, it testifies to the depth of aesthetic awareness choice one or another leading form of narration in relation to the task that the writer has set for himself. Thirdly, it indicates the necessity (or possibility) and artistic fruitfulness transition from one narrative form to another. And, finally, fourthly, it contains the recognition of a certain kind of inconvenience, which is fraught with any deviation from the uncorrectable explication of the author's "I" and which, nevertheless, fiction for some reason neglects.

"The uncorrectable explication of the author's "I"" in the terminology of a modern linguist is a free, unrestrained direct author's word, which O. Mandelstam probably had in mind in this particular case - in the book "Egyptian Mark". But a first-person narrative does not necessarily imply exactly and only such a word. Here at least three varieties can be distinguished. The one who is the bearer of such a narration, we agree to call storyteller(as opposed to the narrator in Erform). True, in the specialized literature there is no unity in terms of the terminology associated with the narrator, and one can come across a word usage that is the opposite of what we proposed. But here it is important not to bring all researchers to a mandatory unanimity, but to agree on terms. In the end, it's not the terms, but the essence of the problem.

So, three important types of first-person narrative - Icherzählung , distinguished depending on who the narrator is: author-narrator; a narrator who is not a hero; hero storyteller.

1. Narrator. Probably, it was this form of narration that O. Mandelstam had in mind: it gave him, the poet writing prose, the most convenient and familiar, besides, of course, consistent with a specific artistic task, the opportunity to speak as openly and directly in the first person as possible. (Although one should not exaggerate the autobiographical nature of such a narrative: even in lyrics, with its maximum subjectivity compared to drama and epic, the lyrical “I” is not only not identical to the biographical author, but is not the only opportunity for poetic self-expression.) and a well-known example of such a narrative is Eugene Onegin: the figure of the author-narrator organizes the whole novel, which is built as a conversation between the author and the reader, a story about how the novel is written (written), which, thanks to this, seems to be created before the reader’s eyes. The author here also organizes relationships with the characters. Moreover, we understand the complexity of these relations with each of the characters largely due to the author’s peculiar speech “behavior”. The author's word is able to absorb the voices of the characters (in this case, the words hero And character used as synonyms). With each of them, the author enters into a relationship of dialogue, then polemics, then full sympathy and complicity. (Let's not forget that Onegin is the "good ... friend" of the author, they became friends at a certain time, they were going to go on a trip together, i.e. the author-narrator takes some part in the plot. But we must also remember about the conventions of such a game, for example: “Tatyana’s letter is in front of me, / I cherish it sacredly.” On the other hand, one should not identify the author as a literary image and with a real - biographical - author, no matter how tempting it may be (a hint of a southern exile and some other autobiographical features).

Bakhtin apparently spoke for the first time about this speech behavior of the author, about the dialogic relations between the author and the characters, in the articles "The Word in the Novel" and "From the Prehistory of the Novel Word". Here he showed that the image of a speaking person, his words, are a characteristic feature of the novel as a genre, and that heteroglossia, the "artistic image of the language", even the multitude of languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the characters and the author's dialogical relations with them, are actually the subject of the image in the novel.

2. Hero storyteller. This is the one who takes part in events and narrates about them; thus, the apparently “absent” author in the narrative creates the illusion of the authenticity of everything that happens. It is no coincidence that the figure of the hero-narrator appears especially often in Russian prose starting from the second half of the 1930s: this may be due to the writers' increased attention to the inner world of a person (the hero's confession, his story about himself). And at the same time, already at the end of the 1930s, when realistic prose was being formed, the hero - an eyewitness and participant in the events - was called upon to postulate the "plausibility" of the depicted. At the same time, in any case, the reader is close to the hero, sees him as if in close-up, without an intermediary in the person of the omniscient author. This is perhaps the most numerous group of works written in the manner of Icherzählung (if anyone would like to make such calculations). And this category includes works where the relationship between the author and the narrator can be very different: the proximity of the author and the narrator (as, for example, in Turgenev's Notes of a Hunter); complete “independence” of the narrator (one or more) from the author (as in “A Hero of Our Time”, where the author himself only owns the preface, which, strictly speaking, is not included in the text of the novel: it was not there at the first edition). It is possible to name in this series "The Captain's Daughter" by Pushkin, many other works. According to V.V. Vinogradov, “the narrator is the speech product of the writer, and the image of the narrator (who pretends to be the “author”) is a form of literary “acting” of the writer”. It is no coincidence that the forms of narration in particular and the problem of the author in general are of interest not only to literary critics, but also to linguists, such as V.V. Vinogradov and many others.

An extreme case of Icherzählung is tale form, or skaz. In such a work, the hero-narrator is not a bookish or literary person; this is, as a rule, what is called, a man from the bottom, an inept narrator, to whom the only one “given” the right to tell a story (i.e., the whole work is built as a story of such a hero, and the author’s word is absent altogether or serves only small frame- as, for example, in the story of N.S. Leskov "The Enchanted Wanderer"). The tale is called so because, as a rule, it is an imitation of spontaneous (unprepared) oral speech, and often in the text we see the author’s desire to convey, even in writing, the features of oral pronunciation (telling). And this is an important feature of the tale form, it was noted at first as the main one by the first researchers of the tale - B.M. Eikhenbaum, (article "How Gogol's Overcoat" was made, 1919), V. V. Vinogradov (work "The problem of tale in style, 1925). However, later M. M. Bakhtin (in the book "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics", 1929), and perhaps simultaneously with him and independently of him, other researchers come to the conclusion that the main thing in the tale is still not the orientation to oral speech, but the work of the author someone else's word, someone else's consciousness. “It seems to us that in most cases the skaz is introduced precisely for the sake of someone else's voice, the voice of a socially determined, bringing with it a number of points of view and assessments, which are exactly what the author needs. In fact, the narrator is introduced, the narrator is not a literary person and in most cases belongs to the lower social strata, to the people (which is precisely what is important for the author), and brings oral speech with him.

The concept of point of view has yet to be clarified, but now it is important to pay attention to two more points: the “absence” of the author in the work and the fact that all of it constructed as a story of a hero who is extremely distant from the author. In this sense, the missing author's word, which is distinguished by its literary character, appears as an invisible (but supposed) opposite pole in relation to the hero's word, the characteristic word. One of the brightest examples of a fairy tale work is Dostoevsky's novel "Poor People", built in the form of letters from a poor official Makar Devushkin and his beloved Varenka. Later, about this first novel of his, which brought him literary fame, but also caused reproaches from critics, the writer remarked: “They don’t understand how you can write in such a style. In everything they are accustomed to seeing the writer's face; I didn't show mine. And they have no idea what Devushkin is talking about, and not me, and that Devushkin cannot say otherwise. As we can see, even this half-joking admission should convince us that the choice of the form of narration takes place consciously, as a special artistic task. IN in a certain sense the skaz is opposite to the first form Icherzählung we named, in which the author-narrator rightfully reigns and about which O. Mandelstam wrote. The author, it is worth emphasizing this once again, works in the tale with someone else's word - the word of the hero, voluntarily renouncing his traditional "privilege" of an omniscient author. In this sense, V.V. was right. Vinogradov, who wrote: "A tale is an artistic construction in a square...".

A narrator who cannot be called a hero can also speak on behalf of the “I”: he does not take part in the events, but only narrates about them. Storyteller who is not a hero, appears, however, as part of the artistic world: he, like the characters, is also the subject of the image. He, as a rule, is endowed with a name, a biography, and most importantly, his story characterizes not only the characters and events he tells about, but also himself. Such, for example, is Rudy Panko in Gogol's "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" - no less colorful figure than the characters involved in the action. And his very manner of narration can perfectly clarify the above statement about the event of narration: for the reader, this is really an aesthetic experience, perhaps no less strong than the events themselves, which he speaks about and which occur to the characters. There is no doubt that for the author to create the image of Rudy Panka was a special artistic task. (From the above statement by Mandelstam it is clear that in general the choice of the form of narration is never accidental; another thing is that it is not always possible to get the author's interpretation of this or that case, but it is necessary to think about it every time.) Here is how Gogol's tale sounds:

“Yes, it happened and I forgot the most important thing: as you, gentlemen, go to me, then take the path straight along the high road to Dikanka. I deliberately put it on the first page so that they would get to our farm as soon as possible. About Dikanka, I think you have heard enough. And then to say that there the house is cleaner than some beekeeper's hut. And there is nothing to say about the garden: in your Petersburg, you will probably not find such a thing. Arriving in Dikanka, ask only the first boy you meet, grazing geese in a soiled shirt: “Where does the beekeeper Rudy Panko live?” - "And there!" - he will say, pointing his finger and, if you like, will lead you to the very farm. However, I ask you not to put your hands back too much and, as they say, to feint, because the roads through our farms are not as smooth as in front of your mansions.

The figure of the narrator makes it possible for a complex author's "game", and not only in a fairy tale narrative, for example, in M. Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita", where the author plays with the "faces" of the narrator: he accentuates his omniscience, possession of complete knowledge about the characters and about everything that happened in Moscow (“Follow me, reader, and only behind me!”), then he puts on a mask of ignorance, bringing him closer to any of the passing characters (say, we didn’t see this, and what we didn’t see, that we don't know). As he wrote in the 1920s V.V. Vinogradov: "In a literary masquerade, a writer can freely, throughout one work of art, change stylistic masks."

As a result, we will give a definition of a tale given by modern scientists and taking into account, it seems, all the most important observations on the tale made by the predecessors: suggesting a sympathetic audience, directly connected with the democratic environment or oriented towards this environment”.

So, we can say that in a literary work, no matter how it is constructed from the point of view of the narration, we always find the author's "presence", but it is found to a greater or lesser extent and in different forms: in the narration from the 3rd person, the narrator is closest the author, in the tale the narrator is the most remote from him. The narrator in a tale is not only the subject of speech, but also the object of speech. In general, it can be said that the stronger the personality of the narrator is revealed in the text, the more he is not only the subject of speech, but also the object of it. (And vice versa: the more inconspicuous the narrator’s speech, the less specific it is, the closer the narrator is to the author.)

In order to better distinguish between the subject of speech (the speaker) and the object of speech (what is being depicted), it is useful to distinguish between the concepts subject of speech And subject of consciousness. Moreover, not only the appearance of the hero, an event (action), etc., can be depicted, but also - which is especially important for the genre of the novel and in general for all narrative prose - the speech and consciousness of the hero. Moreover, the speech of the hero can be depicted not only as a direct one, but also in refraction - in the speech of the narrator (be it the author, narrator or narrator), and hence in his assessment. So, the subject of speech is the speaker himself. The subject of consciousness is the one whose consciousness is expressed (transmitted) in the speech of the subject. It's not always the same.

