The problem of genre in modern literary criticism. Phenomenon of fantasy in modern cultural space. Essay on literature on the topic: Problems of the theory of genre in literary criticism

literary criticism

T. I. Dronova

Saratov State University E-mail: [email protected]

The article discusses the most authoritative concepts of the genre as a literary category, identifies alternative approaches to its comprehension, defines the methodological principles of genre identification of the historical and historiosophical novel.

Category of Genre in Contemporary Literary studies Т. I. Dronova

The article considers well-established approaches to genre as a category of literary studies; alternative approaches to its understanding are revealed, methodological principles of genre identity of historic and philosophy of history novels are defined.

Key words: genre convention, author/reader, statics/dynamics, universality/specificity, novel, historic novel, novel of the philosophy of history.

In literary studies of the last decade, devoted to the study of the historiosophical novel of the 20th century, preference is given to the consideration of historiosophical concepts that determine the problematics of the work1. The novel nature of the author's statement does not seem to deserve special attention by modern scientists. In dissertation research of the late 2000s - early 2010s. the idea was established that the historiosophical interests of writers at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. led to the loosening of the novel form, in contrast to the situation in the literature of the 19th century, in which the historical interests of the authors contributed to the strengthening of the genre of the novel2. This provision extends to the literary situation of the late XX - early XXl century. Historical and historiosophical novels are opposed to each other on the basis of the canonicity/non-canonicity of the genre structure3 from the point of view of the function of history in the structure of works4. In our opinion, the approach declared by modern authors leads to a narrowing of ideas about the historical novel, identified with its classical model, and to insufficient clarity of the genre specifics of the historiosophical novel5.

Obviously, genre preferences of researchers are decisively influenced by their general aesthetic ideas (about the category of genre, the specifics of novel thinking, etc.). This circumstance, as well as the ambiguity of the concepts of "historical" and "historiosophical novel", encourage us to turn to understanding theoretical aspects problems: to clarify the structure of the genre category, to analyze the mechanisms of genre renewal.

In our field of vision are alternative approaches to the category of genre, due to the emphasis on one of the facets of dialectical

© Dronova T. I., 2012

Edited by FoHit PDF Editor Copyright (c) by FoKit Corporation, 2003 - 2010 For Evaluation Only.

News of the Saratov University, duid. i. id. Lep. h^plologpya. turnagpstpka, no. d

According to the figurative expression of G. Hegel, “any work of art is a dialogue with every person standing in front of it”6. The genre is one of the bridges connecting the writer and the reader, an intermediary between them7. But the nature of this mediation, as well as the category of the genre itself, turn out to be variable and multilevel values ​​and, as a result, are treated differently in different eras and in the theoretical concepts of one time.

The acuteness of the problem in modern literary criticism is due to the clash of various, moreover, alternative approaches to the literary text and, thus, to the category of genre. Depending on which instance - the author or the reader - is positioned as a source of creativity, the researchers emphasize the formal-content or functional aspects of the concept. At the same time, the tendency to their opposition, to the rejection of systems approach inherent in domestic literary criticism in its pinnacle achievements8.

From the point of view of M. Kagan - a researcher of the internal structure of the art world, the creator of its "morphology", - the genre category implies "selectivity of artistic creativity". The process of "genre self-determination", in his opinion, "depends to a large extent on the consciousness and will of the artist." If “the choice of a generic structure that is most appropriate for the creative task being solved<...>is carried out intuitively and categorically rather than consciously and searchingly, since the generic features of a nascent work should already be present in the conception”, then “genre specificity is sought by the artist most often in the process of implementing the idea, and the solution to this problem is more a function of skill than talent (highlighted by the author. - T. D.) "9. It is indicative that the scientist does not consider it productive to introduce a functional criterion for dividing genres as a determining one10.

The richness of genre possibilities, the diversity and variety of genre structures that spread before the artist and are updated by him11 present serious difficulties for the theoreticians of literature and art. In an effort to cover all the planes of the genre division of forms of artistic creativity, to reveal the relationship different levels classification of genres as “a system, not a chaotic conglomerate”, M. Kagan proposes consideration of the genre in four aspects - cognitive, evaluative, transformative and sign (linguistic) (highlighted by the author. - T. D.)12.

A different, functional, approach to the problem is offered by T. A. Kasatkina, the author of a discussion publication on the structure of the genre category. She made an attempt, quite characteristic of modern theoretical thought, to clarify the specifics of this category by rejecting previous literary constructions13. Polemically sharpening the situation, T. A. Kasatkina contrasts the functional aspect with the traditional Russian literary criticism understanding of the genre as a formally meaningful unity14.

The researcher argues that “the genre determines (and the genre is determined) not by the rules for constructing an artistic whole (this happens insofar as.), but by the rules for perceiving the artistic whole.<...>. That is, the reader's attitude to the writer's attitude to reality. At the same time, the author of the article believes that “a genre is as much a genre as it is recognizable, and not as much as it is original” and that a genre is “that which is established before the analysis of a separate work, and not what is revealed as a result of this analysis (highlighted us. - T. D.) "16. T. A. Kasatkina opposes the literary characteristics of the genre, which are born as a result of scientific research, the author's, presupposed by the work of the artist, which, in her opinion, is a true genre substance.

Without sharing the confidence of T. A. Kasatkina in the salutary simplicity of the proposed solutions17, while remaining on the traditional positions of understanding the genre for Russian literary criticism as a formal-content unity, which is exactly the channel through which communication with the reader is carried out, we note the significance of the study of the functional aspect of genre nominations undertaken by the researcher18 .

A work of art as a form of dialogue between the author and the reader does presuppose a kind of "genre convention". According to

V. Shklovsky, “genre is a convention, an agreement on the meaning and coordination of signals. The system should be clear to both the author and the reader. Therefore, the author often announces at the beginning of a work that it is a novel, drama, comedy, elegy, or epistle. It seems to indicate the way of listening to the thing, the way of perceiving the structure of the work.

But in real artistic practice, the writer does not always offer the reader his own (traditional or original) genre designation, and if he does, then he does not exhaust the “rules by which the work should be read” (T. A. Kasatkina).

It seems that the genre is not a situation simplified to its ordinary understanding (romantic, idyllic, tragic, etc.), placed in a subtitle, and not another, often outrageous naming practice, designed to attract attention, which has a playful character.

For Evaluation Only.

rakter, according to T. A. Kasatkina, and a category that characterizes the highest, final level of the artistic form (M. M. Bakhtin). The "genre convention" established before reading the text20 is corrected, clarified, deepened in the process of its perception. Thus, the "reading codes", which are "laid" by the author into the structure of the work, are "programmed" as signs that accompany the reader from the genre subtitle to the finale.

T. A. Kasatkina, who absolutized the concept of “genre convention” proposed by V. Shklovsky, deprived it of the internal dynamics inherent in it in the author's interpretation. Arguing with the ideas of the formalists - with the "pan-changeability" of the category of genre in the works of Yu. N. Tynyanov - she gravitates towards its static understanding and, moreover, to the interpretation of the concept as some kind of "abstract" form, which "can only serve as a label for recognition" , since, in her opinion, “genre features do not express the essence of the genre, but only determine its recognition”21.

Considering the issues of genre convention on the material of the novel, V. Shklovsky focuses on the dialectic of stable/changeable, using Hegelian terminology: “The structure is usually realized as not quite foreseen, surprising, located in the studied area, but “different”<. >The novel, always crossing horizons, denies its past. The new "harmony" is a new change in "one's own"

< . >The history of the novel is continuous in denial.

Denies "one's other"<.>What we call genre is really the unity of the collision”22 of the expected and the new.

Since in the history of art, as one believes

V. Shklovsky, there are no disappearing forms and there are no pure repetitions (“the old returns with the new in order to express the new”), the novelist, who discovers “unexplored” paths, concludes a “new convention” about the genre. This, of course, increases the requirements for the recipient, who often, not understanding or not recognizing the "laws" established by the author over himself and offered to him, the reader, perceives the new form "according to the old code."

Such a conflict between the author and the reader is especially frequent, in our opinion, in the perception of works about the distant past, traditionally called historical novels. The genre specificity of this novel variety requires special consideration. Let us preliminarily express only one judgment: the term historical novel is neither a definition of the genre essence of a work, nor a characteristic of the author's pathos. It only means that we have before us a large epic form, the action of which takes place in the past. In different eras, due to the “borderline” nature of this genre variety, its essence is interpreted either as “novel”, or as “historical”. Thus, a feature

literary existence and aesthetic comprehension of the historical novel in different periods is the variable nature of its "essence", the interpretation of which turns out to depend on the peculiarities of the relationship between literature and history in the real practice and aesthetic consciousness of the era. Undoubtedly, its perception is influenced by the researcher's understanding of the stability/variability of genre categories in general and the novel in particular.

2. statics and dynamics

The “late” Shklovsky strives to remove, in a kind of dialectical synthesis, the contradictions between stability and variability in the category of genre and to overcome the characteristic of the first third of the 20th century. perception of statics and dynamics in the genre sphere as antinomic principles. Such an approach defines one of the vectors of literary comprehension of the genre in the 1980s-1990s.

A productive attempt to overcome the dilemma of stable/changeable in the category of genre is, in our opinion, the analysis of the structural nature of this concept, proposed by the Polish researcher N. F. Kopystyanskaya. She distinguishes four interrelated, interdependent spheres of its implementation: 1) genre as an abstract general theoretical concept, meaning the totality and interconnection of persistent genre features that develop over epochs (for example, a novel); 2) genre as a historical concept, limited in time and in “social space” (not a novel in general, but, as in our case, a historical novel of the end XIX-beginning XX century); 3) genre - a concept that takes into account the specifics of a particular national literature (Russian symbolist historical novel); 4) genre as a manifestation of individual creativity (Merezhkovsky's historiosophical novel).

“Thus, in the very concept of a genre, stable and changeable are combined. Genre is stable as a theoretical concept (sphere 1)<...>The genre is changeable in continuous historical development and national identity (sphere 2, sphere 3). The genre is uniquely individual (sphere 4) (the work of outstanding writers is distinguished by a special refraction of genre features and often gives some new direction to the development of one or another genre or its offshoot, contributes to the transformation of the concept)23 (highlighted by the author. - T. D.). The last statement, in our opinion, is directly related to the historiosophical novel by D. S. Merezhkovsky, which stands at the origins of the historiosophical prose of the 20th century.

Rich opportunities for understanding the problem are opened up by the reinterpretation24 undertaken in Russian literary criticism of the genre theories of Yu. N. Tynyanov and M. M.

on 25. For a long time, their concepts were perceived as alternative. The time distance separating us from the first third of the century - the period of the most fierce disputes between different scientific schools, allows us to detect a certain closeness of the positions of their creators.

At the level of the author's intentionality and derivational formulations, Tynyanov's and Bakhtin's theories of genre evolution appear as negating each other. So, Yu. N. Tynyanov claims: “<...>it becomes clear that to give a static definition of the genre<...>Impossible: the genre shifts< . >26 (highlighted by us.

etc.). M. M. Bakhtin “objects” to his colleague: “The literary genre by its very nature reflects the most stable, “eternal” trends in the development of literature. The genre always retains undying archaic elements<...>. Genre

Representative of creative memory in the process of literary development. That is why the genre is able to ensure the unity and continuity of this development”27 (highlighted by the author. - T. D.).

But as V. Eidinova rightly remarks, Tynyanov's and Bakhtin's concepts, if treated thoughtfully, also reveal points of intersection28. Rejecting a one-sided approach to the ideas of representatives of the formal and philosophical-aesthetic (Bakhtinian) schools, the researcher reveals in the works of Yu. N. Tynyanov and M. M. Bakhtin “a special energy of resistance to frozen, dogmatic literary views; energy of struggle against tendencies - of any kind - finality, finality, establishment of "high-29

our limit”29, and in the concepts of each of them

In a folded form - the presence of a dialectically complex combination of "traditional" and "new", "stable" and "changeable".

Indeed, for Yu. N. Tynyanov, the mechanism of “shift”, “turn” is a mechanism of “double action”, and the concept of “shift” implies “inheritance”: “Derzhavin inherited Lomonosov, only shifting his ode;<.. >Pushkin inherited the large form of the 18th century, making the Karamzinists' trifles a large form;<.>all of them could inherit their predecessors only because they shifted their style, shifted their genres.<...>each such phenomenon of change is unusually complex in composition<.. >30 (highlighted by us. - T. D.)”.

