Cheat sheet: Literary heroes in works of fiction. Reading range of literary characters in the Russian classical novel
The main character of a brilliant novel F.M. Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment” Rodion Raskolnikov asks the question: is it permissible to commit a small evil for the sake of a great good, does a noble goal justify a criminal means? The author portrays him as a magnanimous dreamer, a humanist, eager to make all humanity happy, who comes to the realization of his own powerlessness in the face of world evil and in despair decides to “transgress” the moral law - to kill out of love for humanity, to commit evil for the sake of good. However, a normal person, which the hero of the novel undoubtedly is, is alien to bloodshed and murder. To understand this, Raskolnikov had to go through all the circles of moral hell and visit hard labor. Only at the end of the novel do we see that the hero realizes the absurdity of his crazy idea and finds peace of mind.
In contrast to the doubting and rushing Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky paints in his novel the image of Svidrigailov, a man who does not think about the means of achieving his goals. Sinking into the abyss of depravity, losing faith, Svidrigailov commits suicide, thereby showing the dead end of Raskolnikov's theory.
Based on a true story, the novel by the American writer T. Dreiser “An American Tragedy” tells the story of the fate of an ambitious young manClyde Griffiths, who dreams of breaking out of the confines of his environment, quickly and persistently walking up the steps of his career, upward to the world of money and luxury. Having seduced an honest girl and being confident in his love for her, the hero soon realizes that this connection is the main obstacle on the way to high society. A classic love triangle is formed, the third “angle” of which is a girl from high society, opening up all sorts of ways for Clyde to gain material wealth. Unable to resist such a temptation, the young man carefully considers the possibility of getting rid of his first love, which interferes not only with his ambitious plans, but also simply interferes with living for his own pleasure. This is how a crime is committed - thoughtful, seriously prepared and cowardly. After the girl's death, the police trace Clyde and accuse him of premeditated murder. The jury sentences him to death and Clyde spends the rest of his life in prison." In the end, he confesses and admits his guilt. He is executed in the electric chair.
A good, kind, talented person, Ilya Oblomov, was unable to overcome himself, his laziness and promiscuity, and did not reveal his best traits. The absence of a high purpose in life leads to moral death. Even love could not save Oblomov.
In his late novel The Razor's Edge, W.S. Maughamdepicts the life path of the young American Larry, who spent half his life reading books, and the other half in travel, work, search and self-improvement. His image stands out clearly against the background of young people of his circle, wasting their lives and extraordinary abilities on the fulfillment of fleeting whims, on entertainment, on a carefree existence in luxury and idleness. Larry chose his own path and, not paying attention to the misunderstanding and reproach of loved ones, sought the meaning of life in hardships, wanderings and wanderings around the world. He devoted himself entirely to the spiritual principle in order to achieve enlightenment of the mind, purification of the spirit, and discover the meaning of the universe.
The main character of the novel of the same name by the American writer Jack London, Martin Eden, is a working guy, a sailor, coming from the lower classes, about 21 years old, and meets Ruth Morse, a girl from a wealthy bourgeois family. Ruth begins to teach the semi-literate Martin the correct pronunciation of English words and awakens his interest in literature. Martin learns that magazines pay decent fees to the authors who publish in them, and firmly decides to make a career as a writer, earn money and become worthy of his new acquaintance, with whom he has fallen in love. Martin is putting together a self-improvement program, working on his language and pronunciation, and reading a lot of books. Iron health and unbending will move him towards his goal. In the end, after going through a long and thorny path, after numerous refusals and disappointments, he becomes a famous writer. (Then he becomes disillusioned with literature, his beloved, people in general and life, loses interest in everything and commits suicide. This is just in case. An argument in favor of the fact that fulfilling a dream does not always bring happiness)
If a shark stops moving its fins, it will sink to the bottom like a stone; a bird, if it stops flapping its wings, will fall to the ground. Likewise, a person, if his aspirations, desires, goals fade away, will collapse to the bottom of life, he will be sucked into the thick quagmire of gray everyday life. A river that stops flowing turns into a stinking swamp. Likewise, a person who stops searching, thinking, striving, loses the “beautiful impulses of his soul”, gradually degrades, his life becomes aimless, miserable vegetation.
I. Bunin in the story “The Gentleman from San Francisco” showed the fate of a man who served false values. Wealth was his god, and this god he worshiped. But when the American millionaire died, it turned out that true happiness passed the man by: he died without ever knowing what life was.
The novel by the famous English writer W. S. Maugham, “The Burden of Human Passions,” touches on one of the most important and burning questions for every person - is there meaning in life, and if so, what is it? The main character of the work, Philip Carey, painfully searches for the answer to this question: in books, in art, in love, in the judgments of friends. One of them, the cynic and materialist Cronshaw, advises him to look at Persian carpets and refuses further explanation. Only years later, having lost almost all his illusions and hopes for the future, Philip understands what he meant and admits that “life has no meaning, and human existence is purposeless. Knowing that nothing makes sense and nothing matters, a person can still find satisfaction in choosing the various threads that he weaves into the endless fabric of life. There is one pattern - the simplest and most beautiful: a person is born, matures, gets married, gives birth to children, works for a piece of bread and dies; but there are other, more intricate and amazing patterns, where there is no place for happiness or the desire for success - perhaps some kind of alarming beauty is hidden in them.”
Soviet literary criticism has well mastered the idea that the transition from
ancient Russian literature to the literature of modern times falls on the XVII
V. Some scientists attribute this transition to the end of the 17th century, others - to its
the middle or even the first half of the 17th century, but that he
happened precisely in the 17th century, there is no dispute.
It would seem that such a favorable situation with the issue of transition
ancient Russian literature into the new excludes him from the circle of regular and
the most pressing research topics of modern Soviet
literary studies. However, this turns out to be far from being the case.
prosperous when we try to understand for ourselves what, in fact,
literary scholars see the purely literary essence of this
transition. Once upon a time, literary scholars reduced the whole matter to a change of influences:
Byzantine influences were replaced by Western ones, Russian writers,
imitating the Byzantine ones, began to write according to the Western model. It seemed
It would be necessary to show how this Western “model” differed from
Byzantine, but this question has not been studied. Meanwhile, if he
was studied, it would become clear that a turning point in the literature cannot be
reduced only to a “change of influences” (although the very fact of strengthening in the 17th century.
Western influences cannot be doubted) that the matter lies in
a new understanding of the tasks of literature, in new methods of artistic
generalizations, in a different understanding of a person, plot, genre, etc.
The very nature of literary creativity is changing due to
significant changes in the attitude of writers to literature and to itself
reality.
The purpose of this chapter is to point out some of those purely literary
phenomena that indicate a new direction in development
Russian literature of the 17th century, to trace the influence of the turning point that took place
using just one example: the example of changes in the attitude of writers and
readers to the name of the person depicted.
If, without fear of the broadest generalizations, we combine into a single whole
extremely complex and constantly changing literary facts of all
the first seven centuries of the development of Russian literature and try to highlight in
all of them are different from the literature of modern times, then the first
and the most important difference falls on the very methods of artistic
generalizations."
I'll try to be brief. Ancient Russian literature, like everything else
truly artistic creativity, captivates and inspires knowledge
reality, contemporary to the writer or although a thing of the past,
but continues to excite minds, explaining the phenomena of our time. This
knowledge in Ancient Rus' was distinguished by extreme scrupulousness towards
individual historical facts, the desire to accurately follow external
given, although without truly reproducing the inner essence of these
Ancient Russian literature did not know an openly fictional hero. All
characters in Russian literary works from the 11th to the beginning of the 17th century
c. - historical or claiming to be historic: Boris and Gleb,
Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Igor Svyatoslavich, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry
Donskoy or Metropolitan Cyprian - all these are princes, saints, hierarchs
churches, people who existed, high in their position in society,
participants in major events in political or religious life. Writers
XI-XVI centuries looking for significant people for their works, significant
events - not in a literary, but in a purely historical sense.
They strive to write about real-life persons, events,
took place in a specific historical and geographical setting,
resort to reference to the testimony of contemporaries, to material
traces of the activities of their heroes. At the same time, everything is fantastic, wonderful
is thought of as objectively real, historically accomplished.
If there are fictitious persons in ancient Russian works, then
the ancient Russian writer seeks to assure his reader that
these faces were still there. Fiction - miracles, visions coming true
prophecies - the writer presents them as real facts, and he himself to a great extent
in most cases he believes in their reality.
Literature has difficulty recognizing clearly fictitious translated characters
works - characters in parables and allegories or Stefanite and
Ihnilata in the same name
"The experience of identifying the characteristic features of the literary process of the 197th centuries.
made by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz in the “Conclusion” to the second part of volume 2
“History of Russian Literature” (M.; Leningrad, 1948. pp. 430-431, 436-437). Cm.
also: Likhachev D.S. Seventeenth century in Russian literature, // XVII century
in world literary development. M., 1969. G. 299-328.
tell them stories. However, it is significant that, allowing the parable to be translated
works, Russian literature does not create its own original
parables, and translated parables seek to introduce them into a historical setting.
Russian authors love to present moral teachings to their readers in a direct manner.
form, without resorting to allegory and fiction.
Despite the historicity of each name of a literary hero, literature
depicted not only isolated facts. In each of the depicted
historical figures, the authors tried to embody the ideals of the era
(directly, positively or indirectly, negatively), that is
everything that was considered absolutely good or especially negative in
this era. Therefore, in the images of Alexander Nevsky or Mercury
Smolensky’s authors depicted not so much those features that were
characteristic of these real persons (although real features are mostly or
at least present in them), how many of those qualities,
which they should have as representatives of a certain
social group or a certain category of saints (martyr saint,
warrior saint, ascetic saint, etc.). Medieval historicism requires
idealization (in the broad sense of the word), and it is in this idealization and
an artistic generalization of the Middle Ages is revealed. Old Russian
the writer in his historical heroes strives to portray the true
prince, a true saint and even a true enemy of the Russian land,
true villain, etc. Artistic generalization in ancient Russian
literature is therefore normative in nature, and this
the circumstance, as we see, is closely connected with her
medieval historicism.
To one degree or another, the assessment of the actor was always present in
work - an unveiled, direct assessment, expressed by the author.
These assessments, present in lives, and in teaching literature, and in
historical literature, brought literature closer to journalism.
The image of a person appeared not only in his actions, in his actions, but
and in the direct description that the author gave him in his
work.
Unfortunately, Old Russian writing did not know compositions specifically
dedicated to literary creativity, in which all these principles were
would be systematically presented. In ancient Russian literature there are
only random slips of writers about the tasks of their work.
Statements about art in general in Ancient
There are more Russians, and they are very helpful in understanding the principles of literary
creativity of the XI-XVI centuries. Extremely devoted to these statements
valuable article by Yu. N. Dmitriev ". From the materials of the article by Yu. N. Dmitriev
it is clearly visible that art in Ancient Rus' had requirements
accurate depiction of reality. But from here it would be wrong
conclude that he was given demands for a realistic depiction
reality. Meanwhile, this is precisely the conclusion drawn from the materials
the so-called Small Collection, the author of a rare brochure published in
Kazan in 1917, Vl. Sokolov2- Differences between medieval
historicism to realism are primarily determined by the difference in understanding
reality itself and the difference in the writer’s understanding of his tasks.
Hence, completely different methods in reproducing this
reality. In the XI-XVI centuries. there is, for example, no idea about
individual and unique psychology, limited ideas about
the inner life of a person and there is no concept of character. From here
external, visual, description of a person. Hence the amazing
the confidence of the compilers of iconographic originals that the similarity
images with reality can be conveyed in words by listing it
external signs:
“brada of Basil of Caesarea, or in short” or “brada for two
swung", "riza hook", "Dorimedont young, like George", "Feodosia
the tsar sits like Vladimir, in short, Vladimirovich, etc.
From the point of view of the compilers of iconographic originals, everything in the world
repeatable, and therefore a person is a combination of qualities,
which can be listed, reproduced by pointing to other known
samples, just as the architectural structure was adopted
create “from a sample” of existing ones3.
Signs by which a particular person is identified, taken together
form a kind of ideogram. Event of sacred history or
the life of the saint is reproduced
1 Dmitriev Yu. N. Theory of art and views on art in
writings of ancient Rus'. C TODRL. T. IX, 1953.
2 Sokolov V l. Realism in Old Russian icon painting C Readings in the Church
Historical and Archaeological Society of the Kazan Diocese. Vol. 1-3. 1917.
"Voronin N.N. Essays on the history of Russian architecture of the XVIXVI! centuries. M.;
L., 1934. P. 73; Voronin N. N. Architectural monument as historical
source // Soviet archeology. 1954, vol. XIX. pp. 62-63.111
were carried out according to the “signs”: with exact observance of all details, about
which the text mentioned. Hence the concern for the immutability of types,
compositions, the desire to codify texts and iconographic originals,
what was seen as a guarantee of their historical authenticity, by no means
as we see, not of the realistic type.
It is not difficult to see that artistic generalization was in the grip
immutable rule - to depict only historical, realistic
existing persons and events. Medieval historicism demanded
images of only historically significant events in life historically
a significant person. At the same time, everything household was excluded as small and
unworthy of attention. The character could not be generalized to
true typicality, since the artist could only talk about those
significant facts that were in full view of his contemporaries, and
only on their basis to idealize the image he created. I was embarrassed
normative system of artistic generalization.