1. The subject of speech and the subject of consciousness coincide. This includes all cases of the direct author's word (the actual author's narration). We also include here quite simple cases when there are two subjects of speech and two subjects of consciousness in the text.

He thinks: “I will be her savior.

I will not tolerate a corrupter

Fire and sighs and praises

Tempted a young heart;

So that the despicable, poisonous worm

I sharpened a stalk of a lily;

To a two-morning flower

Withered still half-opened.

All this meant, friends:

I'm shooting with a friend.

As you can see, the signs of direct speech are marked, and Lensky's speech itself is separated from the author's. The voice of the author and the voice of the hero do not merge.

2. More difficult case. The subject of speech is one, but two consciousnesses are expressed (the consciousness of two): in this example, the author and the hero.

He sang love, obedient to love,

And his song was clear

Like the thoughts of a simple-hearted maiden,

Like a baby's dream, like the moon

In the deserts of the serene sky,

Goddess of secrets and gentle sighs.

He sang separation, and sadness,

AND something, And foggy distance,

And romantic roses...

Note that here, in the last three verses, the author is clearly ironic about Lensky's poetry: the italicized words are thus separated from the author as foreign, and one can also see in them an allusion to two literary sources. (The allusion is a hidden allusion to an implied but not directly indicated literary source. The reader must guess which one.) “Foggy distance” is one of the most common romantic formulas, but it is possible that Pushkin also had in mind the article by V.K. Küchelbecker 1824 “On the direction of our poetry, especially lyrical, in last decade". In it, the author complained that the romantic elegy had supplanted the heroic ode, and wrote: “The pictures are the same everywhere: moon, which, of course, sad And pale rocks and oak forests where they have never been, a forest behind which a hundred times they imagine the setting sun, the evening dawn, occasionally long shadows and ghosts, something invisible, something unknown, vulgar allegories, pale, tasteless personifications ... in the features are fog: fogs over the waters, fogs over the forest, fogs over the fields, fog in the writer's head. Another word highlighted by Pushkin - "something" - indicates the abstractness of romantic images, and perhaps even "Woe from Wit", in which Ippolit Markelych Udushyev produces a "scientific treatise" called "Look and Something" - meaningless , blank essay.

All that has been said should lead us to an understanding of the complex, polemical relationship between the author and Lensky; in particular, this controversy applies not so much even to the personality of the youngest poet, unconditionally loved by the author, but to romanticism, to which the author himself recently “paid tribute”, but with which he has now decisively diverged.

Another question is more difficult: to whom do Lensky's poems belong? Formally - to the author (they are given in the author's speech). In essence, as M.M. Bakhtin in the article "From the Prehistory of the Novel Word", "poetic images ... depicting Lensky's "song" do not have a direct poetic meaning. They cannot be understood as direct poetic images of Pushkin himself (although formally the description is given by the author). Here Lensky's "song" characterizes itself, in its own language, in its own poetic manner. The direct Pushkinian characterization of Lensky's "song" - it is in the novel - sounds completely different:

So he wrote dark And sluggish...

In the four lines cited above, there is the song of Lensky himself, his voice, his poetic style, but they are permeated here with the author's parodic-ironic accents; therefore, they are not separated from the author's speech either compositionally or grammatically. Before us really image songs of Lensky, but not poetic in the narrow sense, but typically novelistic image: this is an image of a foreign language, in this case, an image of a foreign poetic style ... The poetic metaphors of these lines (“like a baby’s dream, like the moon”, etc.) are not at all here primary means of image(as they would have been in a direct, serious song by Lensky himself); they become here the subject of the image, namely, a parody-stylizing image. This romantic image someone else's style... in the system of direct author's speech ... taken in intonation quotes, namely - parodic-ironic " .

The situation is more complicated with another example from "Eugene Onegin", which is also given by Bakhtin (and after him by many modern authors):

Whoever lived and thought cannot

In the soul do not despise people;

Who felt, that worries

The ghost of the irretrievable days:

There are no more charms

That serpent of memories

That repentance gnaws.

One might think that we have before us a direct poetic maxim of the author himself. But the following lines:

All this often gives

Great charm of conversation, -

(a conditional author with Onegin) cast a slight objective shadow on this maxim (that is, we can and even should think that it is depicted here - serves as an object - Onegin's consciousness - E.O.). Although it is included in the author's speech, it is built in the area of ​​action of the Onegin voice, in the Onegin style. Before us is again a novel image of someone else's style. But it is built differently. All images of this passage are the subject of the image: they are depicted as Onegin's style, as Onegin's worldview. In this respect they are similar to the images of Lensky's song. But, in contrast to the latter, the images of the above maxim, being the subject of the image, themselves depict, or rather, express the author's thought, for the author largely agrees with it, although he sees the limitations and incompleteness of the Onegin-Byronic worldview and style. Thus, the author ... is much closer to Onegin's "language" than to Lensky's "language" ... he not only depicts this "language", but to a certain extent he himself speaks this "language". The hero is in the zone of a possible conversation with him, in the zone dialogic contact. The author sees the limitations and incompleteness of the still fashionable Onegin language-worldview, sees its funny, isolated and artificial face (“A Muscovite in a Harold’s cloak”, “A complete lexicon of fashionable words”, “Isn’t he a parody?”), but at the same time whole line he can express essential thoughts and observations only with the help of this "language" ... the author really talking with Onegin...

3. The subjects of speech are different, but one consciousness is expressed. So, in Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth" Pravdin, Starodum, Sofia, in fact, express the author's consciousness. Such examples in the literature since the era of romanticism are already difficult to find (and this example is taken from a lecture by N.D. Tamarchenko). The speeches of the characters in the story by N.M. Karamzin's "Poor Liza" also often reflect one - the author's - consciousness.

So we can say that author's image, author(in the second of the three values ​​above), author's voice- all these terms really "work" in the analysis of a literary work. At the same time, the concept of “voice of the author” has a narrower meaning: we are talking about it in relation to epic works. The image of the author is the broadest concept.

Point of view.

The subject of speech (carrier of speech, narrator) manifests himself both in the position he occupies in space and time, and in the way he calls the depicted. Different researchers single out, for example, spatial, temporal, and ideological-emotional points of view (B. O. Korman); spatio-temporal, evaluative, phraseological and psychological (B.A. Uspensky). Here is B. Korman's definition: "a point of view is a single (one-time, point) relation of the subject to the object." Simply put, the narrator (author) looks at the depicted, occupying a certain position in time and space and evaluating the subject of the image. Actually, the assessment of the world and the person is the most important thing that the reader is looking for in a work. This is the same "original moral attitude to the subject" of the author, about which Tolstoy thought. Therefore, summing up the various doctrines of points of view, we will name the possible relationships first in space-time relationship. According to B.A. Uspensky, this is 1) the case when the spatial position of the narrator and the character coincide. In some cases, “the narrator is in the same place, i.e. at the same point in space where a certain character is located - he, as it were, “attaches” to him (for a while or throughout the narrative). ... But in other cases, the author should behind the character, but does not reincarnate into him ... Sometimes the place of the narrator can be determined only relatively” 2). The spatial position of the author may not coincide with the position of the character. Here are possible: a consistent review - a change of points of view; another case - “the author's point of view is completely independent and independent in its movement; "moving position"; and, finally, "the general (all-encompassing) point of view: the bird's-eye point of view." It is also possible to characterize the position of the narrator in time. “At the same time, the very countdown of time (the chronology of events) can be conducted by the author from the position of some character or from his own positions.” At the same time, the narrator can change his position, combine different time plans: he can, as it were, look from the future, run ahead (unlike the hero), he can remain in the hero’s time, or he can “look into the past”.

phraseological point of view. Here, the question of name: in the way this or that person is called, the namer himself is manifested most of all, because "the acceptance of this or that point of view ... is directly conditioned by the attitude towards the person." B.A. Ouspensky gives examples of how the Parisian newspapers of Napoleon Bonaparte were called as he approached Paris during his Hundred Days. The first message read: Corsican monster landed in Juan Bay." The second news reported: " cannibal goes to Grasse. Third announcement: Usurper entered Grenoble. Fourth: " Bonaparte occupied Lyon. Fifth: " Napoleon approaching Fontainebleau. And finally, the sixth: His Imperial Majesty expected today in his faithful Paris."

And in the way the hero is called, the assessments of his author or other characters also appear. “...very often in fiction the same person is called by different names (or is generally called in different ways), and often these different names collide in one phrase or directly close in the text.

Here are some examples:

"Despite the great wealth Count Bezukhov, since Pierre received it and received it, he felt much less rich than when he received his 10 thousand from the late count "...

"At the end of the meeting Great master with hostility and irony did Bezukhov a remark about his ardor and that not only the love of virtue, but also the enthusiasm for the struggle, guided him in the dispute. Pierre didn't answer him...

It is quite obvious that in all these cases there is a use in the test several points of view, i.e. the author uses different positions when referring to the same person. In particular, the author can use the positions of certain characters (of the same work) who are in various relationships to the named person.

If we know at the same time how other characters are called this person(and this is not difficult to establish by analyzing the corresponding dialogues in the work), then it becomes possible to formally determine whose point of view is used by the author at one point or another in the story.

In relation to lyrics, they speak of various forms of manifestation in it of the author's, subjective, personal beginning, which reaches its maximum concentration in lyrics (compared to the epic and drama, which are traditionally considered - and rightly - more "objective" kinds of literature). The term "lyrical hero" remains the central and most frequently used term, although it has its own definite boundaries and this is not the only form of manifestation of the author's activity in lyrics. Different researchers talk about the author-narrator, the author himself, the lyrical hero and the hero of role-playing lyrics (B.O. Korman), the lyrical “I” and, in general, the “lyrical subject” (S.N. Broitman). A single and final classification of terms that would fully cover the whole variety of lyrical forms and suit all researchers without exception does not yet exist. And in the lyrics, “the author and the hero are not absolute values, but two “limits”, to which other subjective forms gravitate and between which are located: narrator(located closer to the author's plan, but not entirely coinciding with it) and narrator(endowed with authorial features, but gravitating towards the “heroic” plan).

In the variety of lyrics, autopsychological, descriptive, narrative, role-playing principles are distinguished. It is clear that in descriptive lyrics (this is mostly landscape lyrics) and narrative, we are rather dealing with a narrator who is not subjectively expressed and is to a large extent close to the author himself, who, again, should not be identified with a biographical poet, but who, undoubtedly, is related to him in the same way that the narrator is related to the author himself in an epic work. It is a connection, not an identity. These are relations of inseparability - non-fusion (as S.N. Broitman writes), or, in other words, the narrator and the author are related as a part and a whole, as a creation and a creator, who always manifests himself in each of his creations, even in the smallest particle of it, but never equal (not equal) neither to this particle, nor even to the whole creation.