Equally revealing are Bakhtin's "reservations" about the role of "renewal" in the process of "reproducing" traditional forms: "Undying elements of the archaic are always preserved in the genre. True, this archaism is preserved in it only thanks to constant renewal, so to speak, modernisation. The genre is always the same and not the same, always old and new at the same time. The genre is revived and updated at each new stage in the development of literature and in each individual work of this genre.<.. >Therefore, the archaic, preserved in the genre, is not dead, but eternally alive.

vay, that is, capable of being renewed”31 (highlighted by us. - T. D.).

But in judgments about the genre identity of the historical novel and the ways of studying it, scientists differ. Yu. N. Tynyanov focuses on the “novel” component of this variety of the genre and on the need to see its inclusion in the contemporary artistic context: “Tolstoy’s historical novel is not correlated with Zagoskin’s historical novel, but is correlated with his contemporary prose”32. M. M. Bakhtin - on the specifics, due to the presence of a "historical" beginning in its structure, on the formal-content commonality of the chronotopes of historical novels of different eras, provided by the "two-nature" of this genre variety: "The subject of the image is the past< .>. But the starting point of the image is modernity.<.>it is she who gives points of view and value orientations”33. These reflections implicitly contain the idea of ​​duality as a constructive principle that determines the structure of artistic time in a historical novel.

A literary scholar striving for a systematic analysis of the historical novel as a thematic variety of the genre must take into account the possibilities of both approaches. In our opinion, there is no fundamental contradiction between them, since the category of genre is taken in different planes in Tynanov's and Bakhtin's studies. Yu. N. Tynyanov considers the genre as a historical and literary category, dynamic by definition, which, in our opinion, determines the emphasis on its variability. M. M. Bakhtin proceeds from the “genre essence” of the novel and operates with genre categories in its general theoretical understanding, which prompts the identification of the most persistent genre features that have been developing over a “great time”.

At the same time, both Yu. N. Tynyanov and M. M. Bakhtin regard the historical novel as an artistic phenomenon, which owes its birth to the expansion of the cognitive capabilities of the novel genre, its transition through the external and internal boundaries established by the literature of previous periods and normative aesthetics.

3. universality and specificity

The assessment of the aesthetic possibilities of the historical novel is conditioned by the general theoretical positions of the researcher: whether he considers the thematic varieties of the novel genre (historical, philosophical, etc.) as full-blooded forms of novel thinking, or considers them specific modifications of the genre, obviously inferior to the "proper novel" in the completeness and diversity of its embodiment. substantive content.

Edited by FoHit PDF Editor Copyright (c) by FoHit Corporation, 2003 - 2010 For Evaluation Only.

Such a distinction, which exists in modern research as in the works of the general

order34, and devoted to the work of individual authors35, is due to a certain system of ideas about the genre essence of the novel. Paradoxical as it may seem, we are faced with an approach to the category of genre that has very deep roots, genetically going back to the traditions that have developed in ancient aesthetics.

The works of S. S. Averintsev, devoted to the genre aspects of the study of ancient literature, contain deep reflections on the birth of aesthetic concepts and the ongoing impact on the later literary consciousness of Aristotelian views on the essence of genres. “We must start, according to Aristotle, with the definition of the genre, that is, with the establishment of the sum of its substantial features; then it is the definition that serves as a measure of practice, a starting point for developing recommendations”36. This notion of genres as "entities that are identical to themselves and impenetrable to each other"37 turned out to be amazingly tenacious in the European aesthetic consciousness.

In modern poetics, the identification of the essence of genres with living beings, characteristic of Aristotle, is preserved: “And what, according to Aristotle, gives the clearest idea of ​​the essence? “Bodies and what is made of them are living beings and celestial bodies”<...>. The existence of genres is conceived by analogy with the existence of bodies, in particular living bodies, which can be in “family relations”, but cannot be mutually permeable to each other”38.

In these judgments, according to a modern researcher, there is an unexhausted source of not always conscious metaphors for describing the existence of genres (their "birth", "life", "flourishing", "withering", etc.). Of particular interest to us are the problems of interpretation of "borderline" (historical novel, philosophical novel) and "hybrid" (historiosophical novel) genres that arise along this path.

Considering a genre as a literary type, according to S. S. Averintsev, inevitably gives rise to an analogy with a biological species: “If a living being belongs to one species, it cannot therefore belong to another species. Of course, crosses and hybrids are possible, but they do not remove, but emphasize the line between species forms: in a hybrid, the characteristics of two species can coexist only due to the fact that neither one nor the other species appears in the fullness and purity of its “essence”39 .

In the light of these reflections, the origins (perhaps unconscious by the researchers themselves) of the wary attitude towards such “borderline” novel varieties as the historical novel, the philosophical novel and, in particular, their interpenetration, become clear.

into each other in the "hybrid" form of the historiosophical novel.

The famous maxim O.-Yu. I. Senkovsky: “The historical novel, in my opinion, is an illegitimate son without a family, without a tribe, the fruit of the seductive adultery of history with imagination<.>»40 - for all its outrageousness, is in line with the metaphorization of genre concepts, going back to Aristotle's Poetics.

V. G. Belinsky, who did a lot to comprehend the novel as the freest, widest, most comprehensive kind of poetry41, great attention who devoted it to historical and philosophical varieties, sees in the position of the adherents of the "purity of genres" an attempt to slow down the development of literature. Speaking about the wary attitude of contemporary critics towards the work of poets-thinkers, he ironically:<^отят видеть в искусстве своего рода умственный Китай, резко отделенный точными границами от всего, что не искусство в строгом смысле слова. А между тем эти пограничные линии существуют больше предположительно, нежели действительно; по крайней мере их не укажешь пальцем, как на карте границы государств. Искусство по мере приближения к той или другой своей границе постепенно теряет нечто от своей сущности и принимает в себя то, с чем граничит, так что вместо разграничивающей черты является область, примиряющая обе стороны»42.

Extremely relevant for the 20th century, which received deep theoretical understanding in the works of Yu. N. Tynyanov, M. M. Bakhtin, D. S. Likhachev, Yu. “the birthplace of the new”44 was formulated, as we see, by V. G. Belinsky.

At the same time, for Belinsky himself, "hybrid" combinations of historical and philosophical novels, manifesting, in his opinion, different types of genre thinking, were unacceptable. The critic contrasts “painting” and “interpretation”, the talent of a “poet-artist” and the talent of a “poet-thinker”. And, as a result, the historical novel and the philosophical novel appear in his aesthetics as independent artistic and cognitive systems, alternative in their intentionality.

In one of his journal reviews, speaking disapprovingly of the translated historical novel, Belinsky stated: “The historical novel is not a German thing. The novel is philosophical, fantastic - this is their triumph. The German will not present to you, like an Englishman, a man in relation to the life of the people, or, like a Frenchman, in relation to the life of society; he analyzes it in the highest moments of its existence, depicts its life in relation to the higher world life, and remains true to this trend even in the historical novel.

Seeing the top achievements of the realistic historical novel in its "fidelity to reality", Russian literary criticism of the 19th-20th centuries. she was more or less wary of attempts to "combine the incompatible" - history and philosophy, "painting" and "interpretation" in the structure of the novel whole. It seems that the genre initiative of D. S. Merezhkovsky, the creator of the historiosophical novel, can be adequately assessed only if such a synthesis is rejected a priori.

In Russian aesthetics from Belinsky to Bakhtin (including their modern interpreters), the emphasis is on the universality of the novel in comprehending the reality that distinguishes it from other genres. This approach is deeply rooted in the aesthetic thought of modern times. The understanding of the special place of the novel among other genres takes shape in European aesthetics already in the 17th-18th centuries.

As A. V. Mikhailov convincingly showed, the aesthetic comprehension of the novel (as it becomes an anti-rhetorical genre) moves in the direction of awareness and more and more distinct formulation of its unique, in comparison with other genres, universality in comprehension of reality46. Already in the “Experience on the Novel” (1774) by F. von Blankenburg “the fullness of the novel is the fullness of the life seen, reality. At the basis of such completeness is not a given general semantic measure (in rhetorical genres given by a myth. - etc.), but a measure of reality itself, its internal law”47.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the romantic theorist Friedrich Ast draws the prospect of the development of the novel as a universal genre, “in which not only literature (literature), but all art in general, having described its historical circle, comes to itself. The novel, in Asta's view, is the self-awareness of art. The individual expands in it to the universal, all genres and forms of art reach absoluteness in it. The novel is the totality, it is the "all" of poetry.

The tradition of German philosophical thought through G. Hegel, V. G. Belinsky, D. Lukach, M. M. Bakhtin enters the modern aesthetic consciousness, bringing into it a special attitude to the novel as a genre that is only conditionally introduced into the nomenclature, school system of literary genres. This situation leads to the emergence of a number of methodological and methodological problems in the field of genre studies, the solution of which presents significant difficulties for the researcher of individual thematic varieties of the genre.

The perception of the novel as having a certain essence implicitly contains the Aristotelian understanding of the formation of the genre as “coming to oneself; reaching self-

identities, genre naturally

stops, he has nowhere to go.

In the case of the novel, whose “entelechy” (internal assignment, the imperative of self-identity) consists in the universality and totality of the reconstruction of reality, a situation arises of recognizing the status of the “last” novel instance for a realistic novel. The further existence of the novel can only be considered in terms of "preservation" or "crisis". A natural consequence of this approach is the perception of the realistic novel as a “top”, a “peak”, from which only a descent is possible: “The novel, therefore, acts as the final genre of realistic literature. It acts as a universal genre of realistic literature - as one in which all the richness of possible stylistic solutions is deployed50 (highlighted by the author. - T. D.).

The orientation of literary scholars and critics to the realistic model of the genre as “exemplary” largely determined the nature of aesthetic reflection on the fate of the novel in the 20th century: 1) doubts about the possibilities of the genre in the new era and prophecies about the “end of the novel”; 2) the perception of the modernist novel as a "damage", "loss" of novel possibilities and, as a result, the recognition of its achievements only with reservations; 3) a suspicious attitude towards specific varieties of the novel (historical and philosophical), which do not have the fullness of its universality as a mimetic narrative.

Thus, the absolutization of the "genre essence" of the novel can become a brake on the researcher of the literature of the 20th century, especially its first third, marked by exceptional dynamism, a change in aesthetic systems, purposeful efforts to overcome the realistic novel tradition and / or its synthesis with the experience of modernism.

Let's sum up some results. Being a thematic variety of the novel genre, the historiosophical novel, due to its “borderline” nature, presents certain difficulties for literary research.

Firstly, in the historiosophical novel there is a violation of the "external" boundaries of the novel genre - between literature and philosophy, literature and history. The active intrusion of non-fiction discourses into the novel structure leads to its ideologization and historicization. The qualification of these processes in line with genre thinking is one of the conditions for literary analysis.

Secondly, the “hybrid” nature of this genre variety, which provides a meeting in a single artistic space of historical and philosophical discourses, leads to an acute conflict. In our opinion, overcoming this collision by aesthetic means is the main source of genre energy of the historiosophical novel.

Edited by FoHit PDF Editor Copyright (c) by FoHit Corporation, 2003 - 2010 For Evaluation Only.

Thirdly, the specificity of the historiosophical discourse determines the nature of the existential problematics mastered by the novel. The religious-philosophical paradigm, in which the search for the meaning of history is conducted, requires its appropriate qualification. There is a need to combine axiological and aesthetic approaches in the process of analysis with the dominance of the latter.

Notes

1 See: Polonsky V. Mythopoetics and genre dynamics in Russian literature of the late 19th-early 20th century. M., 2008; He is. Mythopoetic aspects of genre evolution in Russian literature of the late 19th - early 20th century: author. dis. ... Dr. Philol. Sciences. M., 2008; Breeva T. Conceptualization of the national in the Russian historiosophical novel of the situation of boundary: author. dis. .Dr. Philol. Sciences. Yekaterinburg, 2011 ; Sorokina T. Artistic historiosophy of the modern novel: autoref. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences. Krasnodar, 2011.

2 See: Polonsky V. Mythopoetics and genre dynamics in Russian literature of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. pp. 50-51.

3 For the argumentation of the refusal to consider the historical novel as a significant object of study, see: Sorokina T. Decree. op. S. 12.