Of course, during the six centuries of its dominance in literature, the medieval
Historicism has undergone significant changes. Historical names
"Russian Chronograph" are documentary to a different extent than historical
names of the Novgorod first chronicle. Different attitudes towards historical
the names of the characters in the “Degree Book” and in the “Kazan History”, in
military story of the XII-XIII centuries. and in the legend of the 16th century. Relation to names
The characters vary across centuries and genres. In this task
This chapter does not, however, include a discussion of this issue. Chapter Topic
forces us to look back to the last decades of dominance
medieval historicism, when the monumental historicism of previous
centuries, certain elements of historicism are finally becoming a thing of the past
begin to give way to new ways of artistic vision
reality, free from documentation.
In the context of the anti-feudal movements of the “rebellious” 17th century, the growth
public consciousness of the democratic strata of the Russian population and
entry into literature of new, democratic writers and huge
masses of new, democratic readers, literature is moving quickly
forward and strives to free itself from the former constraint of historical
themes, and primarily the historical name of the literary hero.
Medieval historicism was, however, very strong; it seemed
unshakable, weighed heavily on all artistic
worldview of the people of the era of feudalism, and the departure from it was extremely
difficult, was accomplished slowly, came as if from below - from the working masses
people and their art. Before being openly admitted into
literature and artistic fiction penetrated into it through various roundabout
ways, inventively justified his appearance in literary
works with more and more new artistic techniques. Below we
Let us show some of the techniques that were gradually introduced into
literature fictitious names of literary heroes who replaced
historical.
Sharp division of literature in the 17th century. on the literature of the feudal elite
and democratic literature, the emergence of democratic satire,
exposing the negative phenomena of the social system of the 17th century, were
events of extreme importance that entailed the development of new,
ever more advanced forms of artistic generalization.
As literature became more and more democratized,
in literary works the average ordinary appears more and more often
a person, an “everyday personality” is by no means a historical figure. Clear,
that the “historical” name of the character no longer corresponded
tasks of this democratic literature. A new literary
the hero is unknown, has nothing in the historical life of the country
remarkable, attracting attention only because the reader could
recognizing many people in him, including sometimes himself, is interesting,
in other words, by its characteristic character for the era. His position on
the ladder of feudal relations does not determine the way it is depicted.
Often he does not occupy a certain social position at all: then
this is a merchant’s son who has abandoned his parents’ occupations (Savva
Grudtsyn, a fine fellow in “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”, a merchant in “The Tale of
merchant who bought a dead body"), then this is dissatisfied with his position
a choirboy (in “Poem about the life of the patriarchal singers”), then a drunken monk, etc.
d. It is by no means accidental that a huge
the number of losers or, on the contrary, heroes who, as they say,
lucky, dodgers like Frol Skobeev, or noble seekers
adventures, like Eruslan Lazarevich. These people become sons-in-law
boyars, they easily marry the king’s daughters and receive them as a dowry
half the kingdom, they may find themselves on a desert island, moving
from state to state. History doesn't concern them. Neither the author nor
the reader is not interested in where they live and in what historical
situation there are all these countless deaths, wars, kidnappings,
actions of robbers, etc.
These changes in the literature seem to coincide in time with
similar changes in folklore, and even more likely, to a certain extent
they go after the last ones. We know very little folklore of the 17th century, and therefore
this question cannot yet be fully investigated, but some
signs convince us that in the 17th century. such
namely folklore genres, in which the undivided dominance of historicism
could no longer take place: a lyrical (and at the same time not ritual) song and
fairy tale.
The fact that the departure from historicism, as we will see,
outlined primarily in the democratic literature of the 17th century, inspires
confidence that oral folk art really played a role
here the leading role. Using an example related to the names of characters
literature borrowed from proverbs, we will see this below
finally.
There is no doubt, however, that folklore only facilitated the process that
inevitably had to happen with the advent of literature
democratic segments of the population. With the advent of acting in literature
persons of average or low social status, in which the names
the characters could not be widely known or were quickly forgotten,
The line between a historical name and a fictitious one blurred by itself.
The historical name gradually lost its
“documentary”-historical meaning began to be perceived
by readers as fictional. This process was closely related to the development
in fictional literature in general. The more fictional episodes penetrated
into a literary work, the more its historical
character, the more easily the historical meaning of the hero’s name was lost,
even if it was.
Let's look at some examples. “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”, which with reservations
can be called the first Russian novel, still retains the appearance
historical truth. The action takes place in precisely defined years,
The places of events are precisely indicated, and Savva himself is told where he was from
family and that his generation “to this day in that city
attracted." Similar information in the stories about Karp is less historical.
Sutulov and Frol Skobeev. It is characteristic that in all the stories
only the appearance of historicity is preserved. "Historicity" in stories about
Savva Grudtsyna, Karp Sutulov and Frol Skobeev, apparently, have already
just a peculiar technique. In any case, due to historical
the insignificance of the characters in these stories and those depicted in them
events they could not be filled with the content that was
characteristic of the heyday of medieval historicism, when the most
the choice of plot was dictated by its historical significance. No doubt,
for example, that of all the characters in “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn” for
its author, had he lived a century earlier, the main thing would have been that
occupies the highest social position: rather boyar B.M.
Shein than his subordinate Savva, and the basis of the plot would be
historical events, and not events in Savva’s personal life.
Researchers of these stories, out of habit developed in classical
monuments of ancient Russian literature, did not doubt the historical
reliability of the text instructions, making the appropriate
genealogical research. Around the genealogy of Savva Grudtsyn
even a heated debate flared up", forcing one to think about
stencils not only of the most ancient Russian literature, but also caused by
their research.
So, the historical name of the hero became a clear obstacle in the development
literature, in its movement towards realistic fiction. Writers of the 17th century
strive to get rid of the historical name of the character, however
overcome the centuries-old belief that in literary
the work is only interested in what is genuine, what really happened and
historically significant, it was not so easy. It was even more difficult
take the path of open fiction. And so it begins in literature
a long streak of searching for a way out of a difficult situation, searching,
which ultimately led to the creation of an imaginary hero
literature of modern times, a hero with a fictitious name, with a fictitious
biography. This is an average, non-historical, “everyday” person, about whom
maybe
"Baklanova N.A. On the issue of dating “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”, / I
TODRL. T. IX; K a l a c h e v a S. V. Once again about the dating of “The Tale of
Savva Gruyatsyn." // TODRL. M., T. XI. 1955.
but it was possible to write everything, obeying only the internal logic of the image itself,
recreating this image in its most typical positions. About him
there was no longer any need to reason from the outside, publicly recommending it
to the reader by no means with figurative characteristics.
One of the most significant transitional phenomena was the emergence
anonymity of the characters. A whole period begins in literature,
when the heroes of many literary works, mainly
who came from a democratic environment turned out to be nameless individuals -
individuals who are called in works simply “well done” or
“poor”, “rich”, “naked and poor man”, “hawk moth”,
“peasant son”, “maiden”, “certain merchant”, “jealous men”,
“spevaks”, etc. Nameless heroes act in such works as
like “Shemyakin Court”, “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”, “The ABC of Naked and
a poor man", "The Tale of Hawk Moth", "The Tale of a Young Man and
girl”, “The Tale of the Merchant Who Found a Dead Body”, “Poem about Life
patriarchal singers" and in many others.
The namelessness of the hero in itself meant that a discovery had occurred
new, completely different than before, ways of artistic generalization.
At the same time, the hero’s namelessness, in turn, made the path easier
fiction, the path to creating typical, not at all idealized
images
Another important transitional form to artistic fiction, often
combined with the anonymity of the characters, appeared so
widespread in the 17th century. parody. The point is that in fiction
the medieval reader was frightened by lies; everything that is not “historical”, that is not
It was in reality a deception, and deception was from the devil. But it's open
a recognized fiction is not a lie, especially if this fiction is covered up
as a joke. This is where the possibility of fiction in parody comes from as one of
transitional forms to new principles of artistic generalization. Together with
the parody gave vent to popular dissatisfaction not with individual
historical figures, but the social structure itself. She allowed widely
generalize life phenomena, which was especially needed in opposition
determined representatives of the settlement and the peasantry.
The fact that the parody served in the 17th century. means of generalization
precisely phenomena snatched from the very
the thick of life, can be seen at least from the fact that the objects of parodies were
not literary genres, but business documents: paintings about
dowry", ABCs 2, petitions 3, medical books 4, court cases w",
road workers6, church service 7, etc. They were ridiculed, therefore,
life phenomena as such, and not literary forms.
Along with parody, parody also served as a means of typifying life phenomena.
another form of “open lie” is fables that penetrated literature under
influence of folk art. The fable stated as usual that
was just unusual in life, and thereby emphasized
abnormality of the usual state of affairs. Among such fables in
literature includes “The Tale of Luxurious Living and Fun.” Hero and
here the nameless one is a certain “kind and honest nobleman,” but he himself is not
plays a special role in the work. Most likely, the hero of the story is
the reader himself, whose poverty is exposed to those addressed to him
an invitation to go and enjoy the “there” in a fictional country
peace and fun." “And whoever deigns to see such joys and coolness there,
joy and fun to go, and take with you vats and teapots, and with
vats, barrels and barrels, ladles and ladles, brothers and brothers,
dishes and saucers, bowls and bowls, spoons and spoons, glasses and
glasses, cups, knives, knives and forks, blades and clubs, sticks, poles
and stakes, lumber, birthing, shafts and stones, throwing and breaking, sabers and
swords and horzas, bows, sideks and arrows, reeds, arquebuses and pistols,
self-propelled guns, rifles and brooms - it would be something to keep flies away
| “Painting about the dowry of the evil groom.”
2 “ABC about a naked and poor man”, “ABC about hops”, “ABC book
about a beautiful maiden."
3 "Kalyazin petition". Petitioners are parodied in “The Tale of Ruff”
and etc.
4 “Treatment book for foreigners.”
5 In addition to “The Tale of Ruff” - “The Tale of Shemyakin’s Court”.
6 “The Tale of Luxurious Living and Fun.”
7 “Service to the Tavern”, “The Tale of a Peasant Son”. The only thing
possible exception: “As a literary parody, perhaps (discharge
my d. L.), one should consider the mysterious, conventionally called
publisher of "The Tale of the Young Man, the Horse and the Saber", preserved in an excerpt in
manuscripts from the Pogodin collection, b 1773. Hyperbolic description of the horse and
weapons of the “good fellow” may parody those that came into fashion in the 17th
V. adventure novels-fairy tales such as “Bova of the Prince”, “Eruslana”
Lazarevich" (see: Adrianova-Peretz V.P. Russian Democratic
satire of the 17th century. M.; L., 1954. P. 169, note).
fan yourself." Then the legend gives a comic route "before that
fun" and reports about the fees that are taken from the traveler: "from the arc
one horse at a time, a person at a time, and a person at a time for all the baggage trains.”2
The literary work here seems to be entirely addressed to the
the reader, reminding him of his poverty and making him look funny
a pipe dream of a happy and prosperous life.
Along with parody and fables on the same rights in the literature of the 17th century. from
Animal epic permeates folklore. This is the same frankly admitted
fiction, about which the reader is, as it were, warned in advance, the same
transitional and typical for literature of the 17th century. phenomenon.
From this point of view, one of the most interesting attempts of the late 16th century -
beginning of the 17th century break out of the confines of the constraining medieval
“historicism” - the famous “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich” 3.
Before us is the transfer of a folk animal epic into literature. Author
story, trying to depict the judicial order and people of modest
provisions, transferred the action of his work to the world of fish -
inhabitants of Russian rivers and lakes. He doesn't seem to dare to do anything else
their very ordinary heroes are people of low position, deprived
"historical" names. Without a name, but not a person either; or name - obviously
fictional, “fish”: Ruff Ershovich, Beluga Yaroslavl, Salmon
Pereyaslavskaya, boyar and voivode Sturgeon of the Khvalynsk Sea,
Pike-trembling, Bream with comrades, etc. In these obviously fantastic
names, one senses a transitional phenomenon. But this is already a transitional phenomenon
gave a new type of generalization. Showing people in animal forms allowed
endow them with characteristics common in animal epic and not yet
have become common in writing. The same phenomenon can be noted
in another work - in “The Tale of the Chicken and the Fox.”
“The Tale of Ruff” is notable for one more feature:
| Adrianova-Peretz V.P. Russian democratic satire of the 17th century. WITH.
41-42. In literary terms, this combination of ordinary
names of items used for food and those derived from them
diminutives, as if emphasizing the need to be “fully armed”
enjoy the dishes - eating a lot and at the same time savoring small ones
in pieces. An unexpected move to arms against sweet food addicts
flies emphasizes the mocking nature of the list. "Oslops" and "clubs"
as if they were not intended for flies, for which they are, of course, too
great, but for the stupidest reader.
2 Ibid. P. 42.
3 Baklanova N.A. On the dating of “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich” C TODRL. T. X.
1954.
typical of literature that has transcended its limitations
artistic generalizations of the Middle Ages. It contains an artistic generalization
achieved through a parody of the trial. And in this too
there is a noticeable desire for “fiction without deception”, for fiction warned,
previously declared. The author does not seem to want to deceive. He just
jokes around and breaks down.