So, in the narrative and landscape lyrics may not be named, not personified by the one whose eyes see the landscape or event. Such a non-personalized narrator is one of the forms of the author's consciousness in lyrics. Here, according to S. Broitman, "the author himself dissolves in his creation, like God in creation."

The situation is more complicated with role-playing (it is also called character) lyrics. Here the whole poem is written on behalf of the character (“other” in relation to the author). The relationship between the author and the character can be different. In Nekrasov's poem " moral man"The satirical character is not only extremely far from the author, but also serves as the subject of exposure, satirical denial. And, say, the Assyrian king Assargadon "comes to life" and tells about himself in V. Bryusov's poem "Assargadon". But it is clear at the same time that it would not occur to us to identify the poet himself with the hero of role-playing lyrics. It is just as clear, however, that this poem is an important feature of the poet's artistic world. Even more peculiar is the ratio of role-playing and autopsychological lyrics in the poetry of M. Tsvetaeva and A. Akhmatova. In Tsvetaeva, along with the lyrical heroine, recognizable and possessing (like Akhmatova) the features of even a self-portrait (a new feature in poetry, characteristic of the beginning of the 20th century), there is, for example, the image of a street singer (the poem “Rain is knocking on my window .. .” from the cycle “Poems to Sonechka”). In Akhmatova’s poems of the early 1910s, other heroes appear simultaneously with the lyrical heroine: Sandrilona - Cinderella (“And meet on the steps ...”), a rope dancer (“I left me on a new moon ...”), who has no name , but a personified hero (“I came up. I didn’t show excitement ...”). And this despite the fact that it was Akhmatov's lyrical heroine who was "recognizable" (largely due to the fact that many contemporary artists created her portraits, graphic, pictorial and sculptural) - in such, for example, a poem:

A row of small rosaries on the neck,

I hide my hands in a wide muff,

Eyes are watching

And never cry again.

And the face seems to be paler

From purple silk

Almost reaches the eyebrows

My uncurled bangs.

And unlike flying

This slow walk

As if under the feet of a raft,

And not squares of parquet.

And the pale mouth is slightly open,

Irregularly difficult breathing

And tremble on my chest

Flowers of a never-before date.

And, however, we should not be deceived by portrait resemblance: before us is precisely a literary image, and not at all direct biographical confessions of a “real” author. (This poem is partially cited by L.Ya. Ginzburg in his book “On Lyrics” to say about the image of a “lyrical personality”.) “Lyric verses are the best armor, the best cover. You won’t give yourself away there ”- these words belong to Akhmatova herself and perfectly convey the nature of the lyrics, warning readers about the illegality of a flat-biographical reading of it. And the image of the author in her poetry is created, as it were, at the intersection of different lines, different voices- absorbing into itself as a unity those poems in which there is no lyrical "I".

For the first time, the very concept of "lyrical hero" was, apparently, formulated by Yu.N. Tynyanov in the 1921 article "Blok", written shortly after the death of the poet. Speaking about the fact that all of Russia is mourning Blok, Tynyanov writes: “... about a human sad.

And yet, who knew this man?

Blok was not known to many. As a person, he remained a mystery to the wide literary Petrograd, not to mention the whole of Russia.

But throughout Russia know Blok as a person, they firmly believe in the certainty of his image, and if anyone happens to see his portrait at least once, they already feel that they know him thoroughly.

Where does this knowledge come from?

Here, perhaps, is the key to Blok's poetry; and if it is impossible to answer this question now, then it can at least be posed with sufficient completeness.

Blok is the biggest lyrical theme of Blok. This theme attracts as the theme of the novel is still a new, unborn (or unconscious) formation. About it lyrical hero and say now.

He was necessary, he was already surrounded by legend, and not only now - it surrounded him from the very beginning, it even seemed that his poetry only developed and supplemented the postulated image.

All Blok's art is personified in this image; when they talk about his poetry, almost always they unwittingly substitute for poetry human face- and everyone loved face, but not art».

It is necessary to hear here in Tynyanov's intonation of dissatisfaction with such a situation, when the poet himself was identified with his lyrical hero (there is another definition that can be found as a synonym for the term "lyrical hero": "literary personality". However, it did not become commonly used). And the condemnation of such a naive, simple-minded identification is understandable. But it is also clear that in the case of Blok this was, perhaps, to a certain extent inevitable (“Blok is the biggest lyrical theme of Blok,” Tynyanov writes), although it is undesirable. Just as we can judge the human qualities of a literary hero (while remembering, of course, that this is an artistic reality created by the author), so to a certain extent we imagine the lyrical hero as a person (but to a certain extent, as a "literary personality", artistic image): his character, his view of the world are especially pronounced in the lyrics, where, in fact, the main thing is the assessment, attitude, in other words, the axiological principle.

But why does Tynyanov talk about need appearance of a lyrical hero? Here, perhaps, the idea is born that it was the lyrical hero of Blok who was destined to become the most striking manifestation of the features of the hero of his time, and the poet himself - to become in the eyes of his contemporaries a "man-epoch", as A. Akhmatova called him (cf. in her poem about Blok: "the tragic tenor of the era"). This means that we can say that not only the world of the author himself is expressed in the image of the lyrical hero: this image bears the features of a man of his era. The lyrical hero appears as a hero of his time, as a portrait of a generation.

This Tynyanov's position, contained in his article, as it were, in a folded form, was later developed by L.Ya. Ginzburg in the book "On Lyrics". She wrote about the image of a lyrical hero: “... a lyrical poet can create him only because a generalized prototype of a contemporary already exists in public consciousness, is already known to the reader. So the generation of the 1830s. recognized the demonic hero Lermontov, the generation of the 1860s - the Nekrasov intellectual-raznochinets". And perhaps this is precisely because, L. Ginzburg believes, that lyrics always speak of the universal, and the lyrical hero is one of the possibilities.

So, it can be argued that the lyrical hero is a literary image that reflects the personality traits of the author himself, but which at the same time appears as a kind of portrait of a generation, a hero of the time; in the lyrical hero there is also a certain universal, all-human principle, features that are characteristic of people at any time. Thus, he manifests himself as a “son of man” (to use the words of A. Blok) and, thanks to this quality, becomes necessary not only for his contemporaries, but also for the widest reader.

I must say, Yu.N. Tynyanov was not the only one who thought about the same range of problems in the first third of the 20th century. For example, B.M. Eikhenbaum in the same 1921 called his review of A. Akhmatova's book of poems "Plantain" a "novel-lyric", speaking of the book of poems as a kind of modern novel, and this unity was given to the book in many ways by the image of a lyrical heroine. Even earlier, in the 1910s, V. Bryusov and Vas wrote about the same property of Akhmatov's poetry. Gippius. So Tynyanov's article was not the beginning, but a continuation of the observations of scientists and critics on the features of the lyrical hero, as Tynyanov first called him. Andrey Bely wrote about the "interindividuality" of poetry (that is, the ability of poetry to convey plurality through the "I"). And in the preface to the second edition of his poetry collection Ashes, he spoke of his lyrical hero as follows:

“I ask readers not to confuse me with him: the lyrical “I” is the “we” of the sketched consciousnesses, and not the “I” of B.N. Bugaev (Andrey Bely), in 1908 not running through the fields, but who studied the problems of logic and versification.

So the poet bred a real person, Boris Nikolaevich Bugaev, who took the pseudonym "Andrei Bely", and the image of a lyrical hero.

Actually, many poets expressed this idea of ​​the non-identity of the author and the hero in lyric poetry. An example is the poem by A. Blok with an epigraph in Latin from Virgil: “Muse, remind me of the reasons!”

Musa, mihi causas memora!

Publius Vergilius Maro

I remember the evening. We walked separately.

I trusted you with my heart

A cloud in the hot sky is menacing

She breathed on us; the wind was asleep.

And with the first flash of bright lightning,

With the first thunderous blow

You confessed your love to me hot,

And I ... fell at your feet ...

In the manuscript, dated May 24, 1899, the poet makes such a note to the poem: "There was nothing like that."

Recently, some literary critics have been talking about a kind of "insufficiency" of the term "lyrical hero". It applies only to lyrics (it would be really incorrect to use it when talking about lyrical-epic works - a poem and a novel in verse). In addition, not every poet has a lyrical hero, a single "literary personality", passing through all the lyrics. this author. And this should not mean that those poets are bad, in whose work there is no lyrical hero. For example, in Pushkin we do not find a single image of a lyrical hero. (This is due to the unusually rapid creative evolution of Pushkin. In early years the image of the poet every time is what the genre requires, so the echoes of classicism make themselves felt: either he is a citizen poet, or a “friend of mankind”, at the same time striving for solitary communion with nature - pre-romantic features. In the lyrics of the early 1820s appears romantic hero with exceptional passions characteristic of him, but not coinciding with the author - which partly predetermined Pushkin's departure from romanticism: the romantic personality expressed much that was important for the poet himself, but the author refuses to merge with it to the end ...). On the other hand, for such poets as Lermontov, Blok, Yesenin and others, the lyrical hero is the most important feature of their poetic world. The most important, though not the only one. We can say that the image of the author in the lyrics is made up of all our ideas about the lyrical hero, other heroes (in the case of role-playing lyrics), and other forms of expression of the author's consciousness. We emphasize once again that the lyrical hero is an important, but the only way to create the image of the author in the lyrics. “The image of the author is an image that is formed or created from the main features of the poet's work. He embodies and sometimes also reflects elements of his artistically transformed biography. Potebnya rightly pointed out that the lyric poet "writes the history of his soul (and indirectly the history of his time)". The lyrical self is not only the image of the author, it is at the same time a representative of a large human society", - says V.V. Vinogradov.

Since the concepts of "narrative" and "point of view" allow for numerous interpretations and are difficult for a novice writer, it is useful to recall their definitions from a course in literary criticism.

Narration - it is a set of those statements of speech subjects - i.e. narrator, narrator - who perform the functions of "mediation" between the depicted world and the addressee - i.e. the reader - the whole work as a single artistic statement.

Narration, along with description And reasoning(in Russian literary criticism, the place of “reasoning” in this triad, as a rule, is occupied by characteristic), belongs to one of the three traditionally distinguished compositional speech forms. IN modern literary criticism story is understood as speaking in general And How story (message) about single actions and events occurring in a literary work.