4 According to T. N. Breeva, “in the historical novel, history acts as an object of utterance, in this capacity it is arranged by its own novel beginning.<. >In contrast to this, in the historiosophical novel, history begins to be considered already as a subject of utterance, which to a large extent contributes to the transformation of the relationship between the novel and the historical beginning ”(T. Breeva, decree. Op. P. 12).

5 On the lack of clarity of the term "historiosophical novel" in literary criticism at the end of the 20th century. see: Dronova T. Historiosophical novel of the 20th century: the problem of genre identity // Little-known pages and new concepts of the history of Russian literature of the 20th century: materials of the Intern. scientific conf. MGOU, June 27-28, 2005. Issue. 3. Part 1: Literature of the Russian Diaspora. M., 2006.

6 Hegel G. Aesthetics: in 4 vols. M., 1968. T. 1. S. 274.

7 See about this: Chernets L. Literary genres. M., 1982. S. 77.

8 See: Bakhtin M. Questions of Literature and Aesthetics. M., 1975; He is. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979, etc.

9 Kagan M. Morphology of art: historical and theoretical study of the internal structure of the art world. L., 1972. S. 410-411.

10 Considering the concept of Sohor (Sohor A. Aesthetic nature of the genre in music. M., 1968), who considered the functional criterion to be decisive, M. Kagan concludes that such a decision “led to a mixture of completely different classification planes and - which is especially important - gave well-known fruits in relation to music, but it turned out

completely inapplicable to other arts ”(Kagan M. Decree. Op. P. 411).

11 We note some mechanistic nature in M. Kagan’s description of the situation of “genre choice”, apparently inevitable in the study of the “morphology of art”: “... in a real creative process, an artist always faces the need to more or less consciously choose a certain genre structure that seems to him optimal for solving this creative problem. And even in the case when none of the genre structures existing in his time suits the artist and he goes in search of a new one - either by modifying one of the existing ones, or by crossing two or three genres known to him, or by trying to construct something completely in in this regard, unprecedented - even in this case, he is forced to carry out a certain act of “genre self-determination” ”(Kagan M. Decree. Op. P. 410).

12 Ibid. S. 411.

13 See: Kasatkina T. The structure of the genre category // Context-2003: literary and theoretical studies. M., 2003. It is indicative that the same edition published the materials of the discussion on topical problems of the theory of literature, the participants of which anxiously note the desire of the newest literary schools to abandon what their predecessors did. I. B. Rodnyanskaya sees the reason for the attempts to “throw off the ship of modernity” the results of predecessors on a new wave of ideologization of humanitarian knowledge in general: “Previously, we knew ideologization in only one form - the Marxist press

< .>It seemed that the heavy fetters would fall, and the ideological injections would stop. In fact, ideologization has found a home for itself in the latest schools of knowledge, and its first sign is the rejection of what the predecessors did. If literary criticism is a form of knowledge (science not in the sense of science, but in the sense of knowledge), then something established by it cannot be rejected by each new school, a new generation with the aim of bringing everything to a zero cycle. In humanitarian knowledge, if it is not subordinated to ideological goals that are extraneous to it, continuity cannot be rejected.<...>. Unlike science, philosophy and other forms of spiritual activity, ideologies (as well as utopias inseparable from them) like to start everything from scratch ”(Round table“ Actual problems of the theory of literature ”in IMLI // Context-2003. P. 12-13) .

14 See Bakhtin's reflections on the interaction of form and content in aesthetic activity: “So, form is an expression of the active value attitude of the author-creator and perceiver (co-creator of form) to content; all the moments of the work in which we can feel ourselves, our value-related activity related to the content and which are overcome in their materiality by this activity, must be attributed to the form ”(Bakhtin M. M. Questions of Literature and Aesthetics. P. 59).

15 Kasatkina T. Decree. op. S. 70.

16 Ibid. S. 65.

17 “A genre is a certain program of behavior in a certain situation, a certain stereotype.<. >So

so, in essence, the titles (often very sensible works) of the type “Genre originality.” are ridiculous. Genre is what remains when the work (behavior) has already been rid of any originality. Everything else is related to something else ”(Kasatkina T. Decree. op.

pp. 72-73). Of course, there is a certain sense in the search for life analogies with genre structures in literature. But this, as V.E. Khalizev rightly believes, is related to the sphere of the genesis of literary genres (see: Khalizev V. A life analogue of artistic imagery (the experience of substantiating the concept) // Principles of analysis of a literary work. M., 1984).

18 When T. A. Kasatkina’s judgments are included in the context of Bakhtin’s reflections on the nature of the genre, it becomes obvious that the researcher updates the theory of genres more phraseologically than in essence, but the question of the addressee is pointed out correctly. At the same time, she simplifies the idea of ​​literary genres, identifying primary (simple) and secondary (complex, including artistic) genres, ignoring the speech nature of the genre and the variety of genre forms of expression.

19 Shklovsky V. Has the novel ended? // Foreign literature. 1967. No. 8. S. 220.

21 Kasatkina T. Decree. op. S. 85.

22 Shklovsky V. Decree. op. pp. 220-221.

23 Kopystyanskaya N. The concept of "genre" in its stability and variability // Context-1986: literary and theoretical studies. M., 1987. S. 182. In real literary practice, the interaction of different levels of the concept of genre is by no means without conflict. The novel as an abstraction and the novel as a historical-literary category are in a relationship of attraction and repulsion, since the genre as an entity tends to stability, and as a literary fact - to variability up to the denial of substantial principles established by aesthetic theory.

24 See: EidinovaV. "Antidialogism" as a stylistic principle of "Russian literature of the absurd" of the 20s - early 30s (on the problem of literary dynamics) // XX century. Literature. Style. Stylistic patterns of Russian literature of the XX century (1900-1930). Yekaterinburg, 1994.

25 As is known, in Yu. N. Tynyanov's theory of literary evolution, the problem of genre is central. After all, it is precisely the comprehension of genre transformations in Russian literature of the 13th-19th centuries. gave the scientist grounds for determining the "basic laws" of literary evolution. In the works of M. M. Bakhtin, genres appear as the main characters of the “drama of literary development”: “Behind the superficial variegation and hype of the literary process, they do not see the great and significant destinies of literature and language, the leading heroes of which are genres, and trends and schools are heroes of only the second and of the third order ”(highlighted by us. - T. D.) (Bakhtin M. M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. P. 451).

26 Tynyanov Y. Poetics. History of literature. Cinema. M., 1977. S. 256.

27 Bakhtin M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. M., 1979.

28 The position of G. S. Morson is indicative, emphasizing that formalism for M. M. Bakhtin is “a friendly other” (Makhlin V. - Morson G. Correspondence from two worlds // Bakhtinskii sbornik-2. M., 1991. P. 40.

29 Eidinova V. Decree. op. S. 9.

30 Tynyanov Yu. Decree. op. S. 258.

31 Bakhtin M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. pp. 121-122.

32 Tynyanov Yu. Decree. op. S. 276.

33 Bakhtin M. Questions of Literature and Aesthetics. S. 471.

34 See, for example: “It is necessary to see and understand the core, essential properties of the figurative and directly verbal form of the novel. References to transitional, dual types of the novel (satirical, romantic-historical, utopian, in which the features discussed above appear in a complex interweaving with other qualities), all these clarifying amendments, designed, it would seem, to protect against dogmatism and normativity, are actually capable of only obscure, obscure the great artistic discovery made in the course of the novel ”(Kozhinov V.V. Origin of the novel. M., 1963.

35 See, for example: Miroshnikov V. The novels of Leonid Leonov: the formation and development of the artistic system of philosophical prose. Ryazan, 1992. Commenting on the definition of "philosophical novel", applied to works of a purely philosophical nature, which took the form of a figurative narrative (the works of Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Unamuno, Musil, Camus, Sartre, Huxley, etc.), he writes : “... this is without any doubt a “synthetic form of culture”, which must be recognized only as such and, in order to avoid confusion, decisively separated from fiction proper<. >In our country so far, without any theoretical substantiation, such works are often called “philosophical novels” only on the basis of their philosophical and fictional character, which, however, is not enough to recognize their aesthetic “fullness”” (p. 23).

36 Averintsev S. Genre as abstraction and genres as reality: the dialectic of closedness and openness // Averintsev S. Rhetoric and origins of the European literary tradition. M., 1996. S. 192.

37 Ibid. S. 194.

38 Ibid. pp. 192-193.

39 Ibid. pp. 197-198.

40 Library for reading. 1834. Vol. II. Dep. V. C. 14.

41 “The novel and the story have now become at the head of other kinds of poetry<. >The reasons for this are in the very essence of the novel and the story as a kind of poetry. In them it is better, more convenient than in any other kind of poetry, fiction merges with reality, artistic invention is mixed with simple, if only true, copying from nature.<...>This is the widest, most comprehensive kind of poetry; he has talent

G. S. Prokhorov. Organization of the narrative in the work

Edited by FoKit PDF Editor Copyright (c) by FoKit Corporation, 2003 - 2010 For Evaluation Only.

_______________________

yourself infinitely free. It combines all other kinds of poetry - both lyricism as an outpouring of the author's feelings about the event described, and drama as a brighter and more embossed way to make these characters speak out. Digressions, reasoning, didactics, unbearable in other kinds of poetry, in the novel and story can have their rightful place. The novel and the story give full scope to the writer in relation to the predominant property of his talent, character, taste, direction, etc. ” (Belinsky V. G. A look at Russian literature in 1947: the second and last article // Belinsky V. G. Collected works: in 9 vols. M., 1982. T. 8. P. 371).

42 Belinsky V. Decree. op. S. 374.

43 “The cultural area has no internal territory: it is all located on the borders, the borders run everywhere, through every moment of its<.>Every cultural act essentially lives on the frontiers: in this it

seriousness and significance; distracted from the boundaries, he loses ground, becomes empty, arrogant, degenerates and dies ”(Bakhtin M. Questions of Literature and Aesthetics. P. 25).

44 On the border as a place of dialogue, cultural bilingualism, an area of ​​accelerated semiotic processes, see: Lotman Yu. About the semiosphere // Lotman Yu. Selected articles: in 3 vols. Tallinn, 1992. Vol. 1; He is. Culture and Explosion. M., 1992; He is. Inside the thinking worlds. Man - Text - Semiosphere - History. M., 1996.

45 Belinsky V. G Decree. op. T. 1. S. 354.

46 See: Mikhailov A. Roman and Style // Theory of Literary Styles: Modern Aspects of Study. M., 1982.

47 Ibid. S. 155.

48 Ibid. S. 142.

49 Averintsev S. Decree. op. S. 191.

50 Mikhailov A. Decree. op. S. 141.

organization of narration in an artistic and journalistic work

G. S. Prokhorov

Moscow State Regional Social and Humanitarian Institute E-mail: [email protected]

The article is devoted to the problem of the organization of narration in an artistic and journalistic work. The author proves that, contrary to traditional views on the speech organization of artistic journalism, the narrator, the hero and the author-creator do not aesthetically coincide in them. The speech subject of artistic journalism is a special type of narrator, the specificity of which lies in the structurally manifested inseparable connection with the author-creator.

Key words: artistic and journalistic unity, author-creator, narration, type of narrator, M. M. Bakhtin.

The Narrative structure of Aesthetic Journalism Work G. s. Prokhorov

The article dwells on the problem of narrative structure in an aesthetic journalism work. The author proves that, contrary to the traditional views on the speech structure of aesthetic journalism, the narrator, the hero, and the author-creator of such works aesthetically do not correspond. The speech subject of aesthetic journalism is a special type of narrator, whose peculiarity is made up of the structurally manifested unmerging and inseparable bond with the author-creator.

Key words: aesthetic journalism, author-creator, narration, narrator, M. M. Bakhtin.

The concept of "artistic and journalistic work", despite a significant number of references to it1, remains to a high degree

blurry. We can talk about both a work of art containing a large number of prototypical or documentary references, and a skillfully executed text that is purely descriptive in nature.

While the status of an artistic and journalistic literary form is doubtful, the narrative model inherent in it turns out to be even more problematic. In a work of art, the narrator is “not a person, but a function”2. Being a function, the narrator, like any of the characters, was created by the author, only not to live in the inner form of the work, but to organize a story about events, situations and collisions of the inner world3. Therefore, the narrator is a fictional subject4, like any hero: “One of the main features of a narrative literary text is its fictitiousness, that is, the fact that the world depicted in the text is fictitious, fictional”5.