Parodying legal proceedings allowed the author of the story to give direct
characteristics of Ersha and other characters, artistically
justified by the very form of judicial petitions, testimony and decisions. These
direct characteristics were no longer given on behalf of the author, as before, but from
faces of witnesses and judges - the characters in the story.
These characteristics turned out to be purely secular, which was
important moment in the secularization of literature.
In “The Tale of Ruff” (as in “The Tale of Shemyakin’s Court”) one cannot help but
note the important role of the court in developing new ideas about a person:
an extremely interesting phenomenon, quite comparable with the role of zemstvo
cathedrals of the early 17th century, in the emergence of new ideas about the character
major historical figures."
No matter how successful the solution to the problem of artistic generalization in
“The Tale of Ersha Ershovich”, nevertheless, a method of generalization open here, how
and the method of generalization in parody and fable could not be a common way
literature. This was a special case. Moreover, in “The Tale of Ruff” it is clear
the old connection with “historicism” was felt: the story gave
surprisingly “accurate” information about Ruff - where he comes from, about his
possessions with “accurate” references to real geographical names, with
numbers and calculations - in the absence of truly historical persons and
historical events in their former significance for literature.
The phenomena of literary style are closely related to each other. WITH
changing one artistic principle changes all the others -
if not in its essence, then in its function. So it is in “The Tale of Ruff”
Ershovich." In fact, it alone could show most
changes that took place in democratic literature on the verge
XVI and XVII centuries in connection with the departure of literature from historical themes and
historical
I See about this in Chapter 1, “The Problem of Character in Historical
works of the early 17th century."
the Chinese name of a literary hero. One thing will happen to us now
particularly interested. The story told about the adventures of Ruff, about his
tricks. Ruff is a hero similar in meaning to
historical-literary trial on Lazarillo from Tormes. By his side
reader sympathy. The reader was delighted with his pranks.
What are the personal adventures of the hero (Ruff, Savva Grudtsyn, the fellow from
“The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”, Frol Skobeev, etc.) from the point of view
development of methods of artistic generalization in the 17th century? Adventures,
if only they come in a whole chain, successful for the hero, or, on the contrary,
unsuccessful for him, reveal the fate of life to the reader
hero. Ideas about the fate of the character invariably went alongside
developing ideas about his character. Why was it so difficult
have yet to explain precisely, but apparently the understanding of human
character in the 17th century. was peculiar and has not yet separated from
ideas about fate.
As the human personality becomes more emancipated, the very ideas about
fate underwent strong changes.
A study of popular ideas about “fate-share” shows that
ideas of the clan society about the common clan, innate destiny,
which arose in connection with the cult of ancestors, are subsequently replaced by the idea
personal fate, fate individually inherent in this or that person,
fate not innate, but as if inspired from the outside, in character
which the bearer himself is to blame for.
In Russian book literature of the previous time (XIXVI centuries) were reflected
advantageously remnants of the ideas of innate destiny, the destiny of the race. This
the generic idea of fate was rarely personified, rarely
acquired individual contours. These ideas about ancestral fate
served as a means of artistic generalization in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
“The Word” characterizes the grandchildren of their grandfather. Image of many grandchildren
embodied in one grandfather. Olgovichi are characterized through Oleg
Gorislavich, Polotsk Vseslavichs through Vseslav of Polotsk. It was
a technique that was simple and understandable to contemporaries, but caused confusion
researchers of the Lay in the 19th and 20th centuries, who suggested in the passage
“Words” about Vseslav of Polotsk randomly inserts a “song about Vseslav”, and in
the attention paid by the author of the Lay to Oleg Gorislavich -
its conditionality due to some special sympathies of the author of the Lay for
Chernigov Olgovichs. In fact, the author of the Lay resorted to
image
the study of ancestors to characterize the princes - their descendants; and
to characterize their common fate -
their "restlessness".
In the 17th century with the development of individualism, the fate of man turns out to be his
personal destiny. The fate of man is now perceived as something
inspired from the outside, “sticking” to a person, like his second being and
often separated from the person himself, personified. This
personification occurs when an internal conflict in a person
- the conflict between passion and reason reaches its highest strength. Fate
is by no means innate to man. That is why in “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”
Savva's fate appears before him in the form of a demon tempting him to
various detrimental actions for him. Demon in “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”
appears suddenly, as if growing out of the ground when Savva
ceases to control himself when he is completely, contrary to reason,
passion takes over. Savva carries “great sorrow” within himself, with it he
“thin your flesh,” he cannot overcome the passion that attracts him. Demon
- the product of his own desire, he appears just at that
the moment when Savva thought:
“...if only I could have intercourse with her wife, I would have served
to the devil."
The demon takes from Savva the “handwriting” (“fortress”), symbolizing
the hero's enslavement to his fate.
In “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” the fate of the young man is embodied in the image of Grief,
haunting him relentlessly. Born of nightmares, grief is soon
then appears before the fellow in reality, at the moment when the fellow,
Driven to despair by poverty and hunger, he tries to drown himself in the river.
It requires the young man to bow down to the “damp earth” and from this
for minutes he relentlessly follows the young man. Grief is shown as a creature
living its own special life, like a powerful force that has “become too wise”
people who are both “wiser” and “more idle” than the young man. Well done fighting with himself
but cannot overcome his own lack of will and his own passions, and
this feeling of being driven by something extraneous, contrary to the voice of reason,
gives birth to Grief. To get rid of grief, to be freed from the demon is possible only with
through divine intervention. Saves a young man from grief
monastery, Savva Grudtsyn - a miracle that happened to him in the church.
The desire to broadly generalize life phenomena, and, moreover, completely
in a new way, not as before, makes “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” one
one of the most interesting
phenomena of Russian literature of the 17th century. Having discovered the artistic method
generalizations of a new type, the author strives to take full advantage of his
discovery and provide a generalization of unprecedented scope. Biography
the nameless young man is portrayed as a typical example of a bleak life
of the entire human race, and the image of Grief becomes the image of the human
fate in general. That is why the story begins literally from Adam -
the ancestor of all humanity." The homely life of a homely hero
is perceived as human life in general.
in the work this time there is not a single proper name at all, nor
one mention of cities or rivers familiar to Russian people; V
in the story one cannot find a single, even indirect, hint of
any historical circumstances that would allow
determine its duration. Everything here is summarized and summarized to
extreme limits, focused on one thing: on the fate of the young man, his
internal, psychological drama, on his character. At the same time the story
does not shy away from descriptions of everyday life, mainly the lowest, tavern life.
Before us is the complete opposite of what the old literary
tradition: there is a single “historical” hero, here - the whole
the human race, generalized in an unknown fellow;
there - representatives of the very top of feudal society, here - a hero
from its lower classes, a nameless fellow, wandering without a goal or occupation in
“Gunka tavern”, in whose ears “robbery is noisy”; there - ignoring
everyday life, here is a purely everyday environment, although depicted only
hints; there - abstraction, here - concreteness, complex, internal
life of a hero.
“The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” is not an isolated phenomenon in the field of such
kind of generalizations. Close to “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” is “The ABC of
naked and poor man", where almost the same hero, but only without
the grief that haunts him.
The anonymity of the character opened up opportunities for the broadest
generalizations. The authors try to make generalizations on a global scale (this
clearly seen from the "Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune"), although in fact they reach
| In this case, the relic that we noted above still remains.
medieval technique of characterizing descendants according to their ancestor.
©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-13
One of the simplified life schemes is something like a computer game with alternative variations of the outcome of events: the hero faces a choice, we make a decision for him and see what happens next. That is, life is a quest, a space of choice. And sometimes the choice that this or that person makes entails completely unexpected consequences. The heroes of the books in our selection today burned out in the most offensive way - they turned into the wrong corridor, met the wrong person, chose the wrong job, or were born in the wrong century.
Vladimir Nabokov "King, Queen, Jack"
It happens:
Young provincial Franz arrives in Berlin, where he is promised a place in the store of his uncle, whose name is Kurt. Kurt is married to a woman named Martha, who married him for his money and is completely cold towards him. Very soon the wife begins an affair with a young man and plans to kill her husband.
The flame burns out:
In this case, it is worth talking not so much about the wrong choice, but about the lack of choice at all. It all started not at the moment when Martha got along with Franz and decided to get rid of her husband - here you need to rewind the film 7 years ago, when Martha was persuaded into marriage by her parents. Here, of course, nothing surprising or symbolic happened either: the bankrupt merchants married their daughter to a promising and fabulously wealthy businessman; no one was particularly interested in her opinion. And Martha seemed to have made a choice, calculating the groom’s capital, and it seems that it can be called incorrect. But if you trace the dynamics of the development of feelings of hatred towards your husband, then preparation for the wedding will be the starting point. If only because before encroaching on someone else’s wallet, you first need to examine the character of its owner.
A weak will also became a fatal flaw for Franz: neither the heroes nor the reader perceive him as a living, thinking creature - he is rather associated with the walking dolls that Kurt sells. This weakness leads Franz to another erroneous conclusion - and he begins to secretly hate Martha, who completely subjugated the young man to her will.
If we draw an analogy with a card game, we can say that Martha lost the game by betting on the wrong card - making Franz a murder weapon, she did not calculate the possible circumstances. For example, the simple fact that her husband would not sit and wait for his own death. Or a fairly common plot twist - the unpretentiousness and absolutely random nature of fate. Let's add a little metaphor: just because you're good at poker doesn't mean you don't need luck anymore.
Guy de Maupassant "Life"
It happens:
Zhanna returns with her parents from the monastery to the Topol estate, where a wave of dramas and misfortunes awaits her. A story about a woman's hard life in the French style.
The flame burns out:
Continuing the theme of ill-conceived marriage. Zhanna married the wrong guy - and now he is cheating on her with a maid (who, in addition to everything, is her sister), the heroine herself almost dies of a fever, her husband is killed by a jealous count, with whose wife the unlucky lover had fun in the evenings... I would like to imagine Zhanna with the face of Natalia Oreiro and launch a Latin American series based on the novel.
Things only get worse from there. You married the wrong guy, friend. Of course, from the position of emancipated women of the 21st century, it is easy for us to judge the naivety of a girl who did not know how her wedding night would end. But still, the obvious facts are clear: even at that time, a girl was not obliged to immediately give a positive response to a marriage proposal. Jeanne's story is quite banal: the girl believed that she loved Julien, her future husband, so she agreed to marry him without much hesitation. And only some time after the wedding I discovered that he turned out to be a petty and cowardly person. At the same time, it would also be wrong to accuse Zhanna of lack of insight - alas, we cannot assume what life has in store for us. This is probably why Maupassant’s novel is titled so simply, but quite understandably. You live for yourself, live, marry a scumbag, give birth to a child from him. The husband dies, and the son starts an affair with a prostitute, who then, of course, also dies, but leaves her granddaughter. It’s both sad and not entirely hopeless, but all together – very vital.
Stephen Fry "How to Make History"
It happens:
A fantasy novel by Stephen Fry, who had never written science fiction novels before, but gave a head start to any writer in this genre. Cambridge graduate student Michael Young, along with Professor Leo Zuckerman, makes a fatal attempt to change the course of history by erasing Adolf Hitler from the face of the earth. The synopsis sounds like an anecdote, but Fry's novel is a social satire, a fantastic plot and a philosophical reflection.
The flame burns out:
In some ridiculous way, Michael Young decides that if you destroy one person, then only one thing will change in the world - in fact, one contraceptive pill changes the whole world. Stephen Fry invites the reader to find himself in an alternative universe where there is no Hitler. But here an interesting philosophy of the work emerges: the absence of Hitler does not mean the absence of Nazism. Fry shows that it could be worse: Germany took a different path, there were no concentration camps, but the genocide and the Second World War did not disappear along with the leader of Nazism - there was simply another person in his place.
The idea that man alone cannot change history is as old as science fiction itself. Here it is worth considering the motives of the main characters: Michael was inspired by the idea of changing the present through the past, because life seemed boring and meaningless to him, and Leo was haunted by guilt for his Nazi father. The wrong solution is to get rid of pressing problems by shifting them to global events. Why did Michael decide that the feeling of uncertainty would go away with Hitler? Why did Leo decide that his father would be a good, decent man if he destroyed Nazism (as it seemed to him then)? In any case, time will take its toll, and all events of the present are consequences of the past that are better not to change. You can change history - but only the history of the future, because in any case it cannot be turned to your advantage.
Fyodor Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"
It happens:
Dostoevsky's most popular work is a novel about the commoner hero Rodion Raskolnikov, who falls into a state of frustration and believes that he has the right. Crime and Punishment is mostly known for the scene with the murder of the old pawnbroker with an ax.
The flame burns out:
“Crime and Punishment” appears as a separate world, where each hero is what he chooses. Raskolnikov chooses despair in this world, so his every action ends in this very state. The theory he developed - about creatures trembling and having the right, about his identity with Napoleon - projecting his own fears and escaping from them. In fact, Raskolnikov's theory turned out to be completely unviable. Moreover, the hero was not even able to move from plan to action - the murder of the old pawnbroker cannot be called a fully conscious act, especially considering the consequences this crime brought.