Narrator- the one who informs the reader about the events and actions of the characters, fixes the passage of time, depicts the appearance of the characters and the situation of the action, analyzes the internal state of the hero and the motives of his behavior, characterizes his human type (mental warehouse, temperament, attitude to moral standards, etc.). etc.), without being either a participant in the events or an object of image for any of the characters. The specificity of the narrator is at the same time in a comprehensive outlook (his boundaries coincide with the boundaries of the depicted world) and the addressing of his speech primarily to the reader, i.e., its orientation just beyond the boundaries of the depicted world. In other words, this specificity is determined by the position "on the border" of fictional reality.

Narrator - not a person, but a function. Or, as he said Thomas Mann(in the novel "The Chosen One"), this is the weightless, ethereal and omnipresent spirit of the story. But a function can be attached to a character (or a spirit can be embodied in him) - provided that the character as a narrator will be completely do not match with him as a character.

Such a situation can be seen, for example, in Pushkin's The Captain's Daughter. At the end of this work, the initial conditions of the story seem to change decisively: “I did not witness everything that remains for me to notify the reader; but I have heard stories about it so often that the slightest details are embedded in my memory and that it seems to me that I was immediately present invisibly. The invisible presence is the traditional prerogative of the narrator, not the narrator.

As opposed to the narrator narrator is not located on the border of a fictional world with the reality of the author and reader, but entirely within the depicted reality. All the main moments of the event of the story itself in this case become the subject of the image, the facts of fictional reality:

• the framing situation of storytelling (in the novelistic tradition and the prose of the 19th-20th centuries oriented towards it);
• the personality of the narrator, who is either biographically connected with the characters the story is about (the writer in "The Humiliated and Insulted", the chronicler in "Demons" Dostoevsky), or in any case has a special, by no means comprehensive, outlook;
• a specific speech style attached to a character or depicted by itself (“The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich” Gogol, early miniatures Chekhov).

If no one sees the narrator inside the depicted world and does not assume the possibility of its existence, then the narrator certainly enters the horizons of either the narrator (Ivan Velikopolsky in "Student" Chekhov), or characters (Ivan Vasilyevich in "After the Ball" Tolstoy).

Narrator- the subject of the image, rather “objectified” and associated with a certain socio-cultural and linguistic environment, from the standpoint of which (as happens in the story “Shot” Pushkin) he portrays other characters. The narrator, on the contrary, in his outlook is close author-creator. At the same time, compared to the characters, he is the bearer of a more neutral speech element, generally accepted linguistic and stylistic norms. So, for example, the narrator's speech differs from Marmeladov's story in "Crime and Punishment" Dostoevsky. The closer the hero is to the author, the less speech differences there are between the hero and the narrator. Therefore, the leading characters of a great epic, as a rule, are not the subjects of stylistically sharply distinguished stories (compare, for example, the story of Prince Myshkin about Marie and the stories of General Ivolgin or Keller's feuilleton in "The Idiot" Dostoevsky).

storytelling system in prose work performs the function of organizing the reader's perception. For a writer, it is important to keep in mind three levels of the structure of the reader's perception: objective, psychological and axiological, each of which should be considered using a technique known as "the doctrine of the point of view." Exactly point of view is often the main way of organizing a story.

1. Point of view. Choice of point of view by the author

How to express the author's voice and find the right point of view for the story of literary characters? These questions are asked by all writers, sitting down for a new work. The correct answer to these questions depends on the ability of the writer to illuminate the fictional literary history in such a way that it the best way interested the reader. In the US, there are 6-week courses ($300) devoted exclusively to the writer's choice of point of view.

Unlike the Russian, in Western literary criticism the concept is not “narrator”, but “ point of view " (English: point of view, POV) and, less often, " dot narrative» (English: point of narration, PON).

In non-academic Western reference books, “point of view” is defined as follows: it is the one with whose eyes and whose other feelings the reader perceives the actions and events taking place in the work. In other words, "point of view" defines the narrator, the narrator (narrator), and everything the reader knows. In fact, this is a narrator (narrator), but not quite.

In more serious dictionaries of literary terms, “point of view” is defined as the attitude of the narrator to the narrative, which determines the artistic method and character of the characters in the work.

The point of view can be internal, and external. The internal point of view is in the event that the narrator turns out to be one of the actors; In this case, the story is told in the first person. The external point of view represents the external position of one who does not take part in the action; in this case, the narration is conducted, as a rule, from the third person.

Inner point of view may also be different. First of all, this is a story from the perspective of the protagonist; such a narrative claims to be autobiographical. But it can also be a narration on behalf of an insignificant character, not a hero. This way of storytelling has enormous advantages. The secondary character is able to describe the main character from the outside, but he can also accompany the hero and tell about his adventures. External point of view, in literally words, gives scope of omniscience. The higher consciousness, which is outside the story itself, considers all the characters from the same distance. Here the narrator is like God. He owns the past, present and future. He knows the secret thoughts and feelings of all his characters. He never has to report to the reader how he knows all this. The main disadvantage of the omniscience position (or, as it is sometimes called, the Olympian position) is the inability to somehow approach the scene of action.

These obvious shortcomings are overcome in external point of view, limiting the narrator's Olympic possibilities. The limitation is achieved through such a narrative, where the entire story is shown from the point of view of a single character. This restriction allows the narrator to combine almost all the advantages of an internal point of view and many of the advantages of an omniscient position.

Another step in this direction is also possible: the narrator can give up his divine abilities and tell only about what an external witness of events can see. Such moving point of view makes it possible to use different points of view within the same book or story. A moving point of view also provides the opportunity to expand and contrast different ways of perceiving, as well as to bring the reader closer or further away from the scene.

In Longman's Dictionary of Poetic Terms, "point of view" is the physical, speculative, or personal perspective that the author maintains in relation to the events being described. Physical point of view- this is the angle of view, including the temporal one, from which the whole literary history is considered. Speculative point of view is the perspective of the inner consciousness and emotional relationship that persists between the narrator and the story itself. If the narration is in the first person (“I” or “we”), the speaker is a participant in the events and has the emotional, subjective capabilities of an interested witness. The second person (“you”, “you”) allows you to keep a distance, and, consequently, more freedom and has an inquiring, and sometimes accusatory character. Third-person narration involves various possibilities: 1) positional possibilities omniscience when the narrator roams freely among his characters and penetrates their thoughts, sees through their actions, doing it with the help of editorial commentary or impersonally (this is how he wrote his great novels Lev Tolstoy); 2) opportunities limited points of view.

By Yu.M. Lotman, the concept of "point of view" is similar to the concept of angle in painting and cinema. The concept of "artistic point of view" is revealed as the relation of the system to its subject ("the system" in this case can be both linguistic and other, higher levels). Under the "subject of the system" (ideological, stylistic, etc.) Lotman implies a consciousness capable of generating such a structure and, therefore, reconstructable when perceiving the text.

By V.M. Tolmachov, “point of view” is one of the key concepts (developed in the West) of the “new criticism”. The point of view describes the "mode of existence" (mode of existense) of a work as an ontological act or a self-sufficient structure, autonomous in relation to reality and the personality of the writer, and serves as a tool for close reading of a prose text.

J. Genette considers: “What we now metaphorically call narrative perspective, - that is, the second way of regulating information, which stems from the choice (or non-choice) of some restrictive "point of view", - among all the issues of narrative technique, this issue has been studied most often since the end of the 19th century, and with undoubted critical achievements, such as the chapters from Percy Lubbock's book on Balzac, Flaubert, Tolstoy or James, or the chapters from Georges Blaine's book on Stendhal's "limits of the field". However, most of the theoretical work on this subject (which basically boils down to various kinds of classifications), in my opinion, in a very unfortunate way, does not distinguish between what I call here modality And pledge, that is, the question is what is the character whose point of view directs narrative perspective? and a completely different question: who is the narrator? or, to put it briefly, questions do not differ who sees? and question who is speaking?»

The German Stanzel (Stanzel Franz K.) spoke as follows. For the English term “point of view”, German literary criticism does not have an exact correspondence, it therefore uses [terms] alternately “position” (Standpunkt), “direction of view” (Blickpunkt), “perspective” or “narrative angle [of vision]” (Erza hlwinkel). While "point of view" is accurate as a term, in its use it is by no means unambiguous. First of all, one should distinguish between the general meaning of "setting" (Einstellung), "raising the question" (Haltung zu einer Frage) and the special meaning "The position from which the story is told or from which the story's event is perceived by the hero of the story." As follows from this definition of special meaning, the term “point of view” storytelling technique covers two aspects that must be distinguished in storytelling theory: telling, i.e. communicating something in words to the reader, and recognizing, perceiving, knowing what is happening in a fictional space. Christine Morrison, who noted that "point of view" by Henry James and Percy Lubbock is used with such ambiguity, therefore distinguishes between "speaker of narrative words", in our terminology, a character-narrator, and "knower of the narrative story" [who knows the story being told], hence a personal medium or reflector character (Reflektorfigur).

I dwelled on the definitions of "point of view" in such detail because among literary critics, literary critics and editors - both in Russia and in the world - there is a significant discrepancy in this term, and a novice writer should keep this in mind when communicating, first of all, with a literary editor in a publishing house.

Many novice writers unreasonably consider the problem of choosing a “point of view” as purely literary criticism, far from real work on a work. I, they say, first intuitively write a masterpiece, a bestseller, and then let these abstruse literary critics and critics take it apart and analyze it with the help of their tricky techniques. This is an amateur delusion. It is the mastery of the technique of writing in various points of view that is considered one of the main professional skills of the writer. But if you don’t have these skills, if you don’t have the technique of writing, all attempts at creativity will go to waste.

Of course, other outstanding writers wrote and write intuitively, not particularly considering the rules. But this is already the “second part of the Marlezon ballet”, when the experience of the first part - the experience of learning the main rules - is long over. First learn these rules, then undertake to break them brilliantly and earn well-deserved laurels from the reader for this.

“Point of view” is one of the basic concepts of the modern doctrine of composition. Inexperienced writers often misunderstand the term "point of view" in everyday meaning: they say that each author and character has his own point of view on life. How did the literary term "point of view" first appear in late nineteenth century in an essay by a famous American writer Henry James about the art of prose. The English literary critic made this term strictly scientific. Percy Lubbock. "Point of view" is a complex and voluminous concept, revealing ways of the author's presence in the text. In fact, we are talking about a thorough analysis of the montage of the text and attempts to see in this montage one's own logic and the presence of the author. The analysis of changing points of view is effective in relation to those literary works where plan of expression not equal content plan, that is, everything said or presented has second, third, etc. semantic layers. For example, in a poem Lermontov"Cliff" is, of course, not about a cliff and a cloud. Where the planes of expression and content are inseparable or completely identical, the analysis of points of view does not work. For example, in jewelry art or in abstract painting.