The correlation of narration, narrator and fiction leads to difficulties in using these concepts in relation to artistic journalism. After all, according to the existing basic ideas, an artistic and journalistic text, if not completely non-fictional (cf.: “In the method of typing, there is a fundamental difference between the creative method of an essayist and a prose writer. A prose writer synthesizes a type, creates it through an individual general idea of ​​the typical features of a particular

© Prokhorov G.S., 2012

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY

OF SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

SAMARKAND STATE UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER ALISHER NAVOI

PROBLEMS OF LITERARY STUDIES: THE THEORY OF LITERATURE

B.S. MYKHAILYCHENKO

Samarkand - 2009

Mikhailichenko B.S. Problems of Literary Studies: Theory of Literature. Monograph. - Samarkand: SamGU, 2009. - 182 p.

The proposed study of literary categories is made in the "genre of a monograph" and does not pretend to be a "genre of a textbook". The monograph deals with specific topics, uses complicated, sometimes debatable versions and hypotheses, the author's judgments are abundantly illustrated with citations.

Regarding the "textbook genre", such books are created exclusively for students or students as the main type of educational literature; the textbook stands out for its methodological approach to the subject, operates with established rules, where each truth is verified and canonized.

The claimed work synthesizes in itself the disparate features of the textbook, and therefore its individual chapters can be used as additional material on the Theory of Literature.

The monograph is addressed to students, graduate students, literary critics of philological universities.

Rep. editor: doctor of philological sciences,

professor Umurov Kh.I.

Reviewers: Doctor of Philology,

Professor SAFAROV Sh.S.,

Doctor of Philology,

professor YULDASHEV B.B.

Samarkand State University named after Alisher Navoi

INTRODUCTION

From the history of the formation of the theory of literature as a science; review of training material

In ancient literary criticism, the main line was marked by poetics, it canonized aesthetic categories, significantly expanded the terminological apparatus (mimesis, poetics, catharsis, character, tyukhe - chance, guilt and mistake of the hero, eidos - idea, eikon - image ...), explored the specific properties of artistic genera and species, the source for which is the world of reality, fiction, imagination. Poetics did not lose influence in recent history, and fulfilled its theoretical purpose until the 19th century, when university developments began to be published at the rate of fine literature. It was only in the 20th century that textbooks called "Theory of Literature" appeared, strongly asserting their own status in the system of university education by reducing interest in poetics. In the modern understanding, the analysis of the structure and structural means of the text is poetics, its essence is hidden in the details.

Literary theory is the most important section of literary criticism. Acting as its foundation, explaining the schemes of conceptual categories that are repeated in a certain period and at all times, clarifying the essential in the replacement of some aesthetic formations by others, the theory forms and motivates the main indicators of literature.

Criticism and the history of literature cannot do without theory, aesthetics and philosophy are closely connected with it, it establishes the most general norms governing the development of literature. Summarizing the experience of the world artistic process, the theory of literature, as a type of human cognition, explores the nature of spiritual and aesthetic values ​​(character, character, feelings), creates rules and laws on how to construct poetic, prose and dramatic works, is called upon to explain the essence of a social phenomenon, mastered and comprehended by literary criticism in general. Without a theory of the subject, there is no history of the subject.

The general provisions of this science must be used by writers. In order to enjoy art, one must be aesthetically literate. And in this sense, the theory of literature raises and expands art education and enlightenment of society.

Domestic literary criticism, despite the ideological distortions, has achieved certain success in the field of creating textbooks on the theory of literature. Until the 90s of the XX century, the theoretical developments and personal judgments of the authors were supplied with the statements of political figures, decisions of regular congresses in the field of literature and art, referred to the opinions of critics and writers authoritative at that time. In old textbooks, the following dogmatic chapters stood out as the most promising in the aspect of "literature and society": on class, party spirit and nationality, on the ideological content of literature and the most "advanced in the world" socialist realism. The theme of the work was put in the foreground, and not its artistry. The categories named and omitted here should be read critically, since they reflected the immutable truths that dominated science, but lost their meaning in the new century.

These recommendations introduce such key issues as literature and literary criticism, literary schools, methods, trends, trends, the specifics of the text and work, literary genres, content and form, artistic characterology, criteria for artistry, symbol and myth, the degree of talent of the writer, poetic speech .

Review of educational material on the theory of literature of the XX century. It is customary to begin with the book "Fundamentals of the Theory of Literature" by L.I. Timofeev, published in 1940; Subsequently, it was repeatedly supplemented, corrected and reprinted.

The very title of the monograph contains an indication of its monumentality. Of course, even here the pages are full of quotation truths, but in general the scientist put the theory of literature on a philosophical basis. The main conceptual provisions of L.I. Timofeev are approved by domestic literary criticism.

In 1960 V.I. Sorokin published his "Theory of Literature" (M.: Uchpedgiz), but this work could not stand the scientific rivalry with the book of L.I. Timofeev, it is rarely mentioned, although it contains valuable sections, for example, "Portrait Characteristics" of literary characters. The undoubted significance of V.I. Sorokin consists, firstly, in an attempt to quantitatively increase academic benefits, breaking the monopoly of one program textbook; secondly, in the rejection of triad designations of works such as: “Theory. Poetics. Stylistics”, which was characteristic of literary criticism of the 20-30s of the XX century, which, as it were, ignored the right of theory to its independence.

The three-volume "Theory of Literature" (1962 - 1965), created by a team, among which V. Kozhinov stood out, who, however, could not be on a par with L.I. Timofeev and G.N. Pospelov.

The textbook of the Ukrainian scientist P.K. Volynsky "Fundamentals of the theory of literature" (1967). As the material under study, P.K. Volynsky draws on the works of two far from related and by no means unequal literatures and rarely refers to the works of Western writers. "Fundamentals of the Theory of Literature" P.K. Volynsky consist of twelve sections, his conceptual developments are transmitted in the following sequence: "The subject and specificity of fiction"; "Literature and social life»; "Principles of the analysis of a work of art"; "Theme and idea of ​​a work of art"; "Literary image"; "Composition and plot of a literary work"; "Language of a work of art"; "Elements of versification"; "The historical nature of the development of literature"; "The development of literary genera and types"; "Development of artistic methods and trends". And the crown of theoretical thought is the "most advanced in the world" socialist realism. The most significant scientific value are the sections of "Foundations of the Theory of Literature" by P.K. Volynsky, devoted to poetic speech and the technique of versification.

In 1977 N.A. Gulyaev released tutorial for students of philological specialties. His "Theory of Literature" is divided into VI chapters. The first deals with the history of the formation and development of theoretical thought; the second chapter introduces fiction as a specific kind of art; in the third, literary phenomena are studied in terms of social consciousness; the creative process is discussed in the fourth chapter; in the fifth - a place is given to literary types and genres; in the sixth - artistic methods, trends and style are explored. The dogmatic teachings include three initial chapters. Textbook N.A. Gulyaev can be successfully used in high school.

Published his "Theory of Literature" G.N. Pospelov in 1978, on which the scientist worked almost constantly and his scientific discoveries, long before the publication of this book, were implemented in many articles and monographs. Pospelov's and Timofeev's studies are recognized as classical in the sense that the main theoretical propositions substantiated by the authors do not lose their significance in the historical perspective.

In the same year, 1978, The Theory of Literature was translated from English, which was compiled by two American literary scholars - Rene Welleck and Austin Warren. This work originally appeared in the United States in 1949 and became widespread in universities. Western Europe and America. Western students - philologists to this day continue to study the theory created by these scientists. Structurally, Welleck and Warren's Theory of Literature consists of four parts. The first one - "Definition and differentiation" - considers and classifies many theoretical categories that traditionally Russian literary criticism included in the university course "Introduction to Literary Studies". The exception was the section: “General literary criticism. Comparative literature. History of national cultures. The second part is called "The preliminary stage of literary analysis", the third - "External approach to the study of literature" (subsections: "Literature and biography"; "Literature and psychology"; "Literature and society"; "Literature and idea"; "Literature and others art"); the fourth part - "Internal Aspects of Literature" - (euphony, rhythm and meter, style, image, character, genre) completes the "Theory of Literature" by American authors. It is appropriate to make a reservation here that the textbooks of domestic theorists on English language not translated yet. And this is more than an estimate.

In terms of familiarization, it is desirable to keep in view the university works on the theory of literature, created by philologists different countries. Thus, the Uzbek scientist H.I. Umurov in his "Theory of Literature" ("Adabiyet Nazariyasi" - Toshkent: Shark, 2002. - 256 b.) in the initial chapter ("Fiction") poses and successfully explores the problems of classical literary criticism. These are “The Object and Subject of Literature”, “Artistry, Imagery and Image”, “Talent. Inspiration. Artistic skill”, “Truth of life and artistic truth”, “Spirituality and ideology”. In the second part (“Artwork”), attention is paid to such categories as “Content and Form”, “Theme and Idea”, “Plot and Composition”, “Language and Motif”. The third part (“Poetry”) is devoted to poetic systems and the principles of their analysis. In the fourth part (“Genders and genres”), the thoughts of prof. H.I. Umurov are focused on epic, lyrics, drama and oriental genres; in the fifth part (“Style, creative method and trends”), theoretical positions are built mainly on the texts of Uzbek writers. National dominant H.I. Umurova deserves approval.

The experiences of young theorists of the beginning of the 21st century are still ahead of the “Theory of Literature” by V.E. Khalizeva (M.: VSh, 2007. - 405 p.). His textbook appeared in the 90s, and has already gone through four editions. The first two chapters deal with issues of general literary criticism, while the third one deals with the communicative side of literature. The fourth and fifth chapters are devoted to poetics as the basis of the foundations of the science of literature (the doctrine of the composition and structure of individual works and their groups). The sixth chapter examines the genesis of artistic creativity and the patterns of development of literature. Due attention in the textbook V.E. Khalizev is given to the theoretical and methodological positions of major scientists, various scientific schools, the aesthetic value of new concepts is verified.

a brief description of teaching materials allows us to draw a conclusion about the progressive movement of theoretical thought in world literary criticism.

General information about literary categories is contained in special reference books and specialized encyclopedic dictionaries. This is primarily a multi-volume "Brief Literary Encyclopedia" (KLE), published since 1962. It is followed by: Kvyatkovsky A. Poetic Dictionary. - M.: SE, 1966. - 375 p. Georgiev L., Dzhambazki H., Nitsolov L., Spasov S. Rechnik on literary terms. - Sofia: Science and Art, 1969. - 967 p., Lesin V.M., Pulinets O.S. Glossary of literary terms. - K.: RSH, 1971. - 486 p.; Dictionary of literary terms / Editors - compilers L.I. Timofeev and S.V. Turaev. - M.: Enlightenment, 1974. - 510 p.; Khotamov N., Sarimsakov B. Adabiyetshunoslik terminlarining Ruscha-Uzbekcha iso?li lu?ati. - Tashkent: Ў?ituvchi, 1979.

In the system of auxiliary literary disciplines, literary translation also bears an important burden. Many writers initially tried their creative powers in the field of translation. And here the philologist is obliged to familiarize himself with the theory of text transposition from one linguistic culture to another.

CHAPTER ONE. LITERATURE AND LITERARY STUDIES

Semantic and terminological definitions and distinctions; the concept of literary disciplines

Literary disciplines are based on the theory of literature, its subject of study are works of art. And in this regard, there is a need to distinguish between the concepts of "literature" and "literary criticism".

The term "literature" (lat. - "letter", written; writer - writer) needs systemic concretization and clarification: in its ambiguous sense, "literature" is a collection of handwritten and printed works of a people, era, humanity. Semantically, "literature" is divided into many professional interests and knowledge: medical, legal, theological, soil science... One of the highest levels is "fiction". In the 19th century, it received the name of "belles-lettres". This kind of phrase correlates with the phenomena of art, which made it possible to call literature the "art of the word", a special kind of creativity that figuratively reproduces life through speech, writing, iconological techniques. It expresses the consciousness of society and shapes it. In its early phase, literature developed under strong influence folklore and understanding the role of the individual in the historical process. The power of fiction lies in the emotional depiction of events, human characters, experiences and thoughts. From epoch to epoch, literature accumulates, preserves and transmits the aesthetic, moral, philosophical, historical and social values ​​of each nation.