What saves Raskolnikov is that he finally came to the realization of his mistake, unlike other heroes. For example, Luzhin, who can be seen as an example of how a person once makes the wrong choice and does not repent of it. His position is not as pathetic as that of a young man lost in life - with Luzhin everything is decorous, but not noble. The theories of the double characters are somewhat similar: both Raskolnikov and Luzhin put themselves above other people almost by birthright, but Luzhin has arguments from the “first achieve it” series. The thesis is this: you need to marry a poor, suffering girl, so that she will bow to her wealthy husband in the future. Quite cynical, at the same time not devoid of logic, but ultimately disgusting. Luzhin is an exaggerated image of Raskolnikov, a man who was not surrounded by good people or did not consider them necessary. Why do you need goodness if it cannot be monetized? Raskolnikov succumbed to this wave of cruelty for some time, but his weak nature in any case would not have endured such a burden of guilt as Luzhin carries on his shoulders. Therefore, the demons tormented him a little, but ultimately released him. And yet, knowing about the general stupidity of the choice of the main character, you somehow humanly sympathize with him, feel sorry for him, feel a little like Sonechka - all-forgiving and understanding.
Gustave Flaubert "Madame Bovary"
It happens:
The main character of the novel is Emma Bovary, a doctor's wife who lives beyond her means and starts extramarital affairs in the hope of getting rid of the emptiness and ordinariness of provincial life.
The flame burns out:
Flaubert's novel "Madame Bovary" is similar to Maupassant's "Life": in both works the main character thought that she had finally found simple female happiness, but in fact she received onion grief. There is no plagiarism here: Maupassant considered himself a student of Flaubert, and, by the way, Flaubert was really looking forward to the publication of the novel “Life”, but did not live to see it for just a couple of years.
The life of Emma Bovary - a look at an unhappy marriage from a different angle. If Maupassant's sufferer took upon herself all the hardships of family life with an unloved and unloving husband, then Emma actively struggled with the feeling of hopelessness. True, not entirely correct methods from the point of view of public morality. Charles, her husband, of course, was a spiritually weak man, but Emma, perhaps, belittled him too cruelly. The heroine found herself in a very life-like situation: disappointment after marriage, an attempt to fix everything with a series of infidelities almost in her own bedroom, shopaholism, debts and, ultimately, a dramatic outcome. That is, instead of improving relations with her husband or finding some useful activity for herself, Emma chose to distract herself from sad thoughts. “I’ll think about it tomorrow” is the eternal mistake of those who like to suffer because of problems without doing anything to prevent these problems from happening.
Literary heroes don't like to work. They love to either idle or create, but most of all they love to get into all sorts of troubles, fall in love and travel. But to work monotonously; doing the very work that provides food - no, this is not for a literary hero. Moreover, I would say that often the reluctance of a literary hero to work receives an ideological justification in literature, and is elevated to a principle by the literary hero. Let's see how this happens.
I’ll start, perhaps, with Nils Holgersson from Selma Lagerlöf’s fairy tale. Nils, as noted, is an extremely lazy boy, plus he is also a very bad, angry boy, for which he was bewitched by the brownie and turned into a midget. And so, as fate would have it, Nils sets off on a journey in the same harness with the wild geese. What does this now very little boy dream about:
“Before falling asleep, he dreamed: if the geese took him with them, he would immediately get rid of eternal reproaches for his laziness. Then you’ll be able to kick ass all day long, with no worries – except maybe about food. But he needs so little these days!
Nils mentally painted wonderful pictures for himself. What won't he see? What kind of adventures will befall him! It’s not like at home, where you just have to work and strain yourself.
“If only I could fly with the wild geese, I wouldn’t be the least bit sad that I was bewitched,” thought the boy.
Now Nils was afraid of only one thing: that he might be sent home.” (Selma Lagerlöf. “The Amazing Journey of Nils Holgersson with Wild Geese in Sweden.” III. in the park of Evedskloster Castle).
“I sent a messenger to the brownie who bewitched you, with instructions to tell him how nobly you behaved with us. At first, the brownie didn’t even want to hear about lifting the spell from you, but I sent messenger after messenger, and he changed his anger to mercy. The brownie asked me to tell you: come home and you will become a human again.
How happy the boy was when the wild goose began her speech! But as she spoke, his joy faded. Without saying a word, he turned away and cried bitterly.
- What is it? – Akka asked. “It seems you expected an even greater reward from me?”
And the boy thought about carefree days, about fun, about free life, about adventures and travels high, high above the earth. He won't see them again!
- I don’t want to be human! he whined. – I want to fly with you to Lapland.
“I’m warning you,” said Akka, “this brownie is very capricious.” I'm afraid if you don't come home now, it will be difficult to beg him again.
This boy was bad after all! Everything he did at home seemed simply boring to him!” (ibid.).
Anything, just not home, just not to study, just not to “wherever you know, work, work hard.” And “I don’t want to be a man,” of course, should be read - I don’t want to study and work, I want to be a free bird. Every person dreams of flying, and Nils succeeds in the most literal sense of the word. Naturally, the impression of the flight is incomparable. Only the one who flies lives. True, literary heroes are masters of not only soaring to the skies, but also falling into the darkest abysses.
But even here, it’s better to fall into the abyss than to simply, as befits a normal person, maintain one’s existence. A striking illustration in this regard is provided by a comparison of two heroes of Crime and Punishment - Raskolnikov and Razumikhin. Both of these young men were faced with the most unpleasant side of life in St. Petersburg. There is no money, there are no special prospects, they were both “asked” from the institute. How do they behave in these difficult circumstances? Raskolnikov has completely lost heart, lies in his little coffin room and indulges in the darkest thoughts, which will ultimately lead him to murder “according to theory.” Well, as are the thoughts, so are the theories... And what about Razumikhin?
“He was an unusually cheerful, sociable guy, kind to the point of simplicity. However, underneath this simplicity there was also depth and dignity. The best of his comrades understood this, everyone loved him. He was very intelligent, although indeed sometimes simple-minded... Razumikhin was also remarkable because no failures ever embarrassed him and no bad circumstances seemed to be able to crush him. He could even live on the roof, endure hellish hunger and extraordinary cold. He was very poor and, completely alone, supported himself, earning money by doing some work. He knew an abyss of sources from which he could draw, of course by earning money. Once he went a whole winter without heating his room at all and claimed that it was even more pleasant because he slept better in the cold. At present, he, too, was forced to leave the university, but not for long, and with all his might he hurried to improve the circumstances so that he could continue.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “Crime and Punishment”. Part 1. IV).
In general, we see that Razumikhin’s circumstances are very similar to Raskolnikov’s, but he behaves in these circumstances, by all accounts, an order of magnitude more worthy. And what? And the fact is that in the foreground of the novel we see precisely the “undeservable” Raskolnikov, who lies, does nothing, and fantasizes, and not the worthy, active and resilient Razumikhin. One can, of course, give more than one reason why this is so; in this case, we see that Raskolnikov prefers to sit idle altogether rather than simply survive; Razumikhin would not understand such a formulation of the question at all. How so? If you find yourself in difficult circumstances, move on and earn a penny. But Raskolnikov does not need pennies, as they say elsewhere in the novel, he needs “all capital.”
“What can you do with a penny? - he continued reluctantly, as if answering his own thoughts.
- Would you like all the capital at once?
He looked at her strangely.
“Yes, all the capital,” he answered firmly, after a pause.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “Crime and Punishment.” Part. 1. III).
All capital, and naturally in such a way that there is no need to “earn” this capital. Among Dostoevsky's heroes, the situation with Prince Myshkin is clearly indicative - in the sense of work, or rather, taking work “out of the brackets”. At the beginning of the novel, we see a man without a livelihood, and it is not very clear how he will obtain these funds, because the prince clearly does not have practicality. Then it suddenly turns out (during a conversation with General Epanchin) that the prince has abilities, and what is there - a real talent as a calligrapher.
"- Wow! Yes, what kind of subtleties do you go into,” the general laughed, “but you, father, are not just a calligrapher, you are an artist, huh?” Ganya?
“It’s amazing,” said Ganya, “and even with the consciousness of his purpose,” he added, laughing mockingly.
“Laugh, laugh, but this is a career,” said the general. “Do you know, Prince, to whom we will now give you papers to write?” Yes, you can just put thirty-five rubles a month, right from the first step.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “The Idiot.” Part 1. III).
Let us note that right away, even in the matter of earning money, we are faced with not just a supposed earner of livelihood, but an “artist” - this is extremely significant. But then everything becomes even more significant, because the prince is spared from this “creativity for the sake of earning money” thanks to the inheritance that fell on his head. Thirty-five rubles a month would be nice, but it’s all pennies, and it takes up time, but here – get capital right away, so you don’t have to think about your daily bread:
“It’s a sure thing,” Ptitsyn finally announced, folding the letter and handing it to the prince. “You receive, without any hassle, according to your aunt’s indisputable spiritual will, an extremely large capital.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “The Idiot.” Part 1. XVI).
That’s right, “without any hassle.” All sorts of troubles are simply “put out of the equation.” And now the prince can completely calmly idle around, that is, mainly engage in walking back and forth and keep abreast of all the events taking place. Cook in a cauldron of passions boiling around him. This is the case for a literary hero. (Footnote - Here is another example of “taking the work out of brackets”: “Having re-read what was written, I see that it may seem that I only lived then with the events of these three evenings, separated by intervals of several weeks. In fact, these were for me only random episodes of an eventful summer, and at that time, in any case, they occupied me incomparably less than my personal affairs).
First of all, I worked." (Fitzgerald F.S. “The Great Gatsby”. Chapter III). You see how it turns out: seemingly vital work evaporates from the pages of a literary work, and random episodes form the essence of the story). This very technique - “inheritance” or winning the lottery, in general, when a lot of money suddenly falls on the hero out of nowhere, of course, is used by more than one Dostoevsky. Let's remember the Master from Bulgakov's novel, he just won the lottery, which allowed him to sit down to write the novel. This decision itself is described by Bulgakov in a brilliantly laconic manner: “I quit my job at the museum and began writing a novel about Pontius Pilate.” (M.A. Bulgakov. “The Master and Margarita”. Part 1. Chapter 13). As if there could be no other solution other than to quit the service and do something really worthwhile. (Footnote: And here is an even more striking illustration from another book by Bulgakov: “Serve in the Shipping Company all your life? You’re laughing!
Every night I lay there, staring into the pitch darkness, and repeated - “this is terrible.” If you were to ask me, what do you remember about your time working at Shipping Company? - I would answer with a clear conscience - nothing.
Dirty galoshes on the hanger, someone’s wet hat with the longest ears on the hanger - and that’s all.” (M. A. Bulgakov. “Notes of a Dead Man.” Chapter 3).
Of course, we must take into account the difference between eras. Let’s say, in those days when the aristocracy still existed, it was natural that representatives of this class might not “work”... but, by the way, is the difference really that big from the point of view of literary heroes? Truly literary heroes are the same aristocracy of the spirit. What does the aristocracy actually do, what is its business? Love and war. Either they (aristocrats) are at war with someone, or they are in love with someone.
Moreover, it must be said that in any class a dilemma arises (or may arise) - “do business” or... something else, something not so prosaic. And this is also reflected in literature. The most typical example here, I think, is the story of the suffering of young Werther. What is Werther's main concern throughout this sad story? - His main concern is his love for Lotte. At the same time, by the will of fate, Werther had to work a little (we note, however, that the essence of his work is not described in any way - the work turns out to be unworthy of description) - his brief work epic is described at the beginning of the second book. And with whatever words Werther curses the situation in which he finds himself:
“And you are all to blame for this; because of your persuasion and ranting about the benefits of work, I was harnessed to this yoke! Work! Yes, the one who plants potatoes and transports grain to the city for sale does much more than me; if I’m wrong, I’m ready to work for another ten years on the galley to which I’m now chained.” (Goethe. “The Sorrows of Young Werther.” Book 2. December 24).
Here it is as if Werther is dissatisfied not only with the work itself, but with the aimlessness of his work. However, the Werthers are the Werthers to be dissatisfied with the work, no matter what it is. And, of course, one should not take words about potatoes and grain seriously, because Werther himself, of course, will not plant any potatoes. For him, even writing papers is a “galley”, what a potato.
“We’ve had disgusting weather for a week now, and that only makes me happy; Since I’ve been here, there hasn’t been a single fine day that someone hasn’t spoiled or poisoned me.” (ibid.)
Yes, this is work. This is the general order of things. Bad weather and poison. And of course, Werther would not have been able to stand it for long. And I couldn’t stand it. The reason for his resignation was a violation of secular decency, but this is all from the same opera aria. Because the most indecent thing is “not to serve”, not to work, not to occupy some place. That's how it was before, and that's how it is now. In this sense, not much has changed.
Let us remember the famous Famusov - “And, most importantly, go ahead and serve.” The main thing is exactly what is important. Chatsky’s answer is also characteristic: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” Very much in the spirit of Werther and essentially also incorrect. It’s unlikely, oh, Chatsky can hardly be happy about his service. And whatever service you offer him, he will almost certainly consider it “service.” No, it’s best to slam the door, shout “Give me a carriage, give me a carriage,” and drive away wherever you look.