"Point of view" has at least two ranges of meanings: first, it is spatial localization, that is, the definition of the place from which the story is being told. If we compare a writer with a cameraman, then we can say that in this case we will be interested in where the camera was: close, far, above or below, and so on. The same fragment of reality will look very different depending on the change of point of view. The second range of meanings is the so-called subject localization, that is, we will be interested in whose consciousness the scene is seen. Summarizing numerous observations, Percy Lubbock identified two main types of storytelling: panoramic(when the author directly manifests his consciousness) and stage(we are not talking about drama, it means that the consciousness of the author is "hidden" in the characters, the author does not openly manifest himself). According to lubbock and his followers N. Friedman, C. Brooks etc.), the stage method is aesthetically preferable, since it does not impose anything, but only shows. This position, however, can be challenged, since the classic "panoramic" texts Lev Tolstoy, for example, have a colossal aesthetic impact potential. Tolstoy, without naming it directly, he defined the point of view for himself as follows: “... cement, which binds any work of art into one whole and therefore produces the illusion of a reflection of life, is not a unity of persons and positions, but unity original moral relationship author to the subject.

It is clear that it is very important for a writer to choose the right point of view, the narrator. This choice will determine what the author will be able to tell How he will tell his literary story. In other words, not only the form of the story, the structure and style of the work, but also its content largely depends on the choice of the narrator. For example, completely different works will turn out if four narrators tell about the same episode of the clash: the commander of the regiment participating in the battle; a nurse gathering the wounded on the battlefield; captured enemy soldier; a local elderly shepherdess who happened to be in the middle of a fight looking for her stubborn cow in a minefield. If, in an effort to increase the number of battle scenes in the work, the writer begins to depict the same battle alternately from several points of view, this will surely irritate the reader, because, firstly, the latter’s attention must switch all the time and he will begin to get confused in the narrators, and, secondly, because the narrated episodes of the battle cannot exactly coincide in time, and, for example, when one narrator’s battle is just beginning, another’s may already be ending, and an artillery hero killed by an enemy sniper in one narrator’s the other - may still be in good health and even gather after the battle to sneak away on a date with his beloved from the medical battalion.

The easiest and most obvious way for the reader to switch points of view clearly is to switch to the next point of view at the beginning of the chapter.

The point of view in the work is often, but not always, chosen by the main character, in which the author is most interested. But the writer must always consider other options in which the point of view is not represented. main character. If you choose a narrator from among the characters, then the best narrator, of course, is the one who has something to put on the table. If the writer chooses a secondary character in the narrators, then the personal goals of the latter should not exceed the scope of the goals of the main character, but, nevertheless, the hero-narrator must have some kind of own, albeit modest, storyline in literary history. If, on the other hand, such a minor character is made simply a “camera” for showing and a mouthpiece for telling the reader about what is happening in some scene, then this is a path of missed opportunities.

A special case is when the antagonist's point of view is chosen. Here you have to work very carefully, because the antagonist in literary history is often a relatively outsider, and certainly not the main thing, but participates in the most difficult and critical scenes in which it is very important to keep the plot tension (and the reader's interest) at the highest level.

The elimination of one of the points of view during the development of the plot - for example, the murder of the narrator - always does not amuse the reader. But if such liquidation can miraculously revive literary history, then this is a justified move.

When embarking on a new literary history, it is useful for a writer to first consider the answers to the following questions: Should I make my protagonist the narrator? If not, then who? What will I get from the replacement? What can I lose?

Here are additional questions to consider when choosing a narrator (point of view) for a new project:

• Which of the characters will have the worst of all? (Motive: The person who has the strongest emotional impact can usually be the best storyteller.)
• Who can be present at the climax? (Motive: it is your narrator who must be present in the climactic scene, otherwise the author dooms the reader to learn about the important event in second-hand literary history, which is bad).
• Who is involved in most of the central scenes? (Motive: The author will somehow need someone who will be present in most key scenes, so why not the narrator).
• Who will carry out the author's ideas in the work? What conclusions is the author going to draw? Who in the work could best draw the author's conclusions?

A professional writer should have this: it is not the author who chooses the point of view, the narrator, but the genre and the specific literary story that the writer wants to embody in his work. That is, the writer should not think about his preferences and skills (“I like to write from the point of view of an omniscient narrator, this is my best form”), but determine which narrator will tell the literary story in the best way. Let, for example, a writer love to create from the position of an omniscient narrator in the third person, but if, for example, his new work falls into the genre of memoirs, then it will probably be more advantageous to write it in the form traditional for this genre - “from me”. That is, the guidelines of the genre should always be considered. Thus, in the genre of the novel, traditional points of view that have a gender division are easily detected: some novels are written from the point of view of a woman, others are written by men, and still others (much less often) from both of these gender points of view. Many people love to read the very rare romance novels written from a male point of view, whether in the first or third person, and the same kind of novels written from a woman's point of view are treated with coolness. And if the author suddenly decides to be original in choosing a narrator - to break genre stereotypes, I would advise such an innovator to think a hundred times before going into all serious trouble, risking misunderstanding from both editors and readers.

In Western literature there is an opinion that visually oriented writers tend to prefer multiple points of view or write in the first person. They are allegedly able to "see" literary history "as the weaving of life by several characters." However kinesthetically oriented writers may object: they say, "visualists" use absolutely the same set of events in literary history, they only depict them from the point of view of a more active first person. If the author cannot or does not know how to write in the first person, then he will not choose such a point of view, even if he admires works written in the first person that are similar to his project in genre, theme, style, manner or tone.

So for right choice To be a narrator in a particular work, the author, first of all, must know his abilities as a creator and freely navigate in a complete literary history. In other words, the choice of point of view depends, first of all, on understanding the essence of the literary story that he is going to tell, and on the skills and preferences of the writer himself. If the conceived story requires the author to choose a narrator whom he simply “will not pull” or categorically “does not like”, then it is better to abandon the project altogether.

How many points of view can there be in one work? One and more than one - there is no general rule for all works. A well-established recommendation is that there should be a minimum number of points of view so that a writer can tell his literary story. If, for example, the protagonist cannot be in different places at the same time, then such a literary story will require more than one point of view to cover such a literary story. Depending on the complexity of the plot and the creative tasks of the writer, points of view or narrators, there can be three or four, as, for example, in "A Hero of Our Time" Lermontov. Extra narrators are harmful because with each new narrator, the reader must adjust to him, make adjustments to his perception of the work, sometimes leafing through the book in the opposite direction, which makes reading more difficult, difficult and even incomprehensible. The more prepared the target reader, the more points of view can be entered; modern Ellochki-cannibals, accidentally finding themselves behind a book, will certainly not master more than one narrator.

In grandiose epic canvases, such as the novels "War and Peace" Tolstoy, « Quiet Don» Sholokhov or fantasy "Game of Thrones" J.Martin, many storylines are involved that develop in different times and spaces, and in which separate groups of heroes participate - dozens of heroes, among which many belong to the main category. In such multifocal works it is extremely difficult to use one point of view ( Tolstoy this is achieved with the help of an omniscient narrator, who has one voice, one consciousness [author's consciousness] dominating literary history), and it is certainly impossible to use one narrator from among the heroes. In "War and Peace" Tolstoy about 600 heroes, and character system includes four categories of heroes (main, secondary, episodic, introductory persons), while the significance of the lower categories is incomparably greater than in a non-epic novel. Therefore, the form "from me" in the epic novel is inapplicable by definition. Readers either love or hate this approach to building a story (and such epic novels). When designing an epic literary work, the writer, striving to achieve a greater completeness of the picture, better information, must take into account that, adding to the novel each new point vision, you will inevitably have to sacrifice something (for example, the expectations of those readers who prefer things simpler, but in complicated novels they get confused and stop reading). And, on the contrary, not all readers like it when the author (the same Tolstoy), speaking openly through the narrator, aggressively tries to impose his vision of the events taking place in literary history.

And such "omniscient" authors often fail to impose their assessment. So it happened in relation to the main character of the novel "Anna Karenina" Tolstoy. From a rigidly fixed author's point of view, which the omniscient narrator pursued in the novel, Anna is an oath-breaker, an adulteress, a public whore, a bad example in a noble family, not a mother at all, but the reader feels sorry for Anna to death, the reader willingly forgives and even justifies the suicide, believes her innocent victim of an unjust capitalist society, a victim of unfortunate circumstances and everything in the world, but not a criminal. At Tolstoy Anna goes to negative characters, for the mass reader - in positive. Is this not an ideological defeat of the author? At the great Tolstoy- the chosen point of view did not work! So if for focus of this novel to accept betrayal of marital duty and the inevitable punishment for it (“a family thought”, according to the explanation of the main idea of ​​the novel by Tolstoy), the author's point of view was initially incorrectly chosen during the planning of the novel (lack of technical skill in the course of writing the novel itself Tolstoy, of course, is excluded).

Now let's imagine that Tolstoy, keeping the “family thought” in the focus of the novel, he chose Anna’s husband, the deceived Karenin, as the narrators. Now everyone laughs at the cuckold husband - both in the service and in high society, whose opinion he extremely values; now he “does not shine” for promotion, because in the Empire it is not customary to promote a publicly disgraced official who is not even able to cope with his own wife, rather pushed; but he continues to love and take care of the moral and mental state of his only son, moreover, a “late child”, and the son loves his father, and is by no means eager for his mother. And now this formerly respected statesman, and now a shameful cuckold, this undeservedly offended, unfortunate man, exposed to universal ridicule, he will begin to tell from his bell tower about a dissolute wife dancing at all balls (in the absence, of course, of her husband busy with work) , about his little wife, whose slacker brother (and also, by the way, an adulterer - from this episode the novel begins) he helped to find a profitable place, Karenin will become such, barely restraining his anger, telling the reader about his experiences of an offended man, talking about his only a woman whom he loved and provided for everything, but who, for the sake of a fleeting unpromising connection with a secular heliporter, an insane participant in an cripplingly dangerous race, trampled on his entire life built with great labors, and will narrate everything in the same spirit - unless the reader is imbued with compassion for Karenin and not condemn his frivolous wife? Choose Tolstoy such a point of view, he could achieve the artistic goal of the work - the condemnation by the reader of Anna, the destroyer of the "family thought" so dear to the author's heart. But it would be a completely different story...

The problem of the correctness / incorrectness of the choice of points of view is not a question of choosing their number, but a question of searching focus(in Russian literary criticism, focus is understood as idea of ​​the work) in literary history and the choice of the best point of view for its coverage. The main criterion for the correct choice of point of view: if the focus of literary history falls out of sight, then the narrator is chosen incorrectly. The wrong narrator is not able to best reveal the idea of ​​the work, he diverts the reader's attention away from the main plot, destroys the logic of constructing a dramatic plot, etc. But one should not confuse an incorrectly chosen narrator with an "unreliable narrator" - a correctly chosen narrator for solving special authorial tasks.