Literary criticism. In turn, a science is being formed that studies fiction. And her first question is aimed at identifying the composition of literary disciplines. According to the established classification, the subjects studied are divided into main (main) and auxiliary (service). The main ones are literary theory, literary history and literary criticism; auxiliary are literary bibliography, historiography and textual criticism.

The method of the main literary disciplines is heuristic, it seems to test the strength of traditional forms and models in the continuous movement of time and the scientific experience of the writer and critic. The method of service objects is paradigmatic and conservative in the sense that it seeks to preserve certain norms of the additional interpreter of the text and the disseminator of its restored aesthetic values.

The distinctions between literature and literary criticism are reflected in the following scheme:

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Basic literary disciplines

I. Theory of Literature. Every science must have a solid theoretical basis which allows it to successfully develop, improve, achieve results. When a theory becomes false, it will fail. The term "theory" in translation from Greek means "observation", "research".

Literary theory (or its simplest presentation - "Introduction to Literary Studies") - the most abstract teaching, abstracted from specific literary facts, consists of some generalizations and belongs to methodological science. Exploring the historically and aesthetically established types of artistic thinking, the theory develops its own typology, establishes and clarifies general concepts(categories) related to literature, in particular, about versification, prose, romanticism, realism, and everything in that order, interprets the categories of plot construction, composition, characters of literary characters, considers the purpose of fiction and its cognitive functions, studies the broadest and most general issues literature. Literary theory comprises three main sections.

I. The doctrine of literature as a method of cognitive activity.

This science is a kind of philosophy of literature, a special kind of social consciousness (consciousness and cognitive activity are treated as synonyms here).

II. The doctrine of the work, its structure and composition (general poetics and theoretical poetics).

III. The doctrine of the literary process, the main forms in which literature exists, the laws of its historical evolution.

Sometimes this section is called the doctrine of the historical-literary process.

Thus, the theory of literature is distinguished not by a concrete, but by an abstract, abstract character. Each literary entity (from literature in general to any literary particular) is taken here only in general terms, without regard to how a given phenomenon manifests itself in the artistic practice of a particular writer, in a particular work.

II. History of literature. A real literary discipline studies the process of development of the fiction of all peoples over many centuries or decades, dividing into subdisciplines according to eras and individual countries. For example: "History of ancient literature", "History of English literature of the Middle Ages", "History of French literature of the Renaissance" ... Literary scholars have created and continue to create the history of national and world literature ("History of World Literature").

The history of literature includes such significant categories as the artistic process, periodization, literary and historical sources, and creative portraits of individual writers.

The literary process refers to the complex, sometimes contradictory development of fiction, the laws of which are studied by the history of literature and criticism. The literary process is formed in the course of a collision of aesthetic programs, polemics, agreement, and a resolute rejection of the creative positions of the artists of the word. An important role here is played by the cultural, social and national characteristics of literary epochs. Historical - progressive movement occurs due to the development of the results of predecessors. At the same time, the new era does not simply repeat, but deepens and develops successes, for example, in the field of versification or in the improvement of artistic prose. The literary process is supplemented by a certain number of writers' portraits of both classics and authors of mediocre talents.

Literary historians have created a well-thought-out concept of periodization of world and national literatures. So, from antiquity to the 18th century of modern times, the concept of "literary era" consists of several historical centuries: ancient literature (BC), literature of the Middle Ages (V - XIV centuries AD), literature of the Renaissance (XIV - XVI centuries .), literature of classicism (XVII century; among the Slavs - XVIII century). Starting from the 18th century, the achievements of the artists of the word are measured in one century (the 18th century - Enlightenment; the 19th century - romanticism and realism; the 20th century can be conditionally designated as the Nobel period).

The artistic subject presents itself with a historical-literary approach. A literary critic in the study of artistic and documentary sources is obliged to objectively read factual materials. At the same time, the historical beginning should not dominate over literary fiction.

The creative portrait of the writer is made up of biographical information, a review of published and unpublished (manuscript) works, and genre preferences of the author. Most often, for example, Ukrainian literary critics designate this section as "The life and work of the name of the writer."

The history of literature becomes a philological science only when it is not limited to a single enumeration of the literary events of the past, even if they are taken in a chronological, strictly verified temporal sequence. And if changes in literary facts are considered, firstly, as development, and, secondly, in this very evolution certain general patterns and trends appear and are established, only then can we talk about the history of literature as an independent discipline. So, in different literatures and different literary eras, a mandatory system of order is observed: a movement is established from epic to lyrics, and then to dramaturgy, from romanticism (literature of dreams) to realism (literature of reality).

III. Literary criticism. The genres of literary criticism coincide with the genres of journalism: articles, reviews, testimonials, essays, anniversary sketches, essays. It also takes into account forums held by critics, dialogues, round tables, feedback from readers, monographs that collect the work of one of the leading critics, and anthologies are published.

Model: critic - writer - reader

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Criticism considers exclusively current literature, it deals with modern phenomena and facts: it discusses, praises, points out shortcomings. Its task is to evaluate a new work, helping the reader to establish the level of the artist's talent and the significance of his published work. This discipline actively participates in the literary process and influences it, it turns out to be on the side of any literary movement or individual writer, the critic enters into polemics with his opponents, trying to defend the right or reject the erroneous principles.

As a science, criticism belongs to the "young" university disciplines. In the history of the Eastern Slavs, "moving aesthetics" was formed in the 19th century, and only in the following century did the history of criticism begin to be systematically studied in student audiences.

Each literary almanac has headings specially reserved for criticism, which determine the face and aesthetic position of the journal (“Our Contemporary”, “New World”, “Foreign Literature”, “Word and Hour”, “Star of the East”, “Berezil” ...) . The authors of articles promptly respond to a new work and often express their extreme attitude towards it. Most often, in the judgments of critics, two opposing opinions about one work collide. At the same time, one cannot fail to note the fact that polemists can distort the aesthetic taste of the reader. L. Tolstoy pointed to this side of the issue: “Now I was thinking about critics. The business of a critic is to interpret the works of great writers, the main thing is to single out the best from the large amount of rubbish written by all of us. And instead, what are they doing? They torture themselves out of themselves, or even mostly out of a bad but popular writer, fish out a flat little thought and start on this little thought, distorting, distorting writers, stringing their thoughts. So under their hands great writers become small, profound writers petty, and wise writers stupid. It's called criticism. And partly this meets the requirements of the masses - a limited mass - they are glad that at least something, even stupidity, a great writer is pinned down and is noticeable, memorable to her; but this is not criticism; clarification of the writer, and this is obscuring him ”(see: Lev Tolstoy on Art and Literature. - M .: SP, 1958, vol. 2. - P. 521). Students should be aware that many of the truths and revelations of L.N. Tolstoy are false and vicious. For example, the writer completely rejects the art of the Western European Renaissance, for him Shakespeare, Goethe, Beethoven, Bach and others are “completely rubbish” (L. Tolstoy on Art and Literature, vol. 2. - P. 243 - 244). So-called socialist realist criticism caused significant harm to readers and writers, when the “limited mass” of readers perceived information in the opposite way: if a writer or his work is scolded, it means that the writer has shown civic courage or he is talented, and his books are worth reading.

Attention is also paid to the “unusual” profession of criticism (see: Buché J. Paul Valery - literary critic. - Paris, 1976). Thus, biographical criticism (Ch. Sainte-Beuve, and after him I. Ten and F. Brunetier) put itself above the writer and was proud of this superiority. In the middle of the 19th century, critics begin to recognize their secondary nature, but secretly or openly feel “envy” of artists. The moving aesthetics of the second half of the 19th century considers itself equal to writing. The following, edifying, criticism frankly ignored the "internal logic" and aesthetic orientation of the work. As for academic criticism, it singled out in the essay what makes it above the environment and the era. Engaged (custom) criticism “saw” in the text something that did not exist in it. Thematic criticism gravitated most of all towards literary criticism; structuralist critics are also in this space. Impressionist criticism is colored by the subjective principle.

Criticism, therefore, on the one hand, helps to develop the creativity of an individual writer, and on the other hand, it forms the reader's opinion, brings up aesthetic taste.

Literary theory, literary history and literary criticism are closely related. The critic relies on the facts and judgments about which the history of literature gives him. To determine the place of a new writer in the modern literary process and in the context of the history of literature, he needs to know the facts of previous periods in the development of literature. Based on knowledge of the history and theory of literature, the observer determines which traditions the modern author borrows in his work and which phenomena are ignored; on the other hand, he is obliged to use the basic provisions of the theory of literature. In turn, the history and theory of literature are based on the assessments expressed by criticism.

Strong links are being forged between history and literary theory. Theory rests on the facts discovered by the history of literature, generalizes them, and the history of literature and criticism cannot do without a conceptual methodology. The theory and history of literature, in contrast to criticism, explore phenomena that manifested themselves both in distant epochs and in the closest ones.

The history of literature and all its constituent subdisciplines, as well as literary criticism, are literary subjects of a concrete, factual nature. The difference between literary history and literary criticism lies in one thing: the critic is interested in current literature, the works of "today", and the literary historian is interested in the facts of past times. All the general concepts used by literary historians and literary critics, borrowed from the theory of literature, confirm the existence of a close interaction between the main (and service, including) literary disciplines within the general historical and literary limits.

Auxiliary literary disciplines

Literary disciplines that are not directly involved in the analysis of works of art are called auxiliary. Their task is to promote, to help the main disciplines to study literature. At the same time, they have developed their own methodology and methodology with their own specific goals and purposes.

Service subjects include: literary bibliography, literary historiography, literary textology.

I. Literary bibliography. The purpose of the bibliography (gr. - book + write; description of books) is the scientific description of books and the compilation of their lists. Literary bibliography is a part of the general bibliography that deals with the registration, accounting and classification of handwritten and printed products. Thanks to the work of bibliographers, the researcher does not drown in the sea of ​​books, he easily finds what is published on the subject of interest. Libraries have a general catalogue, a systematic catalogue, special directories and specialists - bibliographers who help in finding the necessary information.

Bibliography, including literary criticism, is divided into scientific and educational. The educational includes annotated and recommendatory reference books. Recommendations include only those authors whose works, in the opinion of the compilers, should be advised to students. The annotated presentation of information, in addition to indicating the author and the title of the corresponding work, is accompanied by a brief explanation of the essence of this article or monograph. If a student can get by with a specialized reference book, then a literary researcher cannot be satisfied with this. He is obliged to personally familiarize himself with all the relevant information on the issue he needs. The scientific description of the books must be complete and include all publications.

Reference materials are divided into sources and manuals. The first include directly the works of authors of various types of publications; manuals represent all the scientific and critical literature that exists about the work of the writer under study. In the 20th century, reference books began to be published, which are of a mixed nature: all the works of the author, his editions and reprints, all available scientific products about his work are indicated. Such, for example, are the "Writer's Dictionaries", "Comments", "Literary Encyclopedias of Names" of the writer. There are various periodic chronicles of book, magazine and newspaper articles.

Literary bibliography. It is customary to call it scientific - auxiliary, scientific - information, accounting - registration, advisory. In the 21st century, the Internet begins to perform the reference function.

Literary bibliography. Its task is to revive the reader's interest, inculcating aesthetic taste and artistic knowledge, to confidently understand the flow of periodicals and classics.

Bibliography. This is the science of bibliography, in its classical form it originated in the countries of Western Europe and is associated with the name of the Swiss scientist Konrad Gesner (1516 - 1565), who published the "University Bibliography" (1545), describing 15 thousand books of ancient Greek, Latin and European authors, located in the university library. In addition, he created the zoological encyclopedia "The History of Animals" in 5 volumes.

In the 17th century, the Florentine encyclopedist Marucelli (1625 - 1703), in his titanic work "Mare magnum", numbering 112 volumes, recorded and commented on the "great sea" of printed matter for almost the entire 17th century. In the 21st century, bibliographers cannot keep up with periodicals. In Samarkand alone, a huge number of newspapers and other publications are published, but author's publications are not yet recorded or described. Therefore, in bibliography, an information gap is formed and increases.

II. Literary historiography. Historiography should not be confused with the history of literature. Historiography represents the history of research thought devoted to literature, but not the history of literary creativity. Literary critic - historiographer studies the world of writers and their works to a lesser extent, in his field of vision are the works of scientists - literary critics (articles, books, textbooks). When it is necessary to know that in literature there is the most significant, significant and authoritative on a given problem, then they turn to literary historiography, to the works of the classics - literary critics, to a description of their works.