And now I will turn to my favorite illustration on this topic, and this will be an illustration from Astrid Lindgren’s fairy tale “Roni, the Robber’s Daughter.” Nobody in this fairy tale works, Roni’s dad is engaged in robbery, and Roni is left to herself and spends her days on exciting walks in the forest, which, of course, cannot be compared with the boring school studies that could have awaited her if she hadn’t daughter of a robber. The children go to a prose school, and Roni goes to the poetic lake:
“Roni followed the path straight into the forest and eventually found herself on the shore of a forest lake. She can’t go any further, that’s what Mattis said. The black mirror of the lake was surrounded by dark pine trees, and only water lilies swayed on the water like white lights. Roni, of course, did not know that these were white lilies, but she looked at them for a long time and laughed quietly because they were there.
She spent the whole day by the lake and enjoyed everything as never before. She threw pine cones into the water for a long time and laughed with joy when she noticed that as soon as she splashed her feet in the water even a little, the cones floated away. She had never had so much fun. And her legs have never felt so free.” (Astrid Lindgren. “Roni, the daughter of a robber.” 2).
Well, it’s a big deal, many will say – children always like to play more than to study. But isn’t it just the same for adults who enjoy creating more than working? To some, such reasoning may seem infantile and naive, but their naivety lies mainly in the plane of arguments like: “But everyone can’t create, someone has to work.” The specificity of literature in this case is that here this argument is not at all founded, since there is no “everyone” in a literary work, and the writer has every right to focus specifically on those who play and create, and not study and work. So, returning to Roni, let us remember that her father’s occupation was not to her liking at all, and she, and then her friend-brother-lover Birk, swore that they would not be robbers when they grew up. But what will they do then, how will they get food for themselves? The solution to this difficult question is truly delightful: the old robber Bald Feather reveals a secret to Roni:
“And she told Birk the secret about the silver mountain, which the little gray dwarf showed to Bald Feather in gratitude for saving his life.
“He said there were silver nuggets the size of boulders there,” Roni said. “And who knows, maybe that’s how it is.” Bald Per swore that this was the truth. I know where this mountain is." (Astrid Lindgren. “Roni, the daughter of a robber.” 18).
That is, if you live not by robbery, then by nuggets, but certainly not by ordinary work - this thought does not even occur to anyone! There is no such idea on the agenda. All problems are again solved through one form or another of “inheritance” that falls on the literary hero’s head.
So, so far we have seen how literary heroes avoid work, preferring games, creativity or idleness. However, on occasion, they can work, in the sense of working hard. Let us remember Konstantin Levin. He certainly doesn’t shy away from work. Moreover, he mows along with the men. But here we almost immediately understand some dubiousness in considering this work of his as the normal work of a peasant. Konstantin Levin remains a gentleman who suddenly wanted to work - yes, unlike other bars, this is not a whim for him, and he really gets involved in work, he really works on an equal basis with the men. But he remains a master at the same time. It is enough to turn to the origins of his work motivation:
“... having arrived one day for mowing and getting angry with the clerk, Levin used his means of calming down - he took the peasant’s scythe and began to mow.
He liked this work so much that he began mowing several times; I mowed the entire meadow in front of the house and this year, since spring, I have made a plan for myself - to mow with the men all day long.” (L.N. Tolstoy. “Anna Karenina”).
But for a peasant, his work is not a means of calm, and a peasant would never understand such a view on the subject. As a result, mowing a man turns for Konstantin Levin again into a kind of adventure, and not work, into a way to find out the limits of his physical capabilities. Plus, at the same time, for Konstantin this is also a way to experience a moment of unity with the people. But this is not work in the normal sense. Not work at all. I can give another similar example:
“The commotion continued all night. We moved things from place to place...Never before have I had to work so hard at Admiral Benbow.
I was already as tired as a dog when, just before dawn, the boatswain began to play the pipe and the crew began to raise the anchor.
However, even if I were twice as tired, I would not have left the deck. Everything was new and exciting for me - the abrupt orders, the sharp sound of the whistle, and the people fussily working in the dim light of the ship’s lanterns.” (R. L. Stevenson. “Treasure Island.” Chapter X).
This is also a very remarkable passage. Jim Hawkins works hard with joy, because everything is new and exciting for him. This is the joy from the work of a person who is not attached to work and does not depend on it. But the sailors, one might assume, are also full of enthusiasm. Of course, since their thoughts are about treasures, and not about everyday income. In this sense, both the “good” and “bad” characters of “Treasure Island” find themselves in the same boat, that is, on the same schooner. In other ways, they show significant differences. So the pirates, once on the island, as noted: “from the very beginning of the mutiny they never sobered up.” (ibid. Ch. XXV). “Good” characters demonstrate the ability to maintain discipline. This is worth noting in the sense that reluctance to work is still not synonymous with idleness, slacking off, drinking, etc. It’s up to each literary character to decide for himself whether to drink, kill the old woman, or behave more decently. At the same time, it is still worth noting a certain bias, a tendency towards idleness or what is most similar to idleness. As already mentioned, the most normal “activities” for literary heroes are love, war and travel. Traveling Niels and loving Werthers. The best illustration about war is given by the same Tolstoy:
“Biblical tradition says that the absence of work - idleness was a condition for the bliss of the first man before his fall. The love for idleness remained the same in fallen man, but the curse still weighs on man, and not only because we must earn our bread by the sweat of our brow, but because, due to our moral properties, we cannot be idle and calm. A secret voice says that we must be guilty of being idle. If a person could find a state in which, being idle, he would feel useful and fulfilling his duty, he would find one side of primitive bliss. And this state of obligatory and impeccable idleness is enjoyed by a whole class - the military class. This obligatory and impeccable idleness was and will be the main attraction of military service.
Nikolai Rostov fully experienced this bliss, after 1807 he continued to serve in the Pavlograd regiment, in which he already commanded the squadron received from Denisov. (L.N. Tolstoy. “War and Peace.” vol. 2. part 4. I).
This passage is extremely valuable from the point of view of contrasting, on the one hand, idleness with business, and on the other, one business with another business. War is a definite thing, but it’s also “not really” a thing. It's a strange thing. From the point of view of a “business” or working person, all this is, at best, sheer idleness, and at worst, absolute harm. It's the same with love. After all, you can’t call love a thing! And at the same time, try calling it idleness. And they say that relationships are “built” - a direct “working” analogy. And how much time and nerves it takes! For many, love generally becomes the main event in life. So with love, as with war, it’s both business and no business. Not a job, that's for sure. Not a service. Pastime. Let’s put it this way: a pastime very suitable for literature, for literary heroes. But not for a normal working person who works to earn a living. If you fight, you don’t work, if you love, you don’t work, if you create, you don’t work. If you think, you don’t work; there is another striking literary example of this:
“Before, you say, you went to teach children, but now why don’t you do anything?
“I do...” Raskolnikov said reluctantly and sternly.
- What are you doing?
- Work...
- What kind of job?
“I think,” he answered seriously, after a pause.
Nastasya burst out laughing...
- Do you think it’s a lot of money? “she was finally able to say.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “Crime and Punishment.” Part. 1. III).
So Werther, of course, made some money while he was in love with Lotte. But that’s not what he’s thinking about, he’s thinking about Lotte. He does his incomprehensible “work.”
As a counterexample (as it may seem), we can consider the situation with one of the most famous literary heroes - Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin. Now he is a worker in the full sense of the word, and a sufficient amount of time is devoted to his work in “The Overcoat,” and this description is essential to the entire narrative:
“It is unlikely that anywhere one could find a person who would live like this in his position. It is not enough to say: he served zealously - no, he served with love. There, in this copying, he saw his own diverse and pleasant world. Pleasure was expressed on his face; he had some favorite letters, which if he got to, he was not himself and laughed, and winked, helped with his lips, so that in his face, it seemed, one could read every letter that his pen wrote.” (N.V. Gogol. “The Overcoat”).
Bashmachkin is not just a worker, he is someone directly opposite to the type of creator, he is an ideal performer, incapable of showing initiative, which is also especially emphasized in the text:
“One director, being a kind man and wanting to reward him for his long service, ordered that he be given something more important than ordinary rewriting; It was precisely from the already completed case that he was ordered to make some kind of connection to another public place; the only thing was to change the title title and change here and there the verbs from the first person to the third. This gave him such work that he became completely sweaty, rubbed his forehead and finally said: “No, better let me rewrite something.” Since then they left it to be rewritten forever. Outside of this rewriting, it seemed that nothing existed for him.” N.V. Gogol. "Overcoat")
So, it turns out that the work in its immediate essence occupies a completely legitimate place within the framework of a significant literary work? Eh, let’s see who Gogol “wrote” in the end? And he wrote a person who cannot possibly be. Yes, you can feel sorry for Bashmachkin, yes, it’s a sin to laugh at Bashmachkin, but no, being Bashamchkin is absolutely impossible. A person is not born a human in order to end up as a Bashmachkin. Creative abilities are not given to a person in order to be a copyist of papers, and even to find in this some kind of “his own varied and pleasant world.” Yes, Bashmachkin is such a literary hero that you really want to attach the prefix anti, and say that Gogol created the greatest literary anti-hero of all times. (Footnote: But I will not do this, because this will require a conceptual distinction between a literary hero and an anti-hero, and such a distinction within the framework of these discussions will bring nothing but confusion. Therefore, let Bashmachkin be the same hero as anyone else. He is a hero literary work? - a hero. Well, that’s all, then. However, I’ll clarify that in the course of these discussions, I consider the hero of a literary work to be any character who is in the foreground in a literary work. Bashamchkin is in the foreground - that means, for sure, a hero) . Well, it is very typical that this anti-heroic hero is busy with work and thinks of nothing but work. They will say that his work (specifically, Bashmachkin’s) is meaningless. But I will repeat it at least a hundred more times - let the creator depict a work, and he will depict it as something meaningless. And it will always turn into “ordinary rewriting.” The absurdity of Bashmachkin’s life is also a hymn to the absurdity of the world of work. At the same time, let’s not forget that in “The Overcoat” the plot still makes a bend and ultimately centers on a non-“working” event.
Finally, I will turn to one painful, terrible, but very valuable story-parable by Saltykov-Shchedrin - “The Horse”. In the context of the theme of the work, this is one of the key works, without consideration of which the theme could not be considered fully developed. This verse is valuable primarily because it seems to derive the very concept of work, embodied in a specific living creature - a horse.
“The horse is an ordinary man’s belly, tortured, beaten, narrow-chested, with protruding ribs and burnt shoulders, with broken legs. Horse holds his head down; the mane on his neck was matted; mucus oozes from the eyes and nostrils; my upper lip hung down like a pancake. You won't earn much on such a beast, but you have to work. Day after day the horse does not come out of the clamp. In summer, the earth is worked from morning to evening; in winter, right up to the thaw, he carries the “works.” (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. “Horse”).
Yes, this is not Konstantin Levin - the horse does not work for pleasure, not for “adventure” and, of course, not for peace. A horse is not a gentleman, a horse is a man. And the main thing that can be understood from this whole painful narrative is the complete hopelessness of the world of work. This story is another literary anti-worker anthem:
“No end to work! Work exhausts the whole meaning of his existence; for her he was conceived and born, and outside of her he is not only of no use to anyone, but, as prudent owners say, he is a detriment. The entire environment in which he lives is aimed solely at preventing that muscular force, which exudes from itself the possibility of physical labor, from freezing in him. Both food and rest are measured out to him just enough so that he is able to complete his lesson. And then let the field and the elements cripple him - no one cares how many new wounds have appeared on his legs, on his shoulders and on his back. It is not his well-being that is needed, but a life that can endure the yoke and work. How many centuries he has been carrying this yoke - he does not know; He doesn’t calculate how many centuries he will have to carry it ahead. He lives as if he is plunging into a dark abyss, and of all the sensations available to a living organism, he knows only the aching pain that work gives.” (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. “Horse”). (Footnote: The hopeless image of Konyaga is contrasted with the image of a well-fed, contented and idle Pustoplyas... What is this image of a literary hero? No, not at all. Pustoplyas is an image of Society, or rather social injustice, and literary heroes have their own special scores to settle with Society... but this is a separate talk).
Well, here we have looked at three examples when literary heroes are really busy with work. One is Bashmachkin, the other is Konstantin Levin; the third, most perfect working image is Horse. Bashmachkin works and finds some kind of pleasure in it, which cannot be considered adequate; Konstantin Levin works, but is not a full-fledged resident of the world of work; he is still a stranger, or at least “not his own” among the peasants; finally, Konyaga is the literary “working bone” in its purest form. And what a terrible image! No, if you start reading literature, then the world of work seems to be either a world alien to the literary hero or a downright scary world. Raise all the sails and sail away towards adventure and love - this is the life of a literary hero))
Premise.
In books on screenwriting, there is such a tendency, each author expresses his own point of view based on personal experience and the basics of film dramaturgy. By talking about the same things, but in different words, we receive a large amount of information that our “script stomach” is not able to digest. This “indigestion” is primarily due to the fact that novice authors do not have their own relatively formed point of view. Listening to every advice from professionals, it is difficult for novice authors to use them in their work. From the first cinematography session (December 28, 1895) of the Lumière brothers to the present day, cinema has come a long way and evolved. And the foundations of the theory of drama were developed by Aristotle more than 2000 years ago. But today, we have a certain base of material, without which a screenwriter simply has nothing to do in this profession. Each of us has our own view of this material, and each of us perceives it differently. Some, having read some book on screenwriting, agree with what is written. Others are trying to figure it out, and others, based on what they read, also want to say something. Having familiarized myself with the basic material (Here I’m talking about books that are recommended to novice screenwriters), I have not found anywhere that at least one author has categorically stated about the constancy of the character of the main character, and would have substantiated his statement. In A. Molchanov’s book “A Screenwriter’s Primer” (2009), recommended to all aspiring authors in all film schools, I came across such a statement, and it was not at all convincing. The contradictory content of the fifth lesson of this book (), which is devoted to the character of the hero, served as the basis for writing this article. This lesson is more like an attempt to express your view on the question posed. But it does not contain useful information that can be applied in practice.
Position of A. Molchanov.
Speaking about character, A. Molchanov gives a definition from Wikipedia:
“Character (Greek: Character – distinctive feature) is the structure of persistent, relatively permanent mental properties that determine the characteristics of a person’s relationships and behavior.”
A. Molchanov asks you to pay attention to the words:
, - and says that: “the character of the hero remains unchanged”.
“However, the fact that the character of the hero remains unchanged does not mean that the hero himself does not change.”
A. Molchanov is inclined to see a change in the hero himself, but not in his character. Gives an example:
“Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman, Kisa was a registry office employee, became a murderer, D’Artagnan was a poor Gascon, became a field marshal.”
This example leads to a far from clear conclusion. Plyushkin, Kisa and D'Artagnan, they all changed their social status (we will return to it a little later), their position in society, of which each of them is a part. A change in social status, A. Molchanov believes, is a change in the hero, where he calls these changes "change of fortune". But for some reason he does not consider the fact that at the same time the character of the hero may change.
Internal and external changes.
Here it should be said that the inner world of a person is largely formed under the influence of the reality around him (social environment). Almost everything that a person encounters influences the formation of his character, where some traits and qualities are replaced by others under the influence of certain circumstances. When we say: “a person has changed,” these words have a certain meaning that can be attributed to both external and internal changes. External changes usually include all those changes that we can visually see. For example: a person was overweight - he went on a diet and lost weight, he was skinny - he chose the right diet and gained weight, he was shaggy - he visited a hairdresser and had his hair cut short, he was blond - he dyed his hair brown, he was “black” - he had plastic surgery and became “white” "(Michael Jackson), etc.
With internal changes in a person, everything is much more complicated. In the hero of a literary work, including a script, these changes are always noticeable to the reader. You could even say that he is looking for them. Otherwise, the hero’s actions lose meaning. When viewing a picture or reading a script, we learn about these changes from the actions and remarks of the hero. A. Molchanov, for some reason he doesn’t want to “burrow too deeply into psychology”. It’s a pity, without this it’s impossible to find out whether the character changes throughout the story or not.
By creating a character, first of all the main character, we give birth (create) a person (the main character or character), who is an absolutely full-fledged individual, like all those seven billion (and more) people living on our planet. Each person has a character unique to him, and the hero we create has a unique “set of characteristics of the inner world,” which is expressed in the script in actions and remarks. Only in real life, character is formed and changes over a fairly long period of time (but not always), which is caused by certain factors. And in the script, everything depends on us, on the “creators”. By setting certain tasks, we create the hero’s inner world, his character, and control it, changing it somewhere for the better, and somewhere for the worse, and at the same time we are limited by the script time. Therefore, the transformation of the hero on the screen occurs quite quickly.
I especially want to note that by focusing on words "persistent, relatively permanent", But Molchanov does not say that "relatively permanent" it is only an approximate constancy, subject to change. If change is allowed, then there are four character traits according to A. Molchanov, and these are: “1) Energy level, 2) Temperament, 3) Introvert-extrovert, 4) Habits”, – should change accordingly (Not necessarily all four and all at once!).
What is character?
Let's turn to a number of dictionaries and try to understand what the lexical meaning of the word “character” is. In the encyclopedic dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron (Volume XXXVII, 1903) gives the following definition:
“Character is a complex mental phenomenon that distinguishes an individual or a people and is expressed in a unique, gradually developed and conscious way of responding to various demands of the external and internal world.”
F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron, describing character, gives several more definitions:
“According to Frieze, character is expressed in the power of rational self-determination; The Hegelian school defines character as the unity of deterministic and indeterministic will; Schleiermacher sees character as a corrective to the one-sidedness of temperament. Hartmann's definition essentially coincides with the one we have put forward"(That is, like F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron).
In the dictionary D.N. Ushakov (1940), character is defined as follows:
“Character is a set of mental characteristics that make up a person’s personality and which are manifested in his actions and behavior.”
In the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” (1955 – 1956) V.I. Dahl, the following definition is given:
“Character is a person’s disposition, moral properties, qualities, properties of the soul and heart. The character is good-natured, meek. He has a cool character...”
In the “Dictionary of Foreign Words” (Edited by F.N. Petrov, 1964), character is defined as:
“The totality of the mental characteristics of a given person, manifested in his actions and behavior.”
In the “Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary” (Edited by A. M. Prokhorov, 1985), character is:
“1) A peculiar feature of a person, thing, phenomenon; 2) (Psychol.) individual make-up of a person’s personality, manifested in the characteristics of behavior and attitude (attitudes) to the surrounding reality.”
In all of these dictionaries that appeared before Wikipedia (2001), in the lexical meaning of the word "character" , we do not find the expression: "persistent, relatively permanent" , – which does not allow us to say unambiguously about its constancy. One gets the impression that A. Molchanov did not fully understand the task that he set in lesson No. 5 of the Screenwriter’s Primer. Wikipedia is not the yardstick that a playwright should use; it requires a deep understanding of the term character in order to easily create it while working on a script or any other literary work.
Without psychology!
Let's return to the fact that A. Molchanov “doesn’t want to delve into psychology”. However, while saying this, he draws attention to the words: "persistent, relatively permanent", which are characteristic of the definition of character purely from the psychological understanding of this term.
In the “Big Psychological Dictionary” (Edited by B.G. Meshcheryakov and V.P. Zinchenko, 2007), character is defined as:
“An individual combination of stable mental characteristics of a person that determine a typical way of behavior for a given subject in certain life conditions and circumstances. Character is closely connected with other aspects of a person’s personality, in particular with temperament, which determines the external form of expression of character, leaving a peculiar imprint on certain of its manifestations.”
In the same dictionary, in the definition of the term temperament, there is the following:
“Temperament also does not determine character traits, but there is a close relationship between temperament and character traits. Character traits that determine the dynamics of its manifestation depend on temperament. For example, sociability in a sanguine person is manifested in the easy and quick making of acquaintances, in a phlegmatic person - in the duration and stability of his attachment to his friends and acquaintances, in the desire for a circle of people familiar to him, etc. Temperament influences the development of individual character traits. Some properties of temperament contribute to the formation of certain character traits, while others counteract them.”
Let's consider the example of A. Molchanov - the character of Rodion Raskolnikov.
A. Molchanov writes:
“Raskolnikov was melancholic. Have you become sanguine? No".
This character trait, as A. Molchanov says, remains in the hero of the novel F.M. Dostoevsky remains unchanged. Re-reading Crime and Punishment, as well as delving deeper into the meaning of the term temperament from a psychological point of view, I asked myself a very interesting question:
Did F.M. put it? Dostoevsky's goal is to change Rodion's temperament?
And I came to the conclusion that F.M. had such a goal. Dostoevsky was not there. There is not even a hint of this either in the text or between the lines. And if the author does not set such a goal, then why should we look for changes in Rodion’s temperament.
It is not at all clear why A. Molchanov includes temperament in character traits(?). Due to the fact that temperament has physiological and genetic roots, it cannot relate to character traits, thus both temperament and character are the main personality traits. Temperament, in turn, can either promote or hinder the development of certain traits and character qualities. From a psychological point of view, temperament is a personality trait that can be adjusted by only 25%. These are the results of research, but in a literary work, including a script, if the author needs to change the character’s temperament, then this will be done 100%. If there is no such goal, as in the case of Raskolnikov, then we cannot claim that constancy of temperament means constancy of character, because In addition to temperament, many other factors influence the development, formation and change of character.
The same can be said about the third point of the character traits presented by A. Molchanov. Raskolnikov is an introvert! I think that's how it should be! This is what F.M. intended. Dostoevsky, and we have nothing to look for changes here. Moreover, from the point of view of psychology, an introvert by nature cannot become an extrovert, as nature intended.
Once again it becomes clear as day that psychology helps the screenwriter. It wouldn’t be possible without her! I can’t remember one of the greats who said:
“A screenwriter, in addition to being a good writer and playwright, must also be a good psychologist.”
And the more and deeper we understand human psychology, the brighter and more interesting our heroes will be. And this is very important, because a hero who does not “catch” our soul in any way is not interesting to watch.
Opinions of psychologists.
Now let’s return again to the fact that A. Molchanov is categorically convinced, and tries to convince his readers, that the character of the hero remains unchanged throughout history.
Psychologists say:
“Character cannot be called a frozen formation; its formation occurs throughout a person’s entire life journey. This means that at any moment, everyone and us can challenge circumstances and change. The main thing is not to hide your powerlessness behind the phrase “That’s just my character.”
There is also a very interesting opinion of psychologists:
“A person’s character changes naturally, on its own, throughout life, primarily depending on age. Childish spontaneity of response is replaced by youthful impetuosity, which after a dozen or two years calms down in adult prudence. Also, character tends to become positive with age, and downright negative in old age. In addition, a person’s character changes depending on the situation in which the person finds himself. The most melancholic person, at the sight of an approaching tsunami wave, will rush away from it with the cheerfulness of a choleric person. At work, a person may have one character - for example, energetic and collected. At home, the same person’s character may change, concentration may change to absent-mindedness, energy to laziness. Even the most cheerful person, if something hurts, his character, as a rule, becomes somewhat lethargic and sad.”
More:
“Character is a set of habits, and habits can be changed. If you set yourself this task and start training calm reactions, you will succeed.”
And further:
“A more important and interesting question is: can a person change his character himself? If by this we mean whether, in the right situation, a person can act in a manner that is not entirely familiar to him (for example, sluggishly, uncollected and uncertain), but as required (for example, collected, energetically and boldly), then most often, with the exception of completely in severe cases, this is an absolutely real thing. Character is not a rigid system, it is determined only by the tendency to act one way or another, and the phrase: “This is my character!” - nothing more than an excuse.”
From all of the above, it should be concluded that in real life, character is an emerging personality property, a “value” that is not constant, and depends on a number of circumstances and situations. The same thing happens with the character of the hero of a literary work. But here there is a special difference, which consists in the following: in real life, in order for a character to change, it takes quite a long time, but in a literary work (script), a certain (script) time is allotted for this. And first of all, everything depends on the goals and objectives set by the Author. If he needs the character of the hero to change, he will definitely change.
For example, in the comedy “Test Teacher” (“Go to hell with Goethe”), by the German director and screenwriter Bor Dagtekin. The main character, bank robber Zeke Müller, played by Elias EmBarek (The Doctor: Avicena's Disciple (2013), The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013), Men in the City (2009)), is initially introduced to us as semi-literate, devoid of humanity person. He is absolutely indifferent to society and the problems of the people around him, especially to the teenagers with whom he had to teach. At the moment when the story begins and the hero is shown to us, we see that his character is sufficiently formed. We understand that he was like this even before the story began. But by the end of the story, he becomes a completely different person. His character changed, he became sensitive to others, primarily to teenagers, whom he hated. Zeki's ill will and indifference towards people changes, and he becomes attentive and responsive.
Opinion of V.K. Turkina.
Speaking about changing character, first of all, we should not forget that the hero of a literary work is distinguished from a person in real life by the fact that the character of the first depends on the goals and objectives set by the Author, and the second is completely left to himself. The opinion of V.K. on this matter is very interesting. Turkin, author of the book “Dramaturgy of Cinema”.
VC. Turkin writes:
“If the hero was characterized and has behaved until now as a person who always controls himself, knows how to make decisions, find a way out of a situation, then show him suddenly losing all these qualities, confused and helpless in some circumstances only to achieve some a random effect would be a serious mistake. In any case, such “betrayal of one’s character” should always be thoroughly justified, and not be evidence of the playwright’s forgetfulness or frivolity. In cases where a change in character is part of the playwright’s task, this change must be prepared and carried out quite justifiably and consistently.”
I quoted V.K. Turkin, not only because he talks about the dependence of the character of the hero in relation to the tasks of the playwright, but also that the character of the hero tends to change. VC. Turkin, analyzing Shakespeare's method of depicting character, identifies two possible ways of such depiction. In general terms, the first method is:
“...Focused on revealing a complex image, without its transition to another quality, without degeneration. This is how Oblomov was made.
And second:
“... We have heroes in the process of their self-determination, growth, formation of their personality, ideological and moral turning point. The story of the hero's growth or rebirth is the main theme of the work. (“Mother”, “Chapaev”)”.