For the experienced writer, literary history and characters themselves suggest from what point of view they would like to be written. And if a novice writer cannot immediately choose a point of view, no one bothers him to experiment: write a part (one or two chapters) of a fictional literary story in two or three versions - for example, in the first person, from an omniscient narrator and from an unreliable narrator. Experimenting with the "voice" is a very interesting and useful activity. There are cases when a famous writer, after the novel was published, completely rewrote it from a different point of view.

Whatever point of view the writer chooses, he must use it consistently throughout the work, but if he wants to change it, then this can be done at the end of a scene or chapter, at the turn of chapters, so that transition from one point of view to another was clearly structurally distinguished and did not cause confusion in the perception of literary history by the reader. No justifications of the author for the fact that, they say, a sudden transition from one point of view to another in the middle of a text that is not distinguished structurally in any way is done intentionally - for the sake of heightening the effect, do not work. There is another result - a mess that has arisen in the head of the reader, who will now need to explain: this scene was described by the author-narrator, and the next one - by the hero-narrator, whom the author instructs to continue the story... view of another, then the general reader is sure to get confused and stop reading in irritation.

One of the types of functional-semantic type of speech is a text-narration. What is it, what is typical for it, features, distinguishing features and much more you can find out by reading this article.

Definition

In the narrative, we are talking about developing events, processes or states. Very often this type of speech is used as a way of presenting sequential, developing actions that are spoken of in chronological order.

The story can be represented schematically. In this case, it will be a chain, the links of which are stages of actions and events in a certain time sequence.

How to prove that this is a narrative

Like any type of speech, narrative has its own character traits. Among them:

• a chain of semantically related verbs that are presented in the text in actions;
• different tense forms of verbs;
• the use of verbs, which are characterized by the meaning of the sequence of actions;
• various verb forms denoting the occurrence of actions or signs;
• dates, numbers, circumstantial and any other words that demonstrate the temporal sequence of actions;
• conjunctions denoting the alternation, comparison or occurrence of events.

Composition structure

The text-narrative consists of such elements as:

• exposition - introductory part;
• tie - the event that became the beginning of the action;
• the development of the action is directly the events themselves;
• climax - the end of the plot;
• denouement - an explanation of the meaning of the work.

These are the structural parts of which the narrative usually consists. What it is, you can understand by reading the examples of texts. Quite often speech is found in the scientific literature. Here it is presented curriculum vitae about the history of discoveries, the study of various scientific problems and stages, which are presented as a sequence of changes in historical stages, stages, and so on.

Narrative Features

The main purpose of this type of speech is to consistently describe certain events and show all stages of its development, from the beginning to the end. The evolving action is main object to which the story is oriented. That this is exactly so can be seen by familiarizing yourself with the signs of this type of speech, including:

Description VS Narrative

What is two different types speech - is known, of course, to everyone, but not everyone is aware of what their main differences are expressed. Basically, they differ in the features of syntactic constructions and types of communication in sentences. The main difference between the description and the narrative is expressed in the use of different species-temporal So, in the first one is used predominantly and in the second - imperfect. In addition, the description is characterized by a parallel connection, for the narration - a chain one. There are other signs by which these types of speech can be distinguished. So, impersonal sentences are not used in the narrative, and vice versa in descriptive texts.

This one, like any other, has its own characteristics and characteristics that must be taken into account before deciding or asserting that this is a description or narrative. What it is can be easily determined by familiarizing yourself with all the signs presented above.

Let's start with the analysis of epic speech as more complex. It clearly distinguishes two speech elements: the speech of the characters and the narration. (A narrative in literary criticism is usually called what remains of the text of an epic work, if the direct speech of the characters is removed from it). If some attention is paid to the speech of heroes in school literary criticism (although the analysis is far from always competent and fruitful), then, as a rule, no attention is paid to the speech of the narrator, and in vain, because this is the most essential aspect of the speech structure of an epic work. I even admit that most readers are accustomed to a slightly different terminology in this matter: usually in the school study of literature they talk about the speech of the characters and the speech of the author. The fallacy of such terminology immediately becomes clear if we take a work with a pronounced narrative manner. Here, for example: “Glorious bekesha at Ivan Ivanovich! Excellent! And what embarrassment! Gray with frost! You deliberately look from the side when he starts talking to someone: obsession! My God, my God, why don’t I have such a bekeshi!” This is the beginning of The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich, but is it really the author, that is, Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, who is saying this? And is it really the great writer’s own voice that we hear when we read: “Ivan Ivanovich has a somewhat timid character, Ivan Nikiforovich’s on the contrary, trousers in such wide folds that you can hide the whole house with barns and buildings in them ”(my italics. - A.E.)? Obviously, what we have before us is not the author, not the author's speech, but some kind of speech mask, the subject of the narration, which is in no way identified with the author - narrator. The narrator is a special artistic image, in the same way invented by the writer, like all other images. Like any image, it is a certain artistic convention, belonging to the secondary, artistic reality. That is why it is unacceptable to identify the narrator with the author, even in cases where they are very close: the author is a real living person, and the narrator is the image he created. Another thing is that in some cases the narrator can express the author's thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes, give assessments that coincide with the author's, and so on. But this is far from always the case, and in each specific case, evidence of the closeness of the author and the narrator is needed; this should by no means be taken for granted.

The image of the narrator is a special image in the structure of the work. The main, and often the only means of creating this image is its inherent speech manner, behind which one can see a certain character, way of thinking, worldview, etc. What do we know, for example, about the narrator in The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich? It seems that very little: after all, we do not know his age, profession, social status, appearance; he does not commit a single act throughout the story ... And yet the character is before us as if alive, and this is only thanks to an extremely expressive manner of speech, behind which there is a certain manner of thinking. During almost the entire story, the narrator appears to us as a naive, simple-minded provincial eccentric, whose circle of interests does not go beyond the limits of the county little world. But the last phrase of the narrator - "It's boring in this world, gentlemen!" - changes our understanding of him to the exact opposite: this bitter remark makes us assume that the initial naivety and beautiful soul were only a mask of an intelligent, ironic, philosophically minded person, that this was a kind of game offered to the reader by the author, a specific device that allowed deeper highlight the absurdity and incongruity, the "boredom" of Mirgorodskaya, and more broadly - human life. As we can see, the image turned out to be complex, two-layered and very interesting, but it was created using exclusively speech means.

In most cases, even in a large work, one narrative style is maintained, but this does not have to be the case, and the possibility of an imperceptible, undeclared change in the narrative manner in the course of the work should always be considered. (The claimed change of narrators, as, for example, in A Hero of Our Time, is not so difficult to analyze.) The trick here is that the narrator seems to be the same, but in fact in different fragments of the text he is different in his speech manner. For example, in " Dead souls Gogol, the main narrative element is similar to the story in “The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich” - a mask of naivety and innocence hides irony and slyness, which sometimes break through clearly in the author's satirical digressions. But in the author's pathetic digressions (“Happy is the traveler ...”, “Are you not so, Rus' ...”, etc.), the narrator is no longer the same - this is a writer, tribune, prophet, preacher, philosopher, - in a word, an image , close, almost identical to the personality of Gogol himself. A similar, but even more complex and subtle narrative structure is present in Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. In those cases when it is told about Moscow swindlers from Variety or Massolit, about the adventures of Woland's gang in Moscow, the narrator puts on the speech mask of a Moscow inhabitant, thinks and speaks in his tone and spirit. In the story of the Master and Margarita, he is romantic and enthusiastic. In the story about the “prince of darkness” and in a number of author's digressions (“But no, there are no Caribbean seas in the world ...”, “Oh gods, my gods, how sad the evening earth! ..”, etc.) appears as a wise experience a philosopher whose heart is poisoned by bitterness. In the "gospel" chapters, the narrator is a strict and accurate historian. Such a complex narrative structure corresponds to the complexity of the problematic and ideological world The Master and Margarita, the complex and at the same time unified personality of the author, and it is clear that without understanding it, it is impossible either to adequately perceive the peculiarities of the novel’s artistic form, or to “break through” to its difficult content.

There are several forms and types of storytelling. The two main narrative forms are first-person and third-person narrative. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that each form can be used by writers for a variety of purposes, but in general it can be said that first-person narration enhances the illusion of the authenticity of what is being told and often focuses on the image of the narrator; in this narration, the author is almost always "hiding", and his non-identity with the narrator comes out most clearly. The narration in the third person gives the author greater freedom in the conduct of the story, since it is not associated with any restrictions; it is, as it were, an aesthetically neutral form in itself, which can be used for various purposes. A kind of first-person narration is the imitation in a work of art of diaries (Pechorin's journal), letters ("Poor People" by Dostoevsky) or other documents.

A special form of narration is the so-called improperly direct speech. This is a narration on behalf of a neutral, as a rule, narrator, but sustained in full or in part in the speech manner of the hero, without being at the same time his direct speech. Writers of modern times especially often resort to this form of narration, wishing to recreate the inner world of the hero, his inner speech, through which a certain manner of thinking is visible. This form of narration was a favorite technique of Dostoevsky, Chekhov, L. Andreev, and many other writers. Let us cite as an example an excerpt from an improperly direct inner speech from the novel “Crime and Punishment”: “And suddenly Raskolnikov clearly remembered the whole scene of the third day under the gate; he realized that, in addition to the janitors, there were then several other people standing there<...>So, therefore, how all this yesterday's horror was resolved. The worst thing of all was to think that he really almost died, almost killed himself because of such a insignificant circumstances. So, besides renting an apartment and talking about blood, this person can’t tell anything. It follows that Porfiry also has nothing, nothing but this delirium no facts other than psychology, which about two ends nothing positive. Therefore, if no more facts appear (and they should no longer appear, should not, should not!), then ... then what can they do with him? How can they finally expose him, even if they arrest him? And, therefore, Porfiry only now, only now found out about the apartment, and until now he did not know.

In narrative speech, words appear here that are characteristic of the hero, and not the narrator (partially they are italicized by Dostoevsky himself), the structural speech features of the internal monologue are imitated: a double train of thoughts (indicated in brackets), fragmentary, pauses, rhetorical questions - all this is characteristic of the speech manner Raskolnikov. Finally, the phrase in brackets is already almost direct speech, and the image of the narrator in it has almost “melted”, but only almost - this is still not the hero’s speech, but the narrator’s imitation of his speech manner. The form of indirect speech diversifies the narrative, brings the reader closer to the hero, creates psychological richness and tension.