Literary historiography is the science of the development of literature and literary criticism, for example, a scientist dealing with the topic of the “little man” in the literature of the 19th century must find out which writers developed it, in what direction and how this cross-cutting image changes in the history of literature. On the other hand, the researcher is obliged to establish: who introduced this term into use, who raised the scientific problem in literary criticism, where and when it was discussed, what explanation it received from various researchers. Historiography answers these and other questions.

III. Literary textology. Textual criticism studies the manuscripts and lifetime editions of the most talented writers. More specifically, the issues of correspondence between the latest editions of the authors under study and their primary sources are clarified. The fact is that over a long period of time, the author's will is significantly distorted with numerous editions: all kinds of errors accumulate, and also the undesirable fruits of interference in the text of the press workers make themselves felt.

Involuntary (accidental) spelling errors include typographical and typographical errors by the creator of the work. Such miscalculations, as a rule, are fixed and corrected in the next reprint, and the writer's mistakes and the mistakes of the printing house workers, which accidentally turned out to be conscious, are not noticed not only by the reader, but also by a literary critic. Distortions of this quality are called meaningful, more precisely, comprehended.

Textual critics also meet with deliberate juggling. This group of mistakes is made up of the results of the intervention of an editor (in the past, a censor): he changed the meaning of a phrase, threw out a word and inserted his own, sometimes for reasons of taste, suggesting that his work should not be allowed to print in the author's form. Finally, the direct intervention of the proofreader, who believes that the text needs serious stylistic editing, makes itself felt. In the above cases, a distorted line-by-line poses a task for the textual critic: to detect and eliminate errors, to restore the author's text, to restore the author's will.

A wide field of activity for textual critics opens up when working with manuscripts. So, on the material of medieval Ukrainian chronicles (VIII - XIV centuries), many scientific works, in which the words that disappeared from the text are restored to their previous state, the versions about the missing works are clarified, and “dark places” are explained.

At one time, the Italian scientist L. Santifaller proposed to eliminate the boundaries between the auxiliary and basic sciences. He put forward the idea of ​​replacing the term "auxiliary sciences" with "historical basic sciences". However, domestic literary theorists do not revise the established classification, since it has already been canonized.

CHAPTER TWO. artistic image and figurative specificity of literature

Image as an aesthetic and historical category; logical imagery and artistic imagery; concepts; the subject of the image; typification and individualization; cognitive and educational functions of literature; emotional factor and aesthetic value of literature; artistic creativity as a form of knowledge and development of life

Artistic image. The term “image” was borrowed by Russian literary criticism from the Kievan church language, which means face, cheek; in a figurative sense - a picture; the nomination "image" is a tracing-paper from gr. eikon (icon) - image.

A work of art is a thought expressed figuratively, in pictures. The writer, unlike the publicist, does not express certain provisions, from which the reader must draw conclusions. He has everything at once together perfectly, inseparably: the initial thesis, and the proof, and the final result. All this is reflected in a single sketch, in the image.

The theory of the artistic image was created in antiquity and was associated with the concept of imitation (mimesis): the artist recreates life in its unique, individual meaning. Aristotle understood the work as a living being, which obeys its own rules, breaking away from the author, the artistic creation "produces" a product of aesthetic pleasure.

The science of literature of the 19th century (Hegel) defined the art of the word as thinking in images, which reveals concrete reality.

The artistic image is a form of reflection of life and represents a generalized picture of the world. Art recreates life conditionally, symbolizes the second nature, organized according to the laws of beauty. This is not reality, but its image, and it can only be encountered through imagination. The image includes the spiritual activity of a person, it is an object endowed with the features of a sign (K. Goranov).

“An image is a concrete and at the same time a generalized picture of human life, created with the help of fiction and having aesthetic value” (L.I. Timofeev). It contains the author's evaluative - subjective moment to the depicted object (N.A. Gulyaev).

The literary image is inexhaustible, just like reality (an act of individual evaluation, aesthetic pleasure, the relationship of private life with the life of mankind, a way of knowing the author). After reading W. Shakespeare or studying his work, the life of an English playwright is multiplied by infinity. The category "image" and the system of artistic images differ in their ideological significance.

Images of a human personality are classified as images - characters, objects (images - things), natural phenomena (images - landscapes). The writer must convey the social truth, use fiction, recreate the individual character, generalize the circumstances (P.K. Volynsky).

US literary theorists R. Welleck and O. Warren believe that the image consists of three elements: image = metaphor + symbol + myth. The semantic fields overlap, and their scope is undoubtedly the same. Psychologists and aesthetes have proposed a multi-stage classification of images: visual (reproduction of past experience); taste, aromatic, static, dynamic, color, sound, synesthetic (the ability of the image to switch from the sound sphere of feelings to color, taste, aromatic).

There are works in which odorism and synaestheticism acquire a special artistic value. Thus, in the "Song of Songs" (Bible), aromatic varieties and their influence on lovers are depicted: incense of blossoming fig trees and grapes; exacerbate sensuality "nard and saffron, amr and cinnamon with all sorts of fragrant trees, myrrh and scarlet with all sorts of the best aromas."

The French poet of the 19th century Charles Baudelaire created (the collection "Flowers of Evil") a picture of the world, which consists of mysterious hieroglyphs and symbols indicating the connection established between smells, colors and sounds:

Sound, smell, shape, color echo…

There is a smell of cleanliness. It's green like a garden

Like the flesh of a child, fresh, like the call of a flute, tender.

Others are regal, they have luxury and debauchery,

They will not be captured by thought, their unsteady world is boundless, -

So musk and benzoy, so nard and incense

The delight of the mind and senses is given to us to taste.

The problem of the role of feelings, visual, gustatory and aromatic effects in the creation of an artistic image by the Ukrainian poet and scientist I. Franko (“From the Secrets of Poetic Creativity”, works in 10 vols., v. 10. - M .: GIHL, 1959. - S. 76 - 137).

R. Welleck and O. Warren summarized the doctrine of the artistic image: “Apparently, for the theory of literature, the main motives will be the image (or picture), social, supernatural (unnatural, irrational), narrative (story), archetype (or universal), symbolic representation of eternal ideals through events determined by a specific time, programmatic (or eschatological), and, finally, mystical.

There are works of literary theorists who discover new aesthetic facets in this category, such as, for example, “emblem”, “symbol”, “myth”.

The image is an emblem. G.N. Pospelov in the emblematic content highlights the evaluative feature, which is characteristic of the fine arts - painting, sculpture, architecture, chasing. The emblematic (gr. - relief decoration) image is static; the image of the shield of Achilles is considered to be a classic example, however, the drawing of this cover was developed in the process of its creation. The verbal and subject representation of the emblem enhances the mystery of the idea of ​​the work.

The image is a symbol. Its main difference is metaphorical. Every symbol is an image, and when it turns into a symbol, it becomes transparent, acquires a semantic depth that is difficult to decipher. Objects, animals, cosmic phenomena can act as the fundamental principle of a symbol. So, among the Hindus, the "lotus" personifies the deity and the universe; among Christians, the serpent appears as a symbol of wisdom and temptation; Arabs (Iranians) wine - wisdom and knowledge. Dances, tools, topography are shrouded in symbolism. The image-symbol is noticeably different in its dynamic tendency: it is not given, but given, it can only be explained. The difference between a symbol and simple objects is that "things" allow you to look at yourself, they must be considered; the symbol, on the contrary, “works”, he himself “looks” at people. Compare; when you look into the abyss for a long time, someday the abyss will look at you (Nietzsche). A literary image - a symbol of a talented writer - always has a figurative meaning, it is created according to the model of hidden comparison.

The image is a myth. The characteristics of this category aim at irrationality, intuition, and philosophy. Where does the author's myth-image come from and where does it go is explained by the picture of the world, which almost always points to the tragic destiny of mankind.

Eternal images. These include the characters of world literature: Prometheus, Oedipus, Cassandra, Hamlet, Don Juan, Faust, Don Quixote, Leyli and Majnun, Iskander ... These images are unfading, because they combine the features of not a specific hero, but the unity of historical and universal principles. Moscow-Petersburg literature has not created world-class nominal eternal images; it, like other Slavic literature, it seems, will not create, no matter how it magnifies itself.

In the typological system of artistic images, the theory of Ukrainian scientists I. Kovalik - M. Kotsiubynska about the mega-image, macro-image and micro-image stands out.

A mega-image (gr. megas - huge) is directly related to a literary work, the text of which is perceived as a mega-image. It is distinguished by its independent aesthetic value, and literary theorists endow it with the highest generic and indivisible value.

A macro image (gr. macros - wide, long) organizes a system of artistic reflection of life in its narrow specific or large generic segments (segments, parts, pictures). The structure of the macro-image is organized by interconnected homogeneous micro-images.

A microimage (gr. micros - small) is distinguished by the smallest textual size: it is a unit of figurative thinking, in which a small segment of objective (external or internal) reality is artistically reproduced. A micro-image can be made out in one phrase word (Night. Rain. Morning) or a sentence, a paragraph, an epiphrasal integrity.

An epic work (mega image) consists of several macro images. There are examples when in a lapidary poetic text a macro-image includes a significant number of micro-images and, on the contrary, one micro-image can be equal to a mega-image. Among verbal and artistic images, according to the concept of I. Kovalik - M. Kotsiubynska, there are simple (non-expanded, one-phrase) and complex (expanded) micro-images (see: Kotsiubinska M. Literature as the mysticism of the word. - K .: Naukova Dumka, 1965. - P. 21; Kovalik I. About the typological interpretation of the artistic word and having shown the maternity of the Slovnik created I. Franko // Franko I. VIP VII. - L .: LDU, 1969. - P. 154).

The image is a way and form of mastering reality, it is characterized by the unity of feelings, the commonality of semantic moments and belongs to historically changeable categories, showing its beauty in different literary genres.

In the history of literary criticism, there have been attempts to study the image in terms of its pragmatic meaning. Proponents of this approach considered this category as a thing, being, hoping that the image can be understood and studied to the end. If such problems could be solved, then there would be no mystery left from Hamlet, Don Quixote, Oedipus, the Stone Lady... Supporters of the pragmatic method make claims to the heroes: what they did for the family, what contribution they made to the economy and science. In connection with this methodology for the analysis of fiction, it is enough to recall the famous "boots" and the "Sistine Madonna" by Raphael. A well-known critic of the 19th century preferred boots that turned out to be higher than Raphael. However, the critic did not think of "selling" a painting by an Italian artist and buying a lot of shoes. The artistic image is studied according to aesthetic laws, according to the laws of beauty. A pragmatic approach to the analysis of the artistic image and literature, even at the level of a production theme, turned out to be unproductive on the whole.

ARTISTIC SUBJECT

The object of art is a person and everything around him; discontinuity and continuity of artistic development

One of the topical issues in the theory of literature, which continues to be discussed sporadically, abruptly and from time to time, is connected with the subject of artistic representation. Scientists begin to find out the truth from the question: does fiction have its own specific subject matter or not? Are there any differences in the logical-theoretical and artistic-figurative ways of knowing the world?

The subject of the artistic image constitutes a significant circle of actions mastered by the science of literature. Here one can establish the subject of literary theory, the subject of literary history, the subject of literary criticism.

When a theorist defines the specifics of art and reveals the presence of his own subject in literature, there is no single point of view here. The opinions of some literary critics tend to admit that there is no specific subject in fiction. This version boils down to the following: if the sphere of interests of art is limited to some single area, then it will mean that art does not cover all of life. Some aspects remain out of sight, which means that the distinctive property of a work of art is not properly manifested. Meanwhile, the writer depicts objects, the cosmic world, animals, and therefore he does not run counter to practice.

Further, it is argued that the Slavic critics of the 19th century did not raise the issue of the specifics of the subject of a work of art. Raised, however, they followed the path of Western European literary criticism, which believed that the whole reality becomes the subject of art, that attention is focused on everything, anything. There are no areas that would be inaccessible to artistic development. The pathos of all these appeals of opponents and supporters of the existence of the subject of an artistic image does not contain false statements, although their very position is certainly incorrect. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify what, on the one hand, is true, and on the other, unjustified.