In other words, in the first method the character of the hero does not change, but in the second, the change in character is the theme of the work, and the goal of the Author.
Character of Rasklnikov.
Consider Raskolnikov, whom A. Molchanov cites as an example:
“Raskolnikov was weak. Have you become stronger? No. He was melancholic. Have you become sanguine? No. I was an introvert. Have you become an extrovert? No. Have you gained or lost any habits? No. The one who came, the one who left."
With this example, A. Molchanov wants to tell us that Raskolnikov’s character has not changed throughout history. To begin with, I note that cinema is represented by thousands of films, with thousands of completely different heroes, and thousands of characters dissimilar to each other, and one example cannot be the ultimate truth. And A. Molchanov gives no more examples!
Robert McKee, in The Million Dollar Story, writes:
“If at the beginning of a story we are presented with a character who behaves like a “loving husband”, and at the end he remains the same - a loving husband with no secrets, unfulfilled desires or secret passions - then we will be extremely disappointed.”
In the words of A. Molchanov, the hero must "change fate", but for some reason he does not consider that changes in his character are possible at the same time. Using Raskolnikov as an example, let's try to figure this out. Watching Raskolnikov, we are not disappointed in him (I certainly am!), because he comes from a perverted moral understanding of reality to truly human feelings. The basis of Raskolnikov’s theory is: “the right of the strong to commit crime.” From the moment we understand Rodion’s theory, we see his attitude towards the people around him, he divides them into “higher” and “trembling creatures”. The crime that Raskolnikov commits shows us him as a weak and insignificant person (The first point from A. Molchanov’s character traits). But Raskolnikov’s weak personality, after Sonya reads him the biblical parable of the resurrection of Lazarus, reaches its apogee, he admits the collapse of his theory, admits to the murders he has committed and repents. First of all, abandoning his theory is a change in Raskolnikov’s attitude towards the people around him and towards himself. We have come to the conclusion that the confession of murder and repentance at the end of the novel turns out to be a strong side of Raskolnikov’s character. He was weak, he became strong! I repeat, how much and how the character of the hero will change depends on the Author and the tasks he sets.
Transformation.
In her book, How to Make a Good Script Great, Linda Seger writes:
“Strictly speaking, in order for the character to change, he needs help in this, i.e. it cannot change on its own, but only under the influence of some circumstances - but you invent them.”
Below is an example of a change in character that Linda Seger calls transformation:
“Transformation can be extreme (180 degrees) or moderate. For example, in “The Witness” (Romantic thriller by Peter Weir. 1985) there are the following transformations: 1) Initial position: John Book (Harrison Ford) is an insensitive, tormented man. 2) Moderate Transformation: It gradually becomes clear that John Book is a sensitive, humane person, despite the fact that he remains just as strong and determined. 3) Extreme Transformation: John remains in the Amish community and practically becomes one of them. In order for such a transformation to occur, a certain (rather significant) scenario time is necessary. A change cannot occur on multiple pages. Character transformation is a slow, gradual process, during which we record changes in character at various stages, from various sides, in various situations and in his actions. We observe the character's decision to act this way and not otherwise, we see certain emotional responses of the hero to a changing certain situation, and, finally, we see a certain action performed by the hero. And this action signifies his transformation.”
L.N. Nekhoroshev about character.
L.N. Nekhoroshev, in his book “Dramaturgy of Film,” poses the question:
"What is character?"
Gives the following definition:
“Character is a combination of certain mental qualities of a person”
And says:
“Character is distinguished by two properties. The first property: the possibility of change. Over the course of a person’s life, a person’s character can change greatly: great misfortune; serious illness; change of life circumstances; a change of faith, and a person we know well is unrecognizable: before us is a different character.”
Gives an example:
“A.G. Dostoevskaya describes the change in the character of her husband, a great writer, during those four years that they lived abroad, where their first child, daughter Sophia, was born and died: “All friends and acquaintances, meeting us upon our return from abroad, borders, they told me that they did not recognize Fyodor Mikhailovich, to such an extent his character changed for the better, to such an extent he became softer, kinder and more condescending towards people.”
L.N. Nekhoroshev gives examples of changes in the character of the hero/character, both in literary works and in cinema. But I will not dwell on this further, and I will advise you to familiarize yourself with the contents of this book.
A few more words about character.
The character of a hero is much more than we can imagine. His multiple traits and qualities, which we are not even aware of, together give us what is, in a narrow sense, understood as character. On one of the sites (http://klub-drug.ru/kachestva-cheloveka/cherty-haraktera-cheloveka-spiso...), more than five hundred character traits and qualities are presented. If anyone is interested, this list may be useful when working on your hero, and you can also use this list as a test to determine the qualities and traits of your character. I am sure that almost every quality or character trait exists in each of us, we just have no idea when they will manifest themselves and in what form.
Here, to a certain extent, we can draw a general conclusion:
The character of the hero, the “magnitude” is not constant! Whether the character of the hero changes throughout history or not completely depends on the goals and objectives set by the Author.
This is very clearly shown by the wonderful scenes from the legendary film of the Vasilyev brothers, “Chapaev”. The difficult character of Vasily Ivanovich (B. Babochkin) clashes with Commissar Furmanov (B. Blinov) sent to his division. This is shown in the scene where Chapaev, who does not recognize authorities, breaks a chair. Next is a turning point scene where the village men thank Chapaev for the fact that the looters returned everything to the population (On the initiative of Furmanov). Chapaev is thinking! And the scene where, instead of the handshake that Furmanov was counting on, Chapaev throws himself into an embrace. Isn't this a change in character?
Biopics and TV series.
What about the characters in biopics or TV series? What can be said about the character of the following heroes: William Wallace (“Braveheart”), Abraham Lincoln (“Lincoln”), Valery Kharlamov (“Legend No. 17”), Gregory House (“Dr. House”), Ron Woodroof (“The Dallas Club”) buyers"), Feride ("The Songbird"), Edith Piaf ("La Vie en Rose"), Major Volkov ("Hour of Volkov"), Walter White ("Breaking Bad"), Will Graham ("Hannibal") ? What can you say about the characters of the characters in “Santa Barbara”? Analyze the characters presented and see what you can come up with! I hope there are no people who will say that the genre or format affects whether the character of the hero can or cannot change. The main character, because he is the main hero in Africa too!
Reveal = change.
However, a change in character, its traits, qualities and habits does not always mean the opposite change. It is not necessary for the evil to become kind, the weak to become strong, the indifferent to become responsive, the withdrawn to become sociable, etc.
Richard Walter, in his book Screenwriting: Film and Television Dramawriting as an Art, Craft and Business, writes the following on this subject:
“The character’s personality doesn’t have to change to the opposite. Patton is still Patton at the end of the movie Patton, the same maniacal warrior he always was. But as the action develops, first one or another trait of the hero is highlighted so that the viewer can understand why the general is the way he is. Therefore, the public, not particularly fond of Patton, but depressed by his personality, does not consider spending two hours in the cinema a waste of time."
Changes in the character’s character also include what the authors of books for screenwriters and almost all professional screenwriters call “character development.”
Throughout the story, the author shows us the character of the hero, revealing more and more of his features and qualities, and sometimes even those that we do not expect to see (Unpredictability that lurks in each of us!). For example, if the hero is shown to us as strong, decisive, rude, and then, after certain actions and deeds, we learn that he is still romantic and passionate, then this is a revelation/change of character. This statement contains a fairly simple and understandable principle. If, when the hero appears, on the first pages of the script we see him with certain character traits, for example, he is responsive and brave, then this is how we characterize him. We don’t know what he will be like next, how he will manifest himself in certain dramatic situations. But the properties and traits presented below increase the “volume” of character, which should be considered a change/disclosure of character. Presented at the end of the story, the character traits and properties of the hero, together give us the finally formed character that was intended by the author in the hero.
Andrea from The Devil Wears Prada.
Let's move on. At the beginning of the lesson, A. Molchanov asked to list the heroes whose character has changed over the course of history. The following were listed:
"Anakin Skywalker, Kisa Vorobyaninov, Raskolnikov, Andrea from The Devil Wears Prada, Tyler Durden, Plyushkin, Monte Cristo, D'Artagnan."
Of the characters presented, I would choose Andrea Sachs (Personal sympathies!) from the film “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006), based on the book by Lauren Weisberger. Let's try to understand the character traits of cutie Andrea, played by Anne Hathaway ("Brokeback Mountain" (2005), "Jane Austen" (2007), "Bride Wars" (2009), "Love and Other Medicines" (2010), Interstellar (2014)).
To do this, let’s turn to the character traits that A. Molchanov talks about:
“1) Energy level, 2) Temperament, 3) Introvert-extrovert, 4) Habits.”
The second and third points can be immediately discarded, because we do not see the author's goal to change them. Regarding the first point, Andrea, at the beginning of the story, is presented to us as a weak and fragile girl who found herself in a completely different reality. Not to the world where she was “cooked” before the beginning of the story. From the events that took place in the Runway magazine offices before the appearance of Miranda Prisley (Meryl Streep), we see that she is the complete opposite of the staff. Emily (Emily Blunt) immediately makes a diagnosis; she is sure that Andrea will not last long at Miranda's frantic pace. But despite the pressure of circumstances, we see that Andrea is purposeful and persistent. She gets the taste of glamor and gloss, gains rhythm and strength. But Miranda’s next, impossible task: our heroine needs to get the manuscript of a new book about Harry Potter, which is not yet in print. This assignment drives her to despair, and she decides to quit her job. She consciously decides to take this step, and even informs her boyfriend Nate (Adrian Grenier) about it. This is a clear sign of weakness of character! Andrea can't handle Miranda's demanding rhythm. I think this is enough to say that Andrea's energy level is weak rather than strong.
But what do we see after this decision? The scene where the successful and attractive writer Christian Thompson (Simon Baker) calls Andrea to say that he has obtained the manuscript for the new Harry Potter book is a very important plot twist. It provides an opportunity to show Andrea's determined character. (Otherwise it would be a completely different story!) We see how she becomes stronger and reaches the heights that millions of girls dream of. At the end of the story, from a weak and unconfident girl who does not understand style and fashion, Andrea becomes a strong, stylish and successful assistant to Miranda Prisley.
It is very important that in this case, the events of the story stretch out for almost a whole year, and this time is enough for changes to occur in the character, because... its formation, from a purely psychological point of view, takes place throughout almost the entire life of a person. And it is very important to see the changes planned by the author and understand their significance for the plot.
Let's return again to psychology. A person’s character is manifested in a system of relationships, among which one of the main ones is the attitude towards other people. Before Andrea shows her determination, we see her attitude towards her boyfriend, towards her friends, which she values and puts above all else. But work forces you to make a choice between the “old” and “new life,” which Andera makes in favor of the latter. We cannot say that she has changed her attitude towards her boyfriend and friends, she loves and respects them, but her actions - a temporary separation from Nate, a night with Christian - affect another system of relationships, her attitude towards herself. In place of modesty comes narcissism, and Andrea sacrifices her loved ones and friends for herself. (Although this is a temporary sacrifice!) This is a kind of test, after going through which Andrea becomes who she should be according to the author's intention. All changes at this stage of her life (throughout history) affect the formation of certain character traits that change (transform) and strengthen. At the end of the story we see her as a strong, purposeful, responsible, fashionable and stylish girl, which is not the case at the beginning of the story.
Anakin from Star Wars.
I can’t ignore Anakin Skywalker, the main character of George Lucas’s cult Star Wars saga. But I will be brief here, I will note only the most important and obvious things regarding Anakin’s character. In the first episode of the original Star Wars trilogy (First Trilogy: Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002), Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)), Anakin is introduced to us a nine year old boy. The events in the third episode take place thirteen years after the first story. Without going into too much detail, it's just hard to imagine that Anakin's character hasn't changed. As the most compelling argument, I will only say that the main character was Anakin Skywalker, and became Darth Vader. Good transformed into evil. And that's it!
In stories where the script time spans a day, week, month, it is more difficult to imagine changes in the character of the hero, but nevertheless they exist. And in stories spanning a year, five or ten years, such changes are simply impossible not to notice. What can you say about the character of such heroes as Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) from Spider-Man, or Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) from the film and novel of the same name by JK Rowling? And the character of Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), from the film of the same name by Robert Stromberg, written by Linda Woolverton? You can give examples endlessly, but there is no point if you don’t understand this.
A. Molchanov about the three-dimensionality of the hero.
Let's return again to the fifth lesson of the Screenwriter's Primer. Everything in it is not presented too convincingly. A. Molchanov says:
“In some primers on screenwriting (This word is not in any dictionary! And even in Wikipedia!) they write that in order for the hero to be three-dimensional, the screenwriter must describe in detail his appearance, character and social status. Nonsense".
In such a “primer” as “The Art of Drama” by Lajos Egri, the following is written about the three-dimensionality of the hero:
“Here is an approximate diagram, the skeleton, the skeleton of a three-dimensional image of a character: PHYSIOLOGY: 1) Gender, 2) Age, 3) Height and weight, 4) Color of hair, eyes, skin, 5) Body type, build, favorite poses, 6) Appearance: pleasant, neat, unkempt, etc. Fullness, thinness, shape of the head, face, limbs, 7) Defects: deformities, birthmarks, etc. Diseases, 8) Heredity. SOCIOLOGY: 1) Class: lower, middle, upper, 2) Occupation: type of work, time of work, income, working conditions, whether there is a trade union or not, now the organization of labor, ability to do this work, 3) Education: how many classes, what kind of school, grades, favorite subjects, unloved subjects, inclinations, hobbies, 4) Home life: parents’ lifestyle, earnings, orphanhood, parents are divorced, parents’ habits, parents’ intellectual development, their vices, neglect, inattention ( to the child). Marital status of the character, 5) Religion, 6) Race, nationality, 7) Group status: leader among friends, in a club, in sports, 8) Political sympathies, 9) Entertainment, hobbies: books, magazines, newspapers that he reads. PSYCHOLOGY: 1) Sex life, moral rules, 2) Personal goals, aspirations, 3) Defeats, disappointments, failures, 4) Temperament: choleric, carefree, pessimistic, optimistic, 5) Attitude to life: submissive, active, defeatist , 6) Complexes: obsessions, repressed images, prejudices, phobias, 7) Extrovert, introvert, average type, 8) Abilities: knowledge of languages, special talents, 9) Qualities: imagination, prudence, taste, balance, 10) Level of mental development. This, so to speak, is the backbone of character, which the author must know thoroughly and on which he must build the image.”
Divergence of positions.
I agree with A. Molchanov that there is no need to describe appearance, social status and character in detail in the script, unless of course the customer requires it. As for the rest, my position differs from the opinion of A. Molchanov. I have always paid and continue to draw attention to the fact that in screenwriting manuals there are a lot of contradictions regarding the ideas of this or that author, about certain issues of film dramaturgy. Therefore, I want to dwell a little more on this disagreement. The wise words are too deeply ingrained in my brain:
“Cinema drama is a set of rules, and it is important for us not to follow them, but to understand them.”
Regarding the three-dimensionality of the main character, I adhere to the position of Lajos Egri, and I believe that the author who creates his hero has enough grounds to present him to us as he intended him. A. Molchanov writes:
“In fact, what makes a hero three-dimensional is not his appearance or social status - what difference does it make to a screenwriter whether his heroine is blonde or brunette, if he is not the screenwriter of Legally Blonde? In many films, it doesn’t matter to us what kind of craft the hero does for a living. But the character of the hero is the stone laid in the foundation of any good script. The screenwriter’s job is to make this stone precious.”
It follows from this that only his character makes a hero three-dimensional. But in a script, before we see what the character of the hero is, we must read it to the end, and only in the finale conclude what he really is. Yes, of course, based on certain actions and deeds, we will see what the hero is like, but it will be relatively clearly and finally understood only at the very end of the story. However, from the very beginning of the story, we see the hero, and the first thing the author presents to us is his physiology (appearance), which can tell us a lot about the hero himself and his character. For those interested, look on the Internet for the character theory of the German psychologist E. Kretschmer, where, in his opinion, character depends on a person’s physique.
It is very interesting what A. Molchanov means by three-dimensionality when he says:
“...what makes a hero three-dimensional is his character”? (Tricky question!)
Try to determine for yourself what A. Molchanov means, because he does not explain how character makes a hero three-dimensional and how three-dimensionality is manifested.
Lajos Egri presents 27 points, divided into three groups, which, in his opinion, make the hero three-dimensional. Egri’s position is absolutely clear, which I cannot say about A. Molchanov’s position. Let's try to figure out what the three-dimensionality of a hero is? To do this, we will not turn to dictionaries or additional sciences, where this term is widely used, but will simply imagine how we can understand it. In principle, this term itself tells us about its meaning. Three-dimensional, roughly speaking, is three dimensions of something that show something in its entirety.
Whatever our hero is, in most cases he is human, although sometimes the main character is a robot (“Bicentennial Man” (1999)), a cyborg (“Cyborg” (1989)). Now he will try to imagine how to describe a person in detail. The very first thing that comes to mind is what its physiology is. I conducted a small experiment, asked my friends to describe any person in a couple of sentences, but so that I could imagine him. Absolutely all (20) began their descriptions with physiology. A person's appearance is something that can be seen and imagined. And therefore, each of us, on a subconscious level, has an idea of a person, primarily from the point of view of his physiology. Of course, we can describe a person with the qualities and traits of his character, but we cannot imagine him based on these descriptions. We won’t be able to, because we don’t have a “shell” where to put these qualities and traits. And any of our ideas may turn out to be false. What I mean is that if there is no person, there is no character! If I tell you, imagine the hero according to the following qualities: witty, quick-witted, vindictive, stingy. Who appears before your eyes? Is there any image? Compare him with Alexander Kalyagin. Similar? I have a similar one! Because Shakespeare’s Shylock, whose character qualities were presented, I am used to seeing performed by A. Kalyagin.
L.N. Nekhoroshev, in the book “Film Drama,” in the chapter “Image and Character,” writes:
“The image and character of the character. What is the relationship between these concepts? Let's pose the question differently: which of these two concepts is larger? And we’ll answer right away: of course, the concept of “character image” is broader than the concept of “character character.” Because the image of a person on the screen consists not only of his character, but also of: a) the portrait appearance of the character - it may correspond to the character, but may not coincide with it and even contradict it; b) things and objects, the character of those around him - from the environment in which he lives and acts; c) from the attitude of other characters towards him (remember the popular expression: “The king is played by his retinue”); d) and most importantly, the image of the hero includes as an important component the attitude towards him on the part of the film’s authors.”
When creating our hero, we give him a certain physiology. Agree, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) from Fast and the Furious cannot be replaced by Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) from Spider-Man. Can Tony Montano (Al Pacino) from Scarface be replaced by John Matrix (Arnold Schwarzenegger) from Commando, or Larry Dale (Ben Stiller) from the comedy Night at the Museum? And Benjamin Gates (Nicolas Cage) from the film “National Treasure” (2004) can be replaced by Frank Martin (Jason Statham) from “The Transporter” (2002), or Bob Lee (Mark Wahlberg) from the film “The Shootist” ( 2007)? No! Of course not! The named actors were chosen according to the hero archetype created by the author. Not a single screenwriter writes for a specific actor, unless it is a special one. order. Therefore, physiological descriptions are an integral part of the three-dimensionality of the hero, and although in the scripts they are given in a very brief form, this is enough to visually represent the hero.
Examples for comparison.
As an example, I will give several excerpts from the scripts, which describe some of the external features of the main characters (and not only!).
“Among the unremarkable tourists and businessmen sits TOM WELLS, middle-aged, neat hair, strict gray suit.”
“A young girl, CASEY BECKER, puts the phone to her ear. She is no more than sixteen. A friendly face with innocent eyes.”
“A young girl, 17 years old, wearing a flannel nightgown. CLOSEUP of a face illuminated by the faint light of a computer monitor...Shrewd and intelligent, with sad, lonely eyes.”
“BRAKES SCREAKING as the transport vehicle MOVES INTO THE FRAME to reveal JAKE SULLY, a scruffy, unkempt-looking combat veteran, seated in a well-worn carbon fiber wheelchair. At 22 years old, his eyes reveal the wisdom and caution of a man who has already known pain.”
From the film "Wildness", written by Steven Peters:
SAM LOMBARDO saunters onto the stage. He is over thirty, a distinguished handsome man. He is dressed much the same as the students, a khaki polo shirt and sailor boots.”
"Jackie Brown is a very attractive black woman in her mid-forties, although she looks thirty-five."
“The old lady's name is Rose Calvert. Her face is all wrinkled, her body has lost its shape and shrunk under a simple cotton dress. But her eyes are still as bright and lively as those of a young girl.”
“Jack Dawson and Fabrizio de Rossi, both in their 20s, exchange glances while the other two argue in Swedish. Jack is an American, a lanky drifter with hair too short for his time. He is also unshaven, his clothes wrinkled from sleeping in them. Jack is an artist, he trained at the Bohemian style of painting school in Paris. He's also very composed and confident for his 20s, having lived on his own since he was 15."
“The guy who gets the floor is CHUCKIE SULLIVAN, 20, the healthiest guy in the bunch. He is loud, boisterous, and a born entertainer. Next to him sits WILL HUNTING, 20, handsome and confident, the unspoken leader. To Will's right is BILLY MCBRIDE, 22, heavy, quiet, someone you definitely wouldn't want to argue with. And finally MORGAN OMAILEY, 19, is younger than the rest. Stretched and intrigued, Morgan listens to Chucky's horror stories with a feeling of creeping disgust. All four speak with heavy Boston accents."
A brief description of the hero's appearance is one of the facets of three-dimensionality. We imagine it, and we understand who we will follow and who we will worry about. Remove from all the listed examples everything that concerns the description of appearance, read what you received and imagine. Introduced? Yes! Nothing to imagine! There is nothing left except the names of the characters, which does not mean anything, unless it is a biopic where the main character is a famous person.
Here is what Lajos Egri writes about three-dimensionality:
“Every object has three dimensions: depth, height, width. Human beings have three more: physiology, sociology, psychology. Without knowing these dimensions, we cannot comprehend a person. When studying a person, it is not enough to know whether he is rude or polite, religious or atheist, decent or base. You need to know why he is like this, why his character is constantly changing and why these changes are inevitable regardless of whether the person himself desires them or not.”
And here is what Lajos Egri writes about the meaning of three-dimensionality:
“If we understand that these dimensions determine every moment of human behavior, then it is easy for us to write about any character and understand both his motives and their sources. Take any work that has stood the test of time and you will see that it has survived because it has all three dimensions. Take away even one of them, and there will be no real literary achievement.”
I think that everything is clear with physiology, and its relationship to the three-dimensionality of the hero is clear.
Social status.
Sociology (L. Egri) or social status (A. Molchanov) is the second dimension of the hero, and an integral part of three-dimensionality. We cannot talk about character without knowing the hero's social status. What is important here is his representation not only at the moment the hero appears on the pages of the script, but also how he was throughout his life, outside the script. Because our past leaves a certain imprint on who we are in the present. Lajos Egri has a very good example on this matter:
“If you were born in a basement and played in the dirt of the streets, your behavior will be different from the behavior of a boy who was born in a mansion and played with clean and beautiful toys.”
Agree that both children in the future will have different characters, not only because they are different people, but also because their social environment gives a completely different perception of reality. Let me note that social status does not only mean the profession of the main character. But for some reason A. Molchanov speaks only about her:
“In many films, we don’t really care what the hero does for a living.”
The hero’s attitude towards friends, family, and colleagues largely shapes the character, which will be quite understandable, taking into account these relationships. The hero, simply and simply, cannot be represented without social status, taking into account all-round attitudes in society. And whatever one may say, we indicate this in our hero, in certain scenes of our script. It’s impossible without this! This is our past, present and possibly future! I won’t delve deeper into sociology; I think what has been said is enough to understand what social status gives us. And he gives us the next facet of the three-dimensionality of the hero. And in general, it is difficult to imagine and say that the screenwriter does not care what the physiology and social status of his hero are. But I think that when A. Molchanov said this, he had serious premises, although he doesn’t tell us anything about it.
The fate of a hero.
In order not to force you to return to the beginning of the article, I will repeat. A. Molchanov writes:
“Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman, Kisa was a registry office employee, became a murderer, D'Artagnan was a poor Gascon, became a field marshal. All these heroes changed their fate.”
I promised to return to this, and I keep what I said. From this example, it actually follows that all the “heroes” changed their social position in society. Some for the better, and some for the worse. I cannot say why A. Molchanov calls this “fate,” although I am inclined to see this as a purely author’s approach. And I dare to suggest that the sensitivity of the term fate is much simpler and easier than that of the term social position (status). Regardless of what we call the same phenomenon, the main thing remains its understanding. Speaking “They all changed their fate”, A. Molchanov states only the fact of change, for example: “Plyushkin was a landowner, became a beggar madman”. Without reading the poem “Dead Souls,” we cannot understand these changes, because we do not know what drives Plyushkina to madness and makes her a beggar. But we know for sure that such a “change of fate” is represented by N.V. Gogol quite thoroughly, otherwise there would be no point in this “change”.
And what happens, for example, to Malefistena? Is there a change in her destiny? She was the good fairy at the beginning of the story, and she is the good fairy at the end of the story. It looks like her fate has remained unchanged! But we cannot say that nothing has changed in her, at least her character has undergone a transformation. She was a good fairy, then, due to a number of circumstances (the vile act of Stefan (Sharlto Copley), he deprived her of her wings), she became very bad, and at the end of the story she becomes good again. The sixteen years she spent watching Princess Aurora (Elle Fenning) changed her character and brought her back to her true colors.
When working on a hero, it is important for us to know why “changes” happen to him; the premises are more important than the outcome. Why does a loyal friend become a traitor? Why does an exemplary family man become a traitor? Why does a former prison guard become a successful entrepreneur? The answers to these “Why?” hidden in sociology, and are one of the three-dimensional dimensions of our hero.
Instead of a conclusion.
As far as the third dimension is concerned, enough has already been said, so we can put an end to it. I did not plan a conclusion in the article, and finally I will say that everything that has been said is the fruit of my reflection on the tasks and questions posed in the article. This is my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone. We all tend to make mistakes, and let these mistakes be correctable, and if they change our destiny, then only for the better.