Separate personalized and non-personalized narrators. In the first case, the narrator is one of the characters in the work, often he has all or some of the attributes of a literary character: name, age, appearance; one way or another participates in the action. In the second case, the narrator is the most conventional figure, he is the subject of the narration and is outside the world depicted in the work. If the narrator is personified, then he can be either the main character of the work (Pechorin in the last three parts of "A Hero of Our Time"), or a secondary one (Maxim Maksimych in "Bel"), or episodic, practically not taking part in the action ("publisher" of the diary Pechorin in "Maxim Maksimych"). The latter type is often called the narrator-observer, sometimes this type of narration is extremely similar to third-person narration (for example, in Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov)*.

___________________

* A personified narrator is sometimes also called a narrator. In other cases, the term "narrator" acts as a synonym for the term "narrator".

Depending on how pronounced the narrator's speech style, several types of narration are distinguished. The simplest type is the so-called neutral narrative, built according to the norms of literary speech, conducted in the third person, and the narrator is not personified. The narration is sustained mainly in a neutral style, and the speech manner is de accentuated. We find such a narrative in Turgenev's novels, in most of Chekhov's novels and short stories. Note that in this case it is most likely to assume that in his manner of thinking and speech, in his concept of reality, the narrator is as close as possible to the author.

Another type is narration, sustained in a more or less pronounced speech manner, with elements of expressive style, with a peculiar syntax, etc. If the narrator is personified, then the speech manner of the narration usually correlates in one way or another with the traits of his character, revealed with the help of other means and techniques. We observe this type of narration in the works of Gogol, in the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, in the works of Bulgakov and others. between the positions of the author and the narrator can be, firstly, very complex and multifaceted (Gogol, Bulgakov), and secondly, there are cases when the narrator is a direct antipode of the author (“The Nose” by Gogol, “The History of a City” by Shchedrin, narrators in Pushkin's Tales of Belkin, etc.).

The next type is narrative-stylization, with a pronounced speech manner, in which the norms of literary speech are usually violated - A. Platonov's stories and novels can be a vivid example. In this third type, a very important and interesting kind of storytelling is distinguished, called tale. A tale is a narrative, in its vocabulary, style, intonational-syntactic construction and other speech means, which imitates oral speech, and most often common people. Such writers as Gogol (“Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka”), Leskov, Zoshchenko possessed an exceptional and, perhaps, unsurpassed skill in narration.

In the analysis of the narrative element of a work, paramount attention must be paid, firstly, to all types of personified narrators, secondly, to a narrator with a pronounced speech manner (the third type), and thirdly, to such a narrator whose image merges with the image of the author ( not with the author himself!).

From the point of view of literature, the parable is a small allegorical and instructive story. From the philosophical point of view, history is used as an illustration of certain positions of the doctrine. Understanding the meaning of the parable comes only with the liberation from all sorts of stereotypes, stereotyped thinking and formal logic - with the awakening of direct perception and independent thinking. Deciphering the meaning and symbolism of a parable largely depends on the cultural level of the perceiver, and although sometimes a parable is accompanied by morality, this morality, as a rule, does not exhaust the fullness of its meaning, but only focuses attention on certain aspects of it. Each parable is an expression of the spiritual experience of many lives. Of course, the content of the parable is understood by the listener depending on the characteristics of his consciousness. Famous English writer John Fowles wrote about the role of metaphors: “It is impossible to describe reality, you can only create metaphors that designate it. All human means and modes of description (photographic, mathematical, etc., as well as literary ones) are metaphorical. Even the most accurate scientific description of an object or movement is only a tangle of metaphors.
Parables can be attributed to metaphorical narratives. They reflect values, interpretations, ideas, summarize existing experience, take a person beyond the boundaries of real life. A person always learns by himself, and everyone draws conclusions on his own (often completely different based on the same story).
The Church Slavonic word "parable" consists of two parts - "at" and "tcha" ("flow", "run", "I hurry"). In the Greek Bible, parables are called paremias (pare - “at”, miya - “path”) and mean something like a milestone (that is, a signpost that guides a person on the path of life).
There are several definitions of the term "parable". PARABLE (glory. pritka - “incident”, “incident”) - an allegory, a figurative story, often used in the Bible and the Gospel to present doctrinal truths. Unlike a fable, a parable does not contain direct instruction or morality. The listener himself must bring them out. Therefore, Christ usually ended his parables with the exclamation: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” A PARABLE is a small didactic-allegorical literary genre that contains a moral or religious teaching (deep wisdom). In a number of its modifications, it is close to the fable. A universal phenomenon in world folklore and literature (for example, the parables of the Gospels, including those about the prodigal son).
Legends and parables have always played an important role in the history of mankind, and to this day they remain for us an excellent and effective means of development, learning and communication. The beauty of the parable is that it does not divide the human mind into question and answer. She just gives people a hint of how things should be. Parables are indirect indications, hints that penetrate hearts like seeds. At a certain time or season, they will sprout and sprout.
Fairy tales, myths, legends, epics, tales, everyday stories, fairy tales, riddles, plot anecdotes, parables turned less to reason, to clear logic, and more to intuition and fantasy. People used stories as a means of educational influence. With their help, moral values, moral principles, rules of behavior were fixed in the minds of people. Since ancient times, stories have been a means of folk psychotherapy that heals spiritual wounds.
Metaphor is always individual. Metaphors penetrate into the area of ​​the unconscious, activate the potential of a person and are not a rigid indication, not a directive - they only hint, direct, instruct, are perceived not through conclusions and conclusions, but directly, sensually, figuratively: we first perceive the metaphor, and then looking for an explanation.
Purpose of using metaphors:
- compactness of communication (quickly and briefly convey an idea to the audience, ensure its understanding by a partner);
- revitalization of the language (a source of vivid images and symbols that provide emotional coloring of the transmitted information and ease of understanding the content, contribute to the development of figurative thinking and stimulate the imagination);
- an expression of the inexpressible (a situation that is very difficult to express concisely and clearly in prose language).
All stories can be divided into two main groups:
1) fixing and promoting existing principles, views and norms;
2) questioning the inviolability of the existing rules of conduct and norms of life.
If we talk about the functions of parables and all other types of short stories, then we can name the following (the list is open and not exhaustive):
1. Mirror function. A person can compare his thoughts, experiences with what is told in the story, and perceive what is in given time corresponds to his own mental image. In this case, the content and meaning become a mirror in which everyone can see themselves and the world around them.
2. The function of the model. Display conflict situations with a proposal of possible ways to resolve them, an indication of the consequences of certain options for resolving conflicts. Today there is a lot of talk about the so-called cases, or the method of considering situations, as something new in education. At the same time, it is forgotten that parables have always set a certain model for considering certain topics, they were the first educational cases.
3. The function of an intermediary. Between two people (student - teacher, adult - young), with the existing internal confrontation, a mediator appears in the form of history. Thanks to the situational model of any story, it is possible to say in a gentle form to another person what could be aggressively perceived with direct instructions. In this case, we can talk about a special psychological aura that a parable or a short story creates. This aura levels out age, cultural, religious and social differences, reduces the degree of confrontation and allows you to create a single space for discussion.
4. The function of the custodian of experience. Stories are carriers of traditions, they become intermediaries in intercultural relations, through them the process of returning a person to earlier stages of individual development is facilitated, they carry alternative concepts.
Innuendo and hint are two opposite poles of the educational process. “The teacher only points the way, and the initiate goes along it,” says ancient wisdom. And a significant role in "showing the way" is given to parables. These stories become some kind of metaphors that help in the following areas:
- facilitate the awareness of the system of relations, reduce the impact of negative emotions;
- reveal the creative potential of each person;
- contribute to the development of self-awareness;
- are a link between people, between a person and the surrounding reality, between thoughts and emotions, etc.
Understanding and living through a metaphorical story of the content inherent in the inner world of any person allows a teenager and an adult to recognize and designate their experiences and their own mental processes, to understand their meaning and the importance of each of them. Metaphorical stories have a literal meaning and a hidden one (perception by consciousness and subconsciousness). Metaphorical narratives perform the most important function of the socialization of the individual, covering both specific aspects of human life and basic human values.
Metaphor is a creative way of describing a potentially difficult situation that offers new ways out of it, changing the person's point of view. A person is able to look at himself from an unusual angle, to identify and analyze personal characteristics and behavioral characteristics. People remember information better if the narrative is emotionally colored and the emotions of the perceiver are connected. Narratives help to build associations - they help to connect one word with another, a picture, a sound or a feeling. The processes of comprehension, transmission, study and memorization of information proceed with the help of five senses. Each person has one of these feelings dominant.
The two main functions of socialization through metaphorical stories are communication and learning. Aristotle very aptly remarked: “To create good metaphors means to notice similarities.” Two types of metaphors can be distinguished - episodic (metaphors that mark one link in the course of reasoning, causing difficulties in understanding) and cross-cutting (metaphors on which the entire plot is built). Big Dictionary of the Russian language in 1998 defines history as a story about the past, about what has been learned. It is a description of an event or a set of events that may or may not be true.
Types of metaphorical narratives:
proverbs (a condensed expression of some facet of experience that has a certain generalized instructive meaning - “Without labor you cannot take a fish out of a pond”);
sayings (part of a judgment devoid of a generalizing instructive meaning - “Seven Fridays in a week”);
jokes ( short story about a historical person, an incident, a fictional humorous story with an unexpected ending can be told with the dual purpose of defusing the atmosphere and conveying information);
fables (a genre of moralizing or satirical - usually a short, poetic - story, allegorically depicting people and their actions);
parables (a relatively short, aphoristic story of the allegorical genre, characterized by an inclination towards the deep wisdom of a religious or moralistic order, the specificity is the lack of descriptiveness);
legends (oral stories based on a miracle, a fantastic image or representation, presented as reliable, differ from legends in fantasticness, from parables in an abundance of details, claim to be authentic in the past);
myths (the narrative that arose in the early stages of history, the fantastic images of which - gods, legendary heroes, events, etc. - were an attempt to generalize and explain various phenomena of nature and society, a special view of the world, the desire to convey the unknown in understandable words);
stories (a vivid, lively image of some real events in order to comprehend their meaning, can be told in the first or third person);
poetry (poetic works, specially organized with the help of rhyme and rhythm, represent the quintessence of a certain facet of life experience in a metaphorical embodiment);
fairy tales (initially perceived as fiction, a fantasy game).
In order not to list all the forms of plot texts each time, in the future a common name will be used - short metaphorical stories (KMI).

The main elements of short metaphorical stories:
- a high degree of symbolism, the transfer of meaning and ideas through images, allegories, inconsistencies, abstractions, etc.;
- emphasis on the emotional sphere - the desire to achieve a special state when a person can experience insight (insight), shifting emphasis from the rational to the irrational component, the predominance of feelings over reason;
- ambiguity - a multifaceted nature, giving room for different interpretations and understandings;
- freedom of interpretation - the absence of an imperative character, the avoidance of rigidity and categoricalness in the narrative, the impossibility of censoring and imposing a certain interpretation (ideological pressure);
- support for creativity through the impossibility of exhausting the meaning, ambiguity and high potential for development when revealing the meaning of history;
- the multi-age and multicultural nature of the plot - its availability for understanding regardless of social or other experience, when each person can find something necessary for himself;
- relevance - the timeless and enduring nature of the issues raised, the breadth and depth of content lines;
- simplicity and accessibility of the language of presentation - ease of penetration into the mind, intelligibility, democracy.
Just as it is impossible to imagine education without a teacher, so it is impossible to imagine it without short plot stories with different names - parables, anecdotes, stories, stories, fairy tales, legends, riddles, etc. All of them show models of life situations in different areas. Narrative stories can reinforce and propagate existing principles, attitudes, and norms. But they can also question the inviolability of the existing rules of conduct and norms of life. It is a description of an event or a set of events that may or may not be true. The very word "history" in translation from the Greek historia means "a story about the past, about what has been learned." A large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language gives such definitions: “reality in the process of development”, “consistent course of development, changes in something”, “story, narration”, “incident, event, incident”. Let us define in the form of a diagram the key requirements that increase the educational potential of stories in the study of the disciplines of the humanities cycle.
Imagery - the impact on emotions, the ability to create a vivid image, memorable and imprinted not only in memory, but also in the soul, metaphorical. Provides emotional coloring of the transmitted information, promotes the development of imagination.
For the teacher, the question will always remain open as to whether the moral of the story that the students have heard should be made available to the group, or whether they themselves should give interpretations. Each approach has its own benefits and risks. Voicing different positions shows the multidimensionality of the plot and different understanding, but blurs the meaning for which the story was told or is misleading.
The next important requirement for stories is their conciseness. The class-lesson system puts the teacher in a tight time frame that does not allow the use of long stories with an abundance of details. And the new generation of students is not disposed to voluminous texts. Brevity with a high concentration of presentation allows you to keep the intellectual and emotional involvement. The compactness of the message helps to quickly and briefly convey the idea to the audience, to ensure its understanding by the students.
Brightness - the originality of the presentation, unexpected twists (so that there is no effect of telling a joke when everyone who listens already knows its ending). For an educational effect, it is extremely important to arouse surprise, arouse interest. Then there will be motivation to reason, learn something new, express your thoughts, exchange opinions. Fairy tales, myths, parables mostly appeal to intuition and fantasy. Since ancient times, people have used stories as a means of educational influence. With their help, moral values, moral principles, rules of behavior were fixed in the mind. Stories were a means of folk psychotherapy that healed spiritual wounds.
The depth is determined by the multidimensionality of the content of the narrative, whose multifaceted nature gives room for different interpretations and understandings. In this or that story, the potential of different views and positions is important, the ability to see your own meaning, pay attention to a certain symbol, and determine individually significant metaphors.
Simplicity lies in the clarity and accessibility of the presentation. It is necessary to take into account the terminology, the volume of the text, the possibility of its perception at a given age. But this does not mean primitive at all. Outwardly simple plots can have very important ideas.
Finally, practicality is understood as a connection with everyday life and life practice, personal appeal, correlation with human interests. It is important that history not only refers to the "hoary antiquity", but also raises "eternal" questions that exist regardless of eras, generations and countries.
The high educational potential of short metaphorical stories can be embodied in their use in different directions:
- to conduct motivational aspects of the lesson;
- for studying as an independent document or text with a set of questions and tasks;
- to perform a creative task, when the story can be "restored" according to the proposed fragments or elements, or created anew on the basis of fragmentary storylines;
- to complete the lesson, summing up its results or drawing attention to the most important value aspects of the studied content of a particular topic.
At the same time, one should always remember the danger of the predominance of the emotional over the rational when using such an unusual educational toolkit.
Forms and methods of working with short metaphorical stories can be very diverse:
- formulate the main idea or problem, the main theme or correlate the topic of the lesson with the meaning of the story;
- suggest an ending (give your own versions with an explanation of what seems significant in this case);
- insert “missing” words (based on the text prepared by the teacher with gaps, which in this form of work can be associated with key concepts, semantic accents or linguistic features of the text);
- offer your own illustrations for this story (existing classical paintings, your own images, possible photos, etc.);
- give your own name for the story (title), write a short annotation for it (you can also offer to come up with a script for the video or even shoot it using knowledge and skills from different academic disciplines);
- to analyze the text document (including the analysis of symbols, structure, conceptual apparatus, historical context);
- formulate several possible conclusions (understandings of meaning);
- consider history from a role position (representative of a certain historical era, culture, religious group, profession, social role etc.);
- offer your own questions or answer already posed ones;
- present the argumentation of the author's position or put forward counterarguments;
- compare several stories or pick up a similar metaphorical story on the issue (topic) under consideration;
- suggest a place, time or situation where the given story would be most appropriate and would have the maximum effect of influence (or would be inappropriate).
It should be emphasized the key role of the teacher - the storyteller and narrator. If he himself is not interested in the plot, if he does not see in it a problem and the potential for personal development for his students, then storytelling will turn into a ritual act that does not make much sense. Tone, intonation, manner of the story always show the attitude to this story. Therefore, not everyone can tell funny jokes, even the most successful ones. Based on this provision, it is impossible to give a recommendation to use a specific metaphor or plot for certain topics of school courses. The teacher, based on the characteristics of his class and his own perception, must determine whether he should tell a story or not, whether the story will motivate students or become a formal fragment.

Andrey IOFFE, Professor of the Moscow City Pedagogical University, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences

The narrative in a work of art is not always conducted on behalf of the author.

Author is a real person who lives in the real world. It is he who thinks through his work from the beginning (sometimes, from the epigraph, even from the numbering (Arabic or Roman) to the last dot or ellipsis. It is he who develops the system of heroes, their portraits and relationships, it is he who divides the work into chapters. For him, it does not exist " extra "details - if on the window in the house stationmaster there is a pot of balsam, then the author needed that flower.

Examples of works where the author himself is present are "Eugene Onegin" by A. Pushkin and "Dead Souls" by N. Gogol.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

NARRATOR AND NARRATOR

Narrator- An author who tells through the mouth of a character. Narrator lives in each specific text - this is, for example, an old man and an old woman who lived near the blue sea. He is a direct participant in some events.

A narrator is always above the narrator, he tells the story in its entirety, being a participant in the events or a witness to the life of the characters. Narrator - this is a character who is presented as a writer in a work, but at the same time he retains the features of his speech, his thoughts.

The narrator is the one who wrote the story. It can be fictional or real (then the concept of the author is introduced; that is, the author and the narrator are the same).
The narrator represents the writer in the work. Often the narrator is also called the "lyrical hero." This is someone whom the writer trusts and his own assessment of events and characters. Or these points of view - the author-creator and the narrator - may be close.

In order to present and reveal his idea in its entirety, the author puts on various masks - including the narrator and storytellers. The last two are eyewitnesses of events, the reader believes them. This gives rise to a sense of authenticity. The author, as if on the stage - the pages of the work - plays one many roles of the performance he created. That's why it's so exciting to be a writer!

WHO TELLS THE STORY OF SILVIO?
IN WHAT OTHER WORK IS THE AUTHOR RESORTING
TO A LIKE RECEPTION?

Pushkin went to Boldino as a fiance. However, financial difficulties prevented marriage. Neither Pushkin nor the bride's parents had an excess of money. Pushkin's mood was also influenced by the cholera epidemic in Moscow, which did not allow him to travel from Boldino. It was during the Boldin autumn, among many other things, that Belkin's Tales were written.

In fact, the whole the cycle was written by Pushkin, but the title and preface indicate another author, pseudo-author Ivan Petrovich Belkin, however, Belkin died and his novels were published a certain publisher A.P. It is also known that Belkin wrote each story according to the stories of several "persons".

The cycle begins with a preface "From the publisher", written on behalf of someone A.P. Pushkinists believe that this is not Alexander Pushkin himself, since the style is not at all Pushkin's, but some kind of ornate, semi-clerical. Publisher was not personally acquainted with Belkin and therefore turned to to the late author's neighbor for biographical information about him. A letter from a neighbor, a certain Nenaradovo landowner, is given in full in the preface.

Pushkin Belkin presents the reader as a writer. Belkin himself conveys the story to a certain narrator - Lieutenant Colonel I.L.P.(about which the message is given in a footnote: (Note by A. S. Pushkin.)

The answer to the question: who tells the story of Silvio - is revealed as a matryoshka:

Pushkin biographical(it is known that once the poet himself ate cherries in a duel, he did not shoot) →
Pushkin-author(as the creator of the story from conception to implementation) →
Publisher A.P. ( but not Alexander Sergeevich himself) →
Nenaradovsky landowner(neighbor of the deceased by that time Belkin) →
Belkin biographical(A neighbor told about him in detail, as best he could) →
Belkin-author ( who wrote down the story lieutenant colonel I. L. P.) →
Narrator(an officer who knew both Silvio and the lucky count) →
Storytellers = Heroes(Silvio, count, "a man of about thirty-two, handsome") .

The narration is in the first person: the narrator takes part in the action, it is to him, a young army officer, that Silvio confides the secret of an unfinished duel. Interestingly, the finale of her I.L.P. learns from the enemy Silvio. Thus, the narrator in the story also becomes the attorney of two characters, each of whom tells his own part of the story, which is given in the first person and in the past tense. Therefore, the story told seems to be true.

This is such a complex construction of a seemingly uncomplicated story.

"Belkin's Tales" is not just a fun Pushkin's work with funny stories. People who start playing literary heroes find themselves at the mercy of certain plot patterns and become not only funny, funny, but actually risk dying in a duel ... ”It turns out that these Belkin Tales are not so simple.

All other stories of the cycle are built in a similar way. Among other works, one can name the story " Captain's daughter ”, which is written on behalf of a fictional character - Peter Grinev. He talks about himself.
Grinev is young, honest and fair - only from such a position can one assess the honor of Pugachev, who was recognized by the defenders of the state as an impostor, "a despicable rebel."

Through the words of the narrator Grinev, the voice of the author, Pushkin, is heard. It is his irony that shines through in the story of childhood, the upbringing of Petrusha, it is Pushkin who speaks through the lips of his hero about the senselessness and ruthlessness of the Russian rebellion.

In the last chapter ("Court"), Grinev tells about the events that occurred during his imprisonment, according to his relatives.

One can also recall Rudygo Panko, to whom Nikolai Gogol conveyed the story " of an enchanted place».

The chapter " Maksim Maksimych" from " Hero of our time» M. Lermontov.