It would be a mistake to suggest that art is limited in its ability to study and display reality. This approach opposes science and art and is not consistent with the practice of artistic creation. There will be a writer (Balzac, Zola) who will depict everything that surrounds us. And this should be taken into account. In this regard, we single out several provisions in favor of the version that literature has its own subject of artistic exploration of reality.

Thesis one: the subject of artistic representation is a person and the world around him. Literary critics of the 19th century by no means claimed that art does not have its own specific subject. Indeed, they own the statement: "The object of art is reality." But at the same time, they often talked about a person who attracted the attention of artists. Therefore, critics argued that it was not the main idea, but the earthly spirit: the subject of art is not a deity, not other worlds, but life. Proponents of the existence of the specificity of the subject should share the concept of L.I. Timofeev. This does not mean that the science of literature did not deal with this problem before him. Aristotle has a thought that L.I. Timofeev managed to consistently and to the end master. His concept boils down to the following: an image is a picture of human life, an image is always saturated with human meaning. The scientist recalls that the interests of the artist are focused on the human significance of the surrounding phenomena. There are works where animals, trees, things, space act. Anything can get the writer's attention. When it comes to a person, then he is the object of the image, when the writer depicts nature, then here too the human content stands out, the interests of the person are established.

The contradictions are that the subject of art is limited and the subject of art is specific. How to reconcile this disagreement? Any object can be defined by the logic of the scholastics about the notorious glass: in one state it is a vessel for drinking, then a glass as a product of the glass industry, then a glass as a commodity and it can be sold, finally, it can break through a person’s head. Human consciousness not only reflects, but also depicts. The very development of the two most important forms of cognition (man and society) has led to the fact that any phenomenon can be comprehended in two different planes. Do not think that these two planes are opposed to each other. There are contradictions between them, but people live and create in human society, and this is not an abstract, but a human subject. So, the subject of literature is a person and everything around him in human reality.

In the field of artistic creativity, the subject is not some part of people, but a living person. In this regard, in the work we also find something that can be attributed to human death. There are differences between artistic and logical sections. When a writer draws a dying man, the reader sees the son of the earth with his destiny, realizing that life is finite, she passed him by, and, dying, he understands this. Thus, we repeat once again, the subject of the artistic image is a person and the human taken in life, they appear conscious, creating the illusion of authenticity.

The second thesis: the subject of artistic representation is reality itself. Contradictions arise between the subject and content. What is their reason? Contradictions arise from the fact that fiction refers to a specific type of activity. In what planes, aspects do the contradictions of unity and content make themselves felt?

The subject of a work of art is an abstraction; any artistic content specifically. What is the source of specificity? The essence of the matter is expressed by the proverb: "New time - new songs." Reality is not abstract, it is historically changeable. It is one thing - a picture of the ancient world, another - modern life in move. Artistic content is a drop from the sea of ​​human society, and just as one can judge the taste of the sea from the taste of a drop of water, so one work allows one to indulge in thoughts about humanity and humanity. According to many works of ancient mythology and literature, a thoughtful reader imagines the process of transition from matriarchy to patriarchy.

...

Similar Documents

Literature as one of the ways of mastering the surrounding world. The historical mission of ancient Russian literature. The emergence of chronicles and literature. Writing and education, folklore, a brief description of monuments of ancient Russian literature.

abstract, added 08/26/2009


Style and artistic method as the main theoretical and literary concepts. The writer's method as a manifestation of the author's individuality, the genesis of the artistic image. The image of the Motherland in the works of Rasul Gamzatov - a prominent representative of the literature of Dagestan.

term paper, added 10/12/2012


From feuilletons to novels. Ideological and artistic analysis of the novel "Fencing Teacher" and the novel "Queen Margot". Romanticism in Western European literatures of the 1st half of the 19th century.

term paper, added 09/12/2002


Features of the work at the level of figurative system: artistic construction, image, figurative system, principles of its construction. The image of the lyrical hero in the story under study, the stylistic devices used by the author to create certain images.

term paper, added 12/18/2013


History of Greek Literature. The Iliad: Inquiries into the Meaning and Style of the Homeric Poem. Aesthetic terminology of early Greek literature. Artistic world of the Homeric epic. Ancient Greek literary criticism.

term paper, added 12/03/2002


The meaning of the term "artistic image", its properties and varieties. Examples of artistic images in the works of Russian writers. Artistic tropes in stylistics and rhetoric are elements of speech representation. Images-symbols, types of allegory.

abstract, added 09/07/2009


Humanism as the main source of the artistic power of Russian classical literature. The main features of literary trends and stages in the development of Russian literature. The life and creative path of writers and poets, the world significance of Russian literature of the 19th century.

abstract, added 06/12/2011


Creativity L. Ulitskaya in the context of modern literature. Ideological and artistic originality of the image of the language teacher in the novel "The Green Tent". Teaching literature in understanding the character of Shengeli. Disclosure of the problem of "imago" (adult personality).

thesis, added 05/24/2017


Literary theory as a science and art of understanding. A work of art as a dialectical unity of content and form. The problem of style in modern literary criticism. The peculiarity of the conflict in epic, dramatic and lyrical works.

cheat sheet, added 05/05/2009


Features of V.M. Shukshin: the artistic world, the criterion of the moral. The image of a mother, with her patience and generosity. situations of fathers and children. Striving for high simplicity and clarity. The art of psychological portrait. The question of the truth of life.

To this day, the problem of developing the theory of genres is considered the most difficult in literary criticism. This is due to the fact that the understanding of the genre by different researchers differs radically from each other. At the same time, everyone recognizes this category as central, the most general, universal, and at the same time quite specific. The genre reflects the features of a wide variety of artistic methods, schools, trends in literature, and literary creativity is directly reflected in it. Without knowledge of the laws of the genre, it is impossible to assess the individual artistic merits of this or that writer. Therefore, literary criticism pays more and more attention to genre problems, since the genre of a work determines the aesthetics of a work of art.

There are diverse conceptions of the genre; taken together, they form a very mixed picture. Comparison of different genre concepts is useful not only for understanding the problem itself, but also from a methodological point of view. The literary genre occupies a central position in the system of literary concepts. The most important regularities of the literary process intersect and find expression in it: the ratio of content and form, the author's intention and the requirements of tradition, the expectations of readers, etc.

The question of continuity in the development of genres, of historically repeatable features found in the diversity of individual genres, in the history of literary criticism, was most profoundly raised by scientists who studied literature in close connection with social life.

The theories of Hegel and A. Veselovsky are classical: Hegel's aesthetics is the pinnacle of German idealistic aesthetics; the historical poetics of the Russian scientist is the undoubted culmination of academic science. Against the background of many differences in their works, one can clearly see the similarity (although not identity) of some results in the field of the study of genres, achieved on the basis of a historical approach to literature. Both concepts are brought together, first of all, by the typology of the genres of artistic literature, which is based on a meaningful criterion, proof of the historical stadial nature of the emergence of genre types.

In the genre theory of Hegel, the principle of historicism was clearly manifested, discrediting the appeal to the unshakable authorities and unchanging rules of poetry. This principle performs not so much the role of a descriptive factor as an explanation of genre differentiation, tracing the genesis of the most important genres.

It is necessary to distinguish the Hegelian theory of poetic genera - epic, lyrics, drama - which are distinguished by the principle of a different ratio of the object ("" world in its objective meaning "") and the subject ("" inner world "" of man), from his theory of genres.

For the theory of genres, Hegel introduces another pair of concepts - "substantial" (epos) and "subjective" (lyric). But both epic, and lyrics, and drama are capable of expressing both substantial and subjective content.

To understand the Hegelian theory of genres, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the concepts of the substantial and the subjective. The substantial, according to Hegel, is "the eternal forces that govern the world", "the circle of universal forces"; true, reasonable content of art; ideas of general interest. Substantial is opposed by subjective content as the desire of an individual. This shows that Hegel separates the substantial from reality, that is, the subjective.

The opposition of the substantial (true) to the subjective (random) revealed the strengths and weaknesses of Hegel's philosophy. Since the substantial was interpreted idealistically, it was separated from the subjective, which was evaluated negatively. Hence the Hegelian underestimation of the activity of the artist himself - the subject, who must completely immerse himself in the material and least of all think about expressing his "I". E.G. Rudneva generally considers this moment "" the most vulnerable side of the Hegelian theory "". From this follows the hierarchy of genres: for example, satire depicting a world devoid of substantive content is unpoetic.

Hegelian substantial was understood as universal not only in the sense of divine destiny, but also as social. The relationship between society and the individual is another important criterion for meaningful genre differentiation in Hegel. Hegel's historicism lies in the fact that he considers genres primarily as an artistic projection of a certain stage in the development of society. Explaining the emergence, flourishing, extinction of groups of genres related in content, Hegel proceeds from the stadial nature of social development.

In characterizing genres, he consistently considers "the general state of the world," which is the basis of a given genre; the attitude of the author to his subject; the main collision of the genre; characters. ""The general state of the world"" serves as the basis for the content of the genre. The soil of the epic is the “age of heroes” (“the pre-legal age”), the soil of the novel is the era of a developed state with an established legal order, satire and comedy are an unreasonable existing order.

From the various premises of the epic, the novel and the satire, conflicts typical of these genres follow. For the epic, the military conflict, "" enmity of foreign nations "" (XX, T .14,245), which has a world-historical justification, is most suitable. Accordingly, the hero of the epic sets himself substantial goals and fights for their implementation. The heroes and the team are united. In the novel, the usual collision is, according to Hegel, ""between the poetry of the heart and the opposing prose of relations, as well as the accident of external circumstances"".

This conflict reflects the separation of the personal and the public. The hero and the society surrounding him are opposed. The collisions of satire and comedy, according to Hegel, are not an artistic projection of a life collision, it is created by the poet's attitude to the subject. The poet creates ""an image of corrupted reality in such a way that this corruptibility is destroyed in itself due to its own absurdity"". Naturally, in this situation there is no place for true characters. The heroes are "unreasonable", "incapable of any genuine pathos".

So, epic, satire (comedy), novel reflect in Hegel's theory three successive stages in the development of society; their collisions are derived from the "common world" (in satire) and from the poet's attitude to this state. At the same time, Hegel's underestimation of the author's activity, his subjectivity in the creation of the epic and the novel simplifies the content of these genres.

Some provisions of the Hegelian theory of genres need to be corrected, such as the philosopher's underestimation of the poetic significance of satire; the illegitimacy of Hegel's denial of heroic situations outside the "age of heroes"; denial of the possibility of "true" epics in his contemporary era, etc.

The Hegelian theory of genres had many followers, including V.G. Belinsky developed it. In the article "The Division of Poetry into Genres and Genres" the critic gave a description of literary genres, linking them with the tasks of Russian literary and social development. The most important innovative provisions of this theory are aimed at overcoming the Hegelian attitude towards satire by the critic, at the recognition of the novel and the story as the dominant genres of modern poetry, which testified to the sensitivity of V.G. Belinsky to the process of restructuring the genre system; to a more rigorous and distinct application of the cross principle of genre classification. The original conception of Alexander Veselovsky has much in common with the Hegelian typology of genres. He also links the history of genres to the development of the individual; a certain stage in the relationship of the individual and society gives rise to this or that content (epics, novels). But all this is given by Veselovsky in a different conceptual and methodological context.

Understanding Veselovsky's genre theory is hampered by the terminological inseparability in it of questions related to the literary genre and questions related to the genre. Veselovsky's theory is revealed when comparing his works such as "History or Theory of the Novel?", "From the History of the Development of Personality", "Three Chapters from Historical Poetics" and others.

As noted by L.V. Chernets, Veselovsky was mainly engaged in the study of literary genres, but the criteria he proposed for distinguishing genres by content rather cover genre differences. Properly generic remains the formal difference in the way of representation of the genera. The hypothesis of the syncretism of primitive poetry and the further differentiation of genders speaks of the forms, but not of the content of art. The content is not differentiated from syncretism, but is born in the following sequence: epic, lyric, drama. Veselovsky emphasizes that the development of forms and content of genera does not coincide; he strives to strictly separate ""questions of form from questions of content"".

Veselovsky dealt mainly with the genesis of the content of childbirth, but not with its further development. Perhaps that is why he has open question about the criteria for generic differences (in content) in the new literature, where the individual-subjective principle penetrates into all kinds of poetry.

Veselovsky's theory outlines three successive stages in the relationship between the individual and society:

1." "Community of mental and moral horizons, non-identification of the individual in the conditions of the clan, tribe, squad" "" (epos);

2. "Progress of the individual on the basis of a group movement", individualization within the framework of class allocation (ancient Greek lyrics and lyrics of the Middle Ages, ancient Greek and chivalric romance);

3. "" General recognition of man "", the destruction of the class and the triumph of the personal principle (short story and novel of the Renaissance).

Thus, in all its genera, it captures the dynamics in the relationship of the individual and society.

The strength of Veselovsky's theory, compared with Hegel's, is his proof of the subjectivity of creativity at all stages of its development, in all genres. In Hegel, the collisions and characters of the epic and the novel are, as it were, a direct projection of the general state of the world, without the prism of the author's worldview, only in the analysis of satire is the author active. Veselovsky emphasized the ideological orientation, the subjectivity of creativity as its integral property. Thus, from the Hegelian opposition of objective and subjective creativity, Veselovsky directs his thought to the study of differences in subjectivity itself. Only through its study can one understand the content of the epic, and the lyrics, and the novel, including their genre content in its concreteness.

Veselovsky's and Hegel's typologies of genres, for all their differences, are similar in one thing: the distinguished types of content reflect the real relationship between the individual and society. These types of content are stable, because the division is based on epochal shifts in the relationship between the individual and society. Apparently, three artistic projections of the relationship between the individual and society are outlined, presented in all kinds of poetry.

The typologies of genres in Hegel and Veselovsky retain their value for modern literary criticism. But the principle of cross-classification is only outlined in both concepts, as evidenced by the lack of development of terminology and, most importantly, issues of genre originality of the artistic form.

Fantasy is one of the most popular genres of our time. Its manifestations can be found in literature, music, painting, cinema, dramaturgy. This genre is loved by representatives of all ages: children - for a fabulous, magical plot, adults - for hidden meanings and ideas, the opportunity to escape from everyday life. In order to understand its significance in the modern world, one should first study its features and sources of formation.

The concept of genre in modern literary criticism

In modern literary criticism there is no single definition of the concept of "genre", as well as a single classification. The problem is in the focus of attention of scientists, to designate the science of literary types and genres, even (and without even) the term "genology" came into use (Paul Van Tiegem, 1920). Let us consider the dynamics of solving this problem in Russian literary criticism.

Belinsky was the first to raise this problem in the article "The Division of Poetry into Genus and Types"; there is no need to outline it, but if you are talking about the history of the issue, then start with Beklinsky and briefly in your own words what he wrote about.

Alexander Nikolaevich Veselovsky (1836-1906) was engaged in the study of the relationship "content - form". In "Historical Poetics", the scientist asserts the commonality and continuity of the elements of form among different peoples in different historical periods. The content that fills these forms is different at each historical moment, it renews and brings certain forms to life. New forms are not created, innovation is manifested in combinations of new contents and existing elements of forms, the latter, in turn, are a product of the primitive collective psyche. According to Veselovsky's doctrine of syncretism, the prototypes of literary genres were in a mixed state within the framework of ritual actions connecting songs and dances. Genres at this moment are inseparable from each other; over time, they are one by one separated from the rite and develop independently. Veselovsky writes about the criteria for delimiting the types of literature, but the criteria for delimiting the content are related to genres. The content of childbirth, the researcher sees different stages of the relationship between man and society, highlighting three stages, correlated with three types of literature:

1) "a common mental and moral outlook, the non-identification of the individual in the conditions of the clan, tribe, squad" (epos);

2) "the progress of the individual on the basis of a group movement", isolation within the framework of estates (ancient Greek and medieval lyrics, ancient Greek and chivalric romance);

3) "the general recognition of a person", the fall of the class and the assertion of a personal principle (short story and novel of the Renaissance) [Veselovsky, 1913].

The indicated stages are stable, since they change only with the change of epochs, and have content in the relationship between man and society. According to V.M. Zhirmunsky, Veselovsky wrote "Historical Poetics" as a "history of the genre" [Zhirmunsky, 1978 - p.224].

For the first time, speech genres became an object of study in the works of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-1975) in the 1930s and 40s. "It was MM Bakhtin who helped to realize that genre studies are the fundamental, basic area of ​​the science of literature" [Golovko, 2009]. In the article "The Problem of Speech Genres", Bakhtin argues that a person uses language in the form of statements, which, being specific and individual, nevertheless combine into relatively stable types depending on the areas in which they are used. The sphere of communication determines the content, language style and composition of the statement (depending on the purpose and conditions of the sphere of communication). Utterances are thus grouped into a set of types which Bakhtin designates as "speech genres". The researcher notes the heterogeneity and diversity of genres within each area and in connection with the multiplicity of areas of communication; within spoken and written language. Bakhtin identifies primary, or simple, and secondary, or complex, speech genres. Primary genres are formed within the framework of actual speech communication and then enter, transforming, into the structure of secondary genres organized on the basis of a highly developed society (such as novels, dramas, scientific research, and so on).

The boundaries of an utterance are outlined by a change in the subjects of speech, as well as integrity, which is determined by "subject-semantic exhaustion, speech intent or speech will of the speaker, as well as typical compositional-genre forms of completion" [Bakhtin, 1996]. The features of these characteristics, in turn, determine the style of the utterance. Statements of a certain speech genre are filled with certain lexical units peculiar to the genre.

Bakhtin spoke about the dialogism of genres, this applied both to primary genres that actually exist in the process of communication, and to secondary ones. On the one hand, the choice of literary (secondary) genres is dictated to the author by the characteristics of the era in which the work was created and the audience for which it is intended. On the other hand, "genre expectation" implies a set of reader requirements for works of different genres. Thus, genres are formed and exist within the framework of dialogue.

In opposition to Yu. Tynyanov, who argued that the system of genres would change with the change of the historical epoch due to the leading role of the author's individuality, Bakhtin considered the genre to be the most stable structure over time.

Boris Viktorovich Tomashevsky (1890-1957) defined the concept of genre in the following way: "special classes<…>works, characterized by the fact that in the techniques of each genre we observe a grouping of techniques specific to this genre around these tangible techniques, or features of the genre. "The subject, motivation for leading topics, as well as the form of speech - poetic or prosaic - determine the belonging of the work to a particular genre. Compositional techniques Tomashevsky recognizes as dominating over all other techniques, together they give the definition of the genre, and are therefore called "dominant" [Tomashevsky, 1999 - p. [Tomashevsky, 1999 - p.146]. Such "diversity", according to the scientist, does not allow genres to be classified according to common grounds. At best, it is possible to subdivide into dramatic, lyrical and narrative genres. A genre can evolve and change quite significantly, growing with new works, moving further and further away from the original canon a. The genre can break up into new ones. In general, there is a gradual transition from low genres to high genres.

E.S. Babkina notes that with the genetic approach - considering the genre as a dynamic developing system - it becomes impossible to completely correlate the genres of different historical eras, since at a certain period the genre carries both "dying" features that cease to be essential, and new ones that are not yet significant. become. However, different genres are at different stages of development. As V.E. Khalizev, the time of existence of genres is not the same: some, like, for example, a fable, exist for many centuries, while others arise and cease to exist within the framework of one historical period [Khalizev, 1999].

Viktor Maksimovich Zhirmunsky (1891-1971) pointed out the equivalence of thematic (substantial) and compositional characteristics in distinguishing between genres, as well as, in some cases, the importance of style components in this issue. At the same time, the relationship between these characteristics is unstable, historically determined. Recognizing that genres have typical features, Zhirmunsky suggested studying not the most striking creations of epochs, but the most massive ones, which should contain the most typical for the genre in a particular period: "... it is the secondary poets who create the literary "tradition". great literary work into genre features…" [Zhirmunsky, 1978 - p.226]. In each historical epoch, certain patterns are formed that are characteristic of specific genres, and these patterns are created from minor authors from the most striking manifestations of prominent authors. The scientist notes the possibility of mutual influence of genres, including new and half-forgotten ones, and as a result, the "rejuvenation" of the latter by enriching them with the patterns of the former. By the end of the literary epoch, the boundaries of the accepted genre are “loosened”, boundary genres arise as a result of the exhaustion of patterns and attempts to go beyond them.

According to Gennady Nikolaevich Pospelov (1899-1992), genres do not exist in isolation, but in a system. "Without comparing some genres with others, it is difficult to find out the originality of each of them" [Pospelov, 1978 - p.232]. D.S. was the first to draw attention to this circumstance. Likhachev, explaining the systemic nature by the mutual influences of genres and the common causes that provoke their emergence.

According to Pospelov, genres are repeated during different historical eras, and since the formal features of the same genre are different in different eras, one should pay attention to the content aspect. Agreeing with Veselovsky on the issue of the origin of genres from primitive folklore, Pospelov reproaches him for excluding the prose genre of primitive fairy tales from the field of view. He also uses separate names of genres as names of genre forms - such as epic, fairy tale, story, song, poem, fable, ballad, plays and poems, since the content aspect in these forms can be completely different.

The division into literary genres and genres, according to Pospelov, is carried out for various reasons. He derives genre groups based on the content aspect, each of which includes genres of all three types of literature.

Moses Samoylovich Kagan (1921 - 2006) in his work "Morphology of Art" classified genres according to four parameters, arguing that the more grounds for classification, the more complete description of genres is possible. He described the genres in the following aspects:

1) thematic (plot-thematic) (for example, genres of love or civil lyrics);

2) cognitive capacity (story, story, novel);

3) axiological aspect (for example, tragedy or comedy);

4) the type of models created (documentary / fiction, and so on) [Kagan 1972].

Lilia Valentinovna Chernets (1940) points to the presence of typical genre expectations in the reader, which, due to differences in genre features in different eras, are also different. Due to the specificity of reader's expectations, a large volume of literary genres arises. Chernets sees the function of the genre in the classification and indication of the literary tradition. Works belonging to different kinds of literature may, nevertheless, belong to the same genre. Such criteria as the pathos of the work and "repeating features of the problematic" allow them to be combined within the framework of one genre. However, belonging to a particular genus is also a criterion for distinguishing between genres. Following G.N. Pospelov, L.V. Chernets adheres to the understanding of the genre as primarily a content structure.

The formal concept of the genre, as opposed to the substantive one, sees the genre as an established type of text structure (including composition and non-plot elements). N. Stepanov, G. Gachev, V. Kozhinov adhered to this position. The genre form is dictated by tradition and the author's idiostyle. The discussion about whether form or content is decisive in the concept of genre is still ongoing.

In addition to the fact that, as noted above, genres form a system, each genre is itself a system, where the core is made up of essential features, and the periphery - variable.

Summarizing the considered features of the genre, it seems appropriate to propose a definition of a genre as a subtype of a kind of literature, characterized by the presence of relatively stable and different from other genres typical formal and content properties, determined by tradition, reader's expectation and author's attitude.

Thus, with all the variety of approaches, the following understanding of the genre has developed in Russian literary criticism. A genre is a specific type of literary work. The main genres can be considered epic, lyrical and dramatic, but it is more correct to apply this term to their individual varieties, such as, for example, an adventure novel, a clownish comedy, etc. Every literary genre, possessing only its inherent features, has gone and is going through certain paths in its development, why one of the main tasks of both theoretical and historical poetics is, on the one hand, the clarification of these features, and on the other, the study of their states in different eras due to their evolution

In modern literary criticism, in the presence of different concepts and approaches to the definition of a genre, a general classification of literary genres has developed:

1. in form (ode, story, play, novel, story, etc.);

2. by birth:

epic (fable, story, myth, etc.);

lyrical (ode, elegy, etc.);

lyric-epic (ballad and poem);

dramatic (comedy, tragedy, drama).

In popular literature, such genres as detective, action novel, fantasy, historical adventure novel, popular song, women's novel can be distinguished. The issue of genre is relevant here as well. Let's take a closer look at the classification of fantasy genres.

Elena Afanasyeva in her article "Fantasy Genre: The Problem of Classification" [Afanas'yeva, 2007 - p.86-93] combines the classifications of other authors and creates her own, most general and complete: epic fantasy, dark fantasy, mythological fantasy, mystical fantasy, romantic fantasy , historical fantasy, urban fantasy, heroic fantasy, humorous fantasy and parody, science fantasy, techno-fantasy, Christian or sacred fantasy, philosophical thriller, children's and women's fantasy. This will be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph.