Introduction

It's no secret that the theater today is in many ways a kind of dying. Nowadays, a whole generation of people has grown up and is healthy who have never gone to the theater and, moreover, do not consider themselves deprived of something in this regard. The theater was replaced by cinema and television. Why go somewhere when you can just press a button on the remote control and see everything you want and even more; why speculate and imagine, when the cinema obligingly draws any colors, and the computerized hero depicts possible and impossible tricks. However, besides these frankly “philistine” facts, there are others that led to the decline of the theater, such as its out-of-dateness, alienation to the average person. What is needed is a “new vision”, a “living stream”, something that will revive the theater, take it to a qualitatively new stage of development.

One of the "finds" of the new theater was the work of Yevgeny Grishkovets, who revived the monodrama and gave it a qualitatively different sound. Just ten years ago, E. Grishkovets took the stage with his work “How I ate a dog” and today they are talking about it everywhere - on television and on the radio, in newspapers and magazines, on the Internet, abroad and, of course, in theater. Some love him, others admire him, others find him banal, and still others do not even consider his work to be art. Such a variety of viewer feelings and emotions only says that this person undoubtedly has a talent that leaves no one indifferent. Ten years is a very long time by human standards, but by cultural standards it is a moment. The phenomenon of Yevgeny Grishkovets has not yet been studied in detail, although many literary critics, critics, journalists have repeatedly turned to his work, trying to find the origins of his popularity and talent. In this paper, we will try to determine the essence of the phenomenon of E. Grishkovets on the basis of the analysis of one of his plays.

The phenomenon of the writer and playwright Evgeny Grishkovets

In fact, there are many sources of the phenomenality of E. Grishkovets. This is, firstly, the amazing versatility of his talent, since he acts as a writer and playwright, actor and director, even a "singer". He is already the owner of several prestigious awards, such as Antibooker, Golden Mask, Russian Diamond, he was awarded the Symbol of Science medal, and the showing of all his solo performances at the Golden Mask festival was included in the Guinness Book of Records on the same day. . Secondly, this is, of course, his revival of such a difficult dramatic work as a monodrama. And not only on paper, but also on stage. In general, a monodrama is “a dramatic work played out from beginning to end by one actor.” Based on the materials of the literary encyclopedic dictionary of terms and concepts .. If this single actor plays one role, then the monodrama is an extended monologue that can address directly to the viewer, to the present silent character, or to a character behind the scene. Evreinov N. N. in his work on the monodrama Evreinov N.N. "Introduction to Monodrama". St. Petersburg, 1909 puts forward the internal centralization of action, the transformation of “drama alien to me” into “my drama”, that is, the drama of the viewer himself, empathizing with the central “acting” character of the play. This "acting" Evreinov calls the "subject of action" or simply "I". The relationship of this "I" to the world, its subjective perceptions of people and things determine the nature of the unfolding action of the monodrama. In the Soviet era, some echoes of Evreinov's theory can be found in the practice of directors of the aesthetic-formalist camp. At the same time, they took the principle of monodrama not from its primary source (Evreinov), but from the practice of film directing, which canonized the technique of “monodramatic montage” by Timoshenko S.A. "Art, Film and Film Editing". L., 1926., whose task is to show the viewer what is seen or felt by the hero, from the point of view of this hero. Picked up by the "new" theaters under the name of "influxes", this technique has become widespread. The most striking applications of it were given by Meyerhold V. E. (“The Government Inspector”) and Sokolovsky M. V., director of the Leningrad TRAM (“Days are melting”, “The thoughtful flare”, etc.). In the latter case, the application of this principle was supported by the TRAM theorist - Piotrovsky A.I. - as a search for a "dialectical, capacious form of dramaturgy" Piotrovsky A. I. "Cinematization of the Arts". L., 1929. However, returning to the work of Yevgeny Grishkovets himself, it is interesting to note the very way he wrote monodramas. Because first there is a performance and only then the text. “Everything exists as a theme. (...) I play it, and thus I do not rehearse, but work with the text. Grishkovets E.V. Air "Echo of Moscow", 28.01. 2001. This unique way of working on a piece originates in the Kemerovo theater "Lodge", where Grishkovets worked. The actors did not take ready-made plays, but created a performance during rehearsals on a theme determined in advance. “Our performances grew like a crystal. We talked a lot, invented, and therefore the actors became, as it were, co-authors of the text. Grishkovets E.V. gzt "Evening Moscow" No. 40, 28.02.2001. That is why he wrote down his first text “How I ate a dog” only a year after the performance was shown, and then only because the publishers asked him to. However, the author himself does not like the text transferred to paper, since he has lost additional "special effects", such as: the indisputable charm of the hero, his intonation, pantomime, etc. And the printed works, respectively, became the material for literary criticism and analysis. And now the advantages of the one-man show have been separated from the monodrama itself. But unexpectedly, the spoken text turned out to be easy to read, pleasant, and even artistically valuable. The way in which the author conveys his thoughts is stories, small plots that are intertwined in the canvas of the text every now and then. Many critics call them tales, anecdotes, a variant of the American "stand-up comedy" Bolotyan I. "Grishkovets: Author, Phenomenon, Syndrome", GZT. "Literary Russia" No. 42, 10/20/2006. In general, the texts of Grishkovets are a combination of associations, memories of the hero that arise as he tells the main plot, if there is one. In fact, Grishkovets' mono-plays are "lyrical" monologues in which the hero's feelings are revealed, the expression of personal perception and state of mind. And here everything that will distract the viewer from the monologue, including excessive scenography, can be superfluous. Therefore, it is always minimal, often amateurish and at the same time elegant, like everything simple and ingenious. Sea ropes and a bucket of water for the one-man show "How I Ate a Dog", tables "Human Anatomy" and a fan for "Simultaneously", a basin of water where paper boats float for "Dreadnoughts". The largest set design in the play "Planet", where there is a window, and behind it a small room, branches near the window, an airplane on a string and a satellite on a stick. Everything is conditional: these are only images, through symbols of his works.

However, the main thing that attracts people to it is a certain involvement of everyone in the creative process. For, speaking about his own experiences, Grishkovets talks about what is in everyone's life. But an ordinary person considers an author who writes about him, the reader, as talented. And he doesn’t just write, but writes clearly and clearly, collecting from small pieces - moods, funny or awkward phrases, actions, a whole mosaic, mosaic human life. And here already Evgeny Grishkovets has many equals. Spectators or readers, leaving the hall or reading his work, feel ownership - "It happened to me!". Perhaps it is in this main secret his success, and ultimately his phenomenon.

The text of the work is placed without images and formulas.
The full version of the work is available in the "Job Files" tab in PDF format

Introduction

Speech portrait- these are the speech preferences of the individual, a set of features that make it recognizable.

In this paper, we are trying to explore the "speech portrait" of a literary hero. The relevance of the work is due to the insufficient development of both theoretical and practical aspects on the research topic, there is no single generally accepted scheme of analysis.

Scientific novelty research consists in an attempt to compose a speech portrait of Eugene Onegin. We explore the lexical and syntactic levels, features of speech behavior, which are considered in conjunction with linguistic features.

The speech portrait of a literary hero as a way of expressing a linguistic personality is an interesting and relevant issue. The linguistic personality of Eugene Onegin from the novel of the same name in verse by A.S. Pushkin became the object of our study.

Subject of study- Eugene Onegin's monologues as a reflection in the language of individual traits of a person's character in their correlation with the manifestation of the typical in the speech behavior of his contemporaries.

Purpose of the study- make a speech portrait of a literary hero.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

To study the literature devoted to the study of speech portrait in Russian linguistics;

Analyze the monologues of the character, describe the lexical and syntactic features of Eugene Onegin's speech;

To reveal individual and typical features of speech behavior and their reflection in the character's language.

The goals and objectives of the study determined the structure of the work, which consists of an introduction, the main part, which includes two chapters, conclusions and a list of references.

The first chapter of this work discusses the theoretical foundations of the study of speech portrait as a reflection of individual and typical manifestations of a linguistic personality. The second chapter is devoted to the features of the speech portrait of a literary hero, language analysis of the text, its lexical and syntactic features, speech behavior of Eugene Onegin.

In writing this work, the works in the field of "speech portrait" of such authors as: Karaulov Yu.N., Goncharova E.A., Churilina L.N., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., materials of the Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary under the general editorship of V. M. Kozhevnikova, P.A. Nikolaev. In the works of these researchers, describing the "speech portrait", the characteristics necessary for the analysis of the speech portrait are highlighted. These include the features of language units and speech behavior, which are of the greatest interest in research terms. That is why in the description of the "speech portrait" of a literary hero, we will consider the main possible and implemented in modern linguistics methods of its analysis.

The results of this work can be used to achieve meta-subject results in the lessons of the Russian language and literature in school practice.

Speech portrait as a reflection of individual and typical manifestations of a linguistic personality

In linguistics, a special direction has been formed that studies the linguistic personality from the point of view of describing its speech portrait.

The study of the concept of "speech portrait" historically begins with a phonetic portrait, important methods of describing which are developed in the mid-60s of the twentieth century by M.V. Panov. Analyzing the pronunciation of individuals, M.V. Panov creates a number of phonetic portraits of politicians, writers, and scientists.

T.P. Tarasenko defines the concept of a speech portrait as "a set of linguistic and speech characteristics of a communicative personality or a certain society in a particular period of existence" . The researcher identifies a number of personality characteristics reflected in the speech portrait: age, gender, psychological, social, ethno-cultural and linguistic.

Creating a speech portrait is possible in relation to any sphere of communication. There are many studies devoted to the linguistic personality of a modern political figure, student, schoolchild. In addition, there is the concept of a national speech portrait, which implies the definition of features inherent in a national linguistic personality.

The object of study can also be the character of a work of art. In literature, a speech portrait is a means of creating an artistic image. The speech structure of the artistic image is considered by L.K. Churilina, E.A. Goncharova, E.A. Ivanova, Yu.N. Kurganov, M.V. Pyanova, A.K. Zhunisbaeva.

L.N. Churilina reveals the relationship between the concepts of "mental lexicon", "internal lexicon" and "individual lexicon" and presents the character's dictionary - "a list of words that together make up his discourse". The individual lexicon in her work is described as "a system that serves the communicative needs of an individual", with the help of which it is possible to reconstruct "fragments of an individual image of the world" .

The speech of the character from the standpoint of vocabulary and syntax is considered by E.A. Goncharova: "The lexical composition of the phrase gives an idea of ​​the figurative-conceptual sphere of the character, and its syntactic organization reflects the peculiarities of the logical-expressive coupling of images and concepts in the process of their cognition." Particular attention is paid to the phenomena of repetition and ambiguity. According to E.A. Goncharova, an idea of ​​the features of the character's speech structure is given not only by repetitions of the lexical level - favorite vocabulary, vocabulary that is socially and territorially colored - but also by the attraction to the same type of syntactic constructions.

M.V. Kitaygorodskaya and N.N. Rozanov call the speech portrait a “functional model of a linguistic personality” and highlight the parameters by which this model is analyzed. One of these parameters is the lexicon of a linguistic personality - a level that reflects the possession of the lexical and grammatical fund of the language. At this level, the stock of words and phrases used by a particular linguistic personality is analyzed. The researchers call the next step the thesaurus, which represents the linguistic picture of the world. When describing a speech portrait, emphasis is placed on the use of colloquial formulas, speech turns, special vocabulary that make a person recognizable. The third level is the pragmaticon, which includes a system of motives, goals, communicative roles that a person adheres to in the process of communication.

All three levels of this model correspond to the levels of linguistic personality in Yu.N. Karaulova. According to Yu.N. Karaulova, a linguistic personality "is a personality expressed in language (texts) and through language, there is a personality reconstructed in its main features on the basis of linguistic means" . In the linguistic personality, in his opinion, three structural levels can be distinguished. First level - verbal-semantic(invariant), reflecting the degree of proficiency in ordinary language, the level of speech culture. Second level - cognitive, actualizing the knowledge and ideas inherent in society (actually a linguistic personality) and creating a collective and (or) individual cognitive space. This level involves the reflection of the linguistic model of the world of the individual, the expression and reflection of value meanings, both personal and cultural-historical. And the third level is pragmatic, which includes the identification of motives and goals that drive the development of a linguistic personality.

The parameters of linguistic personality have not yet been fully developed. Usually it is characterized by a certain stock of words that have a particular frequency of use, which fill syntactic models. If the models are sufficiently typical for a representative of a given language community, then the lexicon and manner of speech may indicate his belonging to a particular society, indicate the level of education, type of character, indicate gender and age, etc., that is, they become components of the speech portrait.

A single definition of the concept of "speech portrait" in science does not yet exist. In our work, under the speech portrait, we will understand a set of certain qualities of a linguistic personality, which are, as a rule, a reflection in speech of the psychological features inherent in it and are expressed by a certain set of linguistic means.

So, an individual speech portrait demonstrates the bright features of the character of an individual, but necessarily reflects certain (typical) features of group speech behavior. Currently, models for describing a speech portrait are based on the study of the features of functioning in texts created by a linguistic personality, units different levels language system, primarily lexical and grammatical, as well as the study and description of the features of speech behavior.

Speech portrait of Eugene Onegin - the hero of the novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin

2.1. Language features of monologues

The image of the hero of a work of art is made up of many factors - this is the character, and appearance, and hobbies, and the circle of acquaintances, and attitude towards oneself and others. One of the main ones is the character's speech, which fully reveals and inner world, and lifestyle. The talentedly created speech characterization of the hero is an adornment of the artistic text and an important touch to the portrait of the character. The skillful use of speech characteristics is one of the tools of a professional writer. A speech portrait is a selection of special for each character literary work words and expressions as a means of artistic depiction of characters. In some cases, words and syntactic constructions of book speech are used for this purpose, in others, vernacular vocabulary and raw syntax, etc., as well as favorite “words” and turns of speech, addiction to which characterizes literary character from one side or another (general cultural, social, professional).

Taking into account the three-level model of a linguistic personality proposed by Yu.N. Karaulov, there are several parameters for describing the speech portrait. One of the most informative is the lexicon - at this level, the vocabulary of a particular linguistic personality, the level of proficiency in the lexical and grammatical means of the language are studied. Based on the analysis of the lexicon, it is possible to single out generalized meanings that will give an idea of ​​the system of values ​​in the picture of the world of a given person reflected by speech works. At the next level, the features of speech behavior are analyzed, including motives and goals in the system of social roles that characterize a given linguistic personality and are realized in a specific communicative situation. At the first stage of the study, after reading the novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin", we got an idea of ​​many character traits of the protagonist from the author's own story. Onegin is a secular young man, a metropolitan aristocrat who received a typical upbringing for that time under the guidance of a French tutor. Although Onegin learned "something and somehow", he still has a high level of culture, differing in this respect from most representatives of the noble society of the 20s of the 19th century. The nobility of the soul, "a sharp chilled mind" set him apart from the environment of aristocratic youth, gradually lead to disappointment in life: "No, his feelings cooled down early. He was bored with the noise of light ..." The emptiness of life torments Onegin, he is seized by spleen, boredom, and he leaves secular society, trying to engage in socially useful activities. The lordly upbringing, the lack of the habit of work (“hard work was sickening to him”) played a role, and Onegin does not complete any of his undertakings. He lives "without purpose, without labor." In the village, he is even more tormented by his own moods, a feeling of the emptiness of life.

The reason for the contradictions in the character of the hero, the strangeness of his blues with the external well-being of living conditions, help to understand his monologues. We have studied 3 excerpts from the work: in the first stanza of the novel, the hero’s reasoning about his uncle, a monologue-confession made in response to a letter to Tatyana Larina (chapter 4), and Onegin’s letter in chapter 8. Based on the analysis, we can say that the hero speaks the correct literary language. Onegin is not verbose: in these passages, the total number of word usages is 629, of which 139 are nouns, 108 are verbs, 46 are adjectives, and 32 are adverbs. As you can see, nouns predominate in the morphological structure of speech, which allows us to consider Eugene Onegin linguistic personality of nominal type. In the predominance of nominal parts of speech, such character traits as restraint, poise, and prudence find linguistic expression. We assume that such a number of verbs indicates the ability to act. A small number of adjectives and adverbs indicates a lack of emotionality; coldness, secrecy and indifference predominate in the character.

Consider the lexical and grammatical features of Eugene Onegin's monologues.

Lexical Features

The first stanza of the novel, representing the direct speech of the hero, introduces the reader directly into the middle of the action, which is continued only at the end of the chapter from stanzas LII to LIV. Emphasized everyday and satirical nature of the episode gives the beginning a parodic character. There are 61 lexical units in the text. The most frequent are nouns - 15 and verbs - 13. There is only one theme - the groaning of a young man because of the need to "sit with the patient day and night." This is also connected with the injection in the first stanza of phraseological units of colloquial speech: “the most honest rules”, “I seriously fell ill”, “I couldn’t have thought of it better”, “his example to others is science”, seemingly praising my uncle. But the expression “I forced myself to respect”, which can be considered an oxymoron, is bewildering. Is it possible to force respect? Through these phraseological units, Onegin's attitude to the situation is expressed. A young man is forced to go to his dying uncle, to take care of him. Otherwise, he will not receive the inheritance. And, not experiencing any kindred feelings for the “sick”, “half-dead”, Onegin thinks longingly about the boredom that lies in wait for him, calling the forced care of a dying rich relative “low deceit”. In one stanza, the mention of both god and the devil, probably testifies to the frivolity of the hero.

The vocabulary of the monologue-confession from chapter 4 represents two thematic groups, which can be conditionally called "feelings", "family". There are about 296 lexical units in this monologue. The most frequent are nouns - 61. Onegin's confession, which turned into a "sermon", is opposed to Tatyana's letter. In the first place is vocabulary associated with feelings - love, sincerity, excitement, bliss. The solemnity and grandiloquence of speech is given by the use of outdated grammatical forms and high vocabulary (attentive, said, found, young maiden, really), a definition formed from a literary term (“without madrigal sparkles”), emotional, expressive epithets (“innocent love”, “ silenced feelings”, “sad days”, “gullible soul”, “pure, fiery soul”, “strict fate”, “light dreams”), metaphors (“confessions of the soul”, “fate commanded”). The repeated repetition of the word "soul" - 4 usages - serve to oppose the heroes: Onegin about himself - "my soul is alien", "I will not renew my soul", and about Tatyana - "confident confession of the soul", "pure, fiery soul". The vocabulary of the scene of Onegin's explanation with Tatyana captivates with high nobility and honesty: "silenced feelings", "captivated". Reading a harsh "sermon" to Tatyana, Onegin tries to be sincere. He objectively evaluates his character, habits, lifestyle. In his confession, Onegin confesses to Tatyana that he cannot be her a good husband. The text presents a thematic group of words with the meaning "family, home": home circle, father, spouse, bride, girlfriend, matrimony, family, wife, husband, brother. Explicit irony sounds when describing a possible family: the paraphrase “what kind of roses will Hymen prepare for us”, the words “low”, colloquial and everyday style “enrage”, “fate, however, cursing”. Onegin says: "Marriage will be torment for us." The epithets that Onegin rewards a possible husband carry a negative connotation: "unworthy", "boring", "frowning, silent, angry and coldly jealous." Such a husband will not be able to make Tatyana happy. Onegin does not believe in love, he compares it to a “tree” that sheds its leaves from time to time, Onegin believes that love between people is just as fickle, and therefore he can love Tatyana only with “brother's love”. The most frequent in this passage are single-root nouns united by the theme "love" - ​​6 word usages. But these are not declarations of love, on the contrary, a denial of it: “no matter how much I love you, getting used to it, I will stop loving you immediately”, “I love my brother with love”. Apparently, the feeling of love is inaccessible to Onegin. Onegin trusts here only his reason and life experience, not trusting his soul. Onegin, trying to convince Tatyana, relies on a lot - 2 phrases: “... when I would be a father, a pleasant lot commanded me to be a husband”, “... is such a lot assigned to you by strict fate.” He rejects the love of Tatyana Larina, a gifted, morally pure girl, unable to unravel the depths of her requests, the originality of nature. The meaning of Onegin's speech is that, unexpectedly for Tatyana, he behaved not like a literary hero ("savior" or "seducer"), but simply like a well-mannered and quite decent person who "acted very nicely with sad Tanya." Onegin behaved not according to the laws of literature, but according to the norms and rules that guided a worthy person of Pushkin's circle in life.

There are 272 lexical units in Onegin's letter from chapter 8. The most frequent are nouns - 63, verbs - 51. One thematic group can be distinguished in Onegin's letter. main topic the passage is connected with the concept of “love” (“an explanation of a sad secret”, “noticing a spark of tenderness in you”, “catching with loving eyes”, “to turn pale and go out ... here is bliss!”, “languish with a thirst for love”). The eighth chapter reveals in Onegin opportunities that he did not have before. This is the rise of the hero, in which selfless, spontaneous love and poetic feeling are revealed. Onegin at the beginning of the novel and at the end of it is different people. In the second passage, the number of personal pronouns “I”, “mine” prevails - 22 word usages in comparison with “you”, “you” - 15, that is, the hero spoke more about himself, even showed his superiority, did not confess, but “preached Eugene ": "Learn to dominate yourself: not everyone will understand you, like me: inexperience leads to trouble." In the third passage, the number of pronouns "I" (17) - "you" (19) and their derivatives is approximately the same. A person already thinks not only about himself, but also more about his beloved. The letter is written by the “second” Onegin, who has changed during his wanderings and is able to love. With Onegin's love for Tatyana, Pushkin emphasizes that his hero is capable of moral rebirth, that he is not a man who has cooled off to everything, the forces of life and passion are still seething in him. This is evidenced by emotional metaphors (“a spark of tenderness”, “undertakings of cunning”, “languishing with a thirst for love”, “excitement in the blood”), an oxymoron (evil merriment), epithets (“a sad secret”, “bitter contempt”, “a proud look ”, “sweet habit”, “hateful freedom”, “humble prayer”, “feigned coldness”, “despicable cunning”). Here we find “high” vocabulary (“to listen”, “painful”, “humble”), words of “low”, colloquial everyday style (“I trudge”), Slavicisms (“mouth”, “cold”, “more”, “ reproach"). In the letter, Onegin often uses words related to “higher powers” ​​(“soul”, “My God”, “this is bliss”, “at random”, “counted days by fate”, “in the prayer of my humble”, “your reproach”, "and surrender to my fate"). In the speech of the protagonist, who is the conductor of the thoughts of the author himself, an aphorism appears: "I thought: liberty and peace / / Replacement for happiness."

Like Tatyana, he steps over the unwritten laws of public morality - he writes a love letter to a married lady. Realizing that he could harm Tatyana's reputation, Onegin in no way puts her in jeopardy, asks for nothing: only "to see you, to follow you everywhere." That's all, he dares not say more. Now this is a completely different person. The former Onegin - the same one who gave such a strict rebuke to Tatyana in the park - could not completely submit to such a feeling, could not love like that: “And, sobbing, at your feet / Pour out prayers, confessions, penalties.” And in the end, the hero admits that he is defeated: “I am on my own // I can’t resist anymore; // Everything is decided: I am in your will // And surrender to my fate. Here is an almost verbatim repetition of Tatyana's letter: “Everything is decided: I am in your will,” Onegin writes, and she: “Now, I know, in your will ...”. To be "in someone else's will", to depend on someone - both happiness and unhappiness at the same time.

Thus, the analysis of the lexical organization of passages reflects the process of spiritual enlightenment of the hero's personality. This is evidenced by changes in the vocabulary: in the quantitative composition, and to a greater extent in the qualitative composition of the vocabulary. The stressed everyday character of Onegin's first monologue with laconic colloquial vocabulary is replaced by emotional speech rich in high vocabulary, metaphors, epithets.

Syntactic features

The monologue statements that we studied are small in volume: in the first stanza there are 3 sentences, in the next two passages there are 18 sentences each. There are 59 sentences in total, of which only 10 are simple, the rest are complex, and with a significant predominance of non-union complex sentences (19), 7 complex sentences. Simple sentences are mostly exclamatory (What bitter contempt / / Your proud look will portray!) Or interrogative (What do I want? For what purpose will I open my soul to you?). The non-union of complex sentences with several rows of homogeneous members gives dynamism to the verse, expressing the emotion of the hero. Among the components complicating the structure, there are also introductory words (perhaps, but yes), which indicates the ability to reflect.

The means of expressing emotions are expressive syntactic constructions, among which there are:

Lexical repetitions: "... the day is dear to me, the hour is dear to me" ; “from everything that is dear to the heart, then I tore my heart”;

Inversions: “I will see you in the afternoon”; "in the prayer of my humble"; “I will open my soul to you”;

- anaphora: “Whenever life is at home / / I wanted to limit it; / / When I would be a father, a spouse / / A pleasant lot commanded; / / When it would be a family picture / / I was captivated even for a single moment ... ";

Gradation: “pour out prayers, confessions, penalties ...”, “... before you in agony freeze, turn pale and go out … ».

Thus, the use by Onegin in his speech of predominantly complex sentences, the expression of emotions through expressive syntactic constructions speaks of the education of the hero, who knows all the norms of the literary language.

2.2. Features of speech behavior

The creation of a speech portrait includes an analysis of speech behavior. Speech behavior is usually understood as conscious (rarely unconscious) speech acts performed by a linguistic personality in a certain situation of communication and aimed at solving a communicative task. In speech behavior, as well as in the use of linguistic units, individual and typical features of a linguistic personality are manifested.

Monologues and Onegin's letter are speech acts. The informal nature of communication allows the addressee to express his thoughts and feelings with maximum freedom and completeness.

At the beginning of the novel, Onegin's monologue is addressed to himself, his cursing about the forced trip to the village is a conversation with himself. We do not yet know the hero, there is an intrigue, a desire to find out the details of the life of the "young rake".

Chapter 4 describes the meeting between Tatyana Larina and Eugene Onegin, a dialogue between young people is supposed, but we hear only Onegin. "Barely breathing, without objection, Tatyana listened to him." Therefore, in our opinion, this passage can be called a monologue in which Onegin's character begins to be revealed. We can say that this young man is sincere not only to himself, but also to Tatyana. Onegin is trying to convey in his speech that they cannot be together. He does not love her, he, tired and disappointed in life, is not able to appreciate her.

In the eighth chapter, “heartache has already become unbearable for him,” and Onegin is ready for death (“I’m ready to write to my great-grandfathers in advance about an imminent meeting”). He really managed to "forget himself": devotion to feeling is stronger than the fear of death, he is "like a child in love." He cherishes every moment of life in which Tatyana is present.

An obligatory etiquette part of a monologue and a letter is an appeal. Knowledge of etiquette formulas and the ability to use them is an important component of communicative competence: their use is a sign of politeness, indicating respect for the addressee, and a sign of upbringing of the writer himself. Onegin throughout the letter refers to Tatiana as "you" ("offend you"; "look at you"). Is this a display of politeness or restraint of feelings? He is not able to forget himself in his feeling of love and involuntarily (like Tatyana) switch to “you”. Onegin does not have this complete dedication: it would seem that he is in love, but, passionately confessing his love, continues to control his feelings, thoughts, speech.

Thus, the features of speech behavior not only correlate with the value meanings of a given linguistic personality that we have identified, but are also determined by them. Eugene Onegin's speech is impeccable from the point of view of observing the language norms corresponding not only to the 1st half of the 19th century, but also to the beginning of the 21st century. The speech of a literary hero is distinguished by expressiveness, logic, accessibility, clarity of presentation, richness of vocabulary. There is strict adherence to all ethical standards communication: knowledge and application of speech formulas of greeting, request, farewell, gratitude, appeal to "you". The general cultural component provides a wealth of both passive and active vocabulary. The ability to think ensures the logical presentation of thoughts.

Conclusion

In the course of the study of monologue statements from the novel "Eugene Onegin", we were convinced that in fiction, a speech portrait reveals the distinctive features and properties actors works in their own direct speech, as well as in the description of its features by the author. A.S. Pushkin selects for the speech of his heroes such turns of speech that most fully convey the main features of the characters he portrays and allow the reader to get an idea of ​​their culture, social environment, and psychology. This is achieved through a careful choice of lexical and intonational-syntactic forms of speech, giving it an individual identity. All this creates speech characteristic, the analysis of which is important for understanding the individual and typical features of the speech of the characters.

In monologues, Eugene Onegin appears as a unique person - with his own set of words, characteristic turns of speech, "favorite" syntactic constructions. The analysis of the language of monologues allowed us to identify those moral values ​​that were important to Onegin in different periods life. The study made it possible to trace the evolution of the character's character from the beginning of the work to its finale.

Each linguistic personality exists in the space of the culture of its time and the social stratum to which it belongs. Therefore, the typical features of the collective speech portrait are necessarily reflected in the individual speech portrait. So in the speech portrait of Eugene Onegin, the features of a typical representative of the Russian noble intelligentsia of the 20s of the 19th century were reflected, which, “living without purpose and labor”, was critical of the way of life of the noble society and government policy, did not find the meaning of life, did not knew how to love and could not become happy.

References

1. Goncharova E. A. Ways of linguistic and stylistic expression of categories author-character in a literary text / Ed. ed. Z. I am Turaeva. - Tomsk: Tomsk University Publishing House, 1984.

2. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality / Karaulov Yu.N. - M.: LKI Publishing House, 2010. - 264 p.

3. Kitaygorodskaya M.V. Russian speech portrait / Kitaygorodskaya M. V., Rozanova N. N. - Phonochrestomathy. - M.: Nauka, 1995.-128 p.

4. Krysin L.P. Modern Russian intellectual: an attempt at a speech portrait / Krysin L.P. // Russian language in scientific coverage. - No. 1. - M., 2001. - S. 90-106

5. Literary encyclopedic dictionary / Under the general. ed. V.M. Kozhevnikova, P.A. Nikolaev - M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1987.

6. Pushkin A.S. Evgeny Onegin / Pushkin A.S. - M.: Enlightenment, 1986. - 256 p.

7. Tarasenko T. P. Linguistic personality of a high school student in the aspect of its speech realizations (based on the data of the associative experiment and the sociolect of schoolchildren in Krasnodar): author. dis. cand. philol. Sciences / Tarasenko T.P. - Krasnodar, 2007.

8. Churilina L.N. Linguistic personality in a literary text / Churilina L. N. - M .: Flinta: Science, 2011.

Acquaintance.

Do you know who Evgeny Grishkovets is?.. Oh-oh-oh! Now I will tell you about him. In order to understand in general what kind of person he is, it is enough to say that he is a playwright-prose writer-director-actor, and besides, since quite recently, an integral member of the Curlers musical group. But this is in general, and now about particulars.

Our hero was born in the city of Kemerovo in 1967 in a student family. Grishkovets himself says: “My parents didn’t throw me at my grandmothers, they took me everywhere with them, even when they left for graduate school. It was a family, and this was its main well-being. This information is quite enough to understand something about the author's childhood, about his upbringing and about the origins of his, in general, good work. In 1984, he entered the Faculty of Philology and successfully graduated ten years later, in 1994. And it happened so because the learning process was interrupted by one of the most important, in my opinion, events in the creative life of Grishkovets: he was called up for military service. He gave three years of his life to senseless scouring of decks, hunger, fear and indifference, in general - to Morflot, taking from there sprouts of glory in return, which by 1998, on the basis of talent, gave such powerful roots that, in fact, at the same moment a tree grew from sprouts and began to bear fruit. But more on that later.

At the end of his service in 1990, Grishkovets tried to emigrate from Russia, hoping for a wonderful European life, but quickly became disillusioned with it and in the same year, already at home, in Kemerovo, he organized the Lozha Theater, where he produced one performance in year. But by 1998, this project had exhausted itself, Grishkovets firmly decided to leave his native city and ended up in Moscow. On this, we can safely finish the first part of the biography of our hero and move on to the second, which in itself will inevitably be, perhaps not very directorial, but still a portrait.

"Who is this?"

In fact, it is almost impossible to determine exactly who Grishkovets is. I think he good man. But a good person is, as you know, not a profession. So let's say he's a playwright. But when reading a play by Grishkovets, without ever hearing how he himself reads his works, it is difficult to understand what is happening in general, and it is absolutely difficult to imagine how it should look on stage. And you watch his performance - and everything is wonderful, everything is clear, everything is interesting. So he must be a good director. But he does nothing but his own works. And when you think that Grishkovets will start to stage Gorky, you cross yourself nervously and think: “Thank God, so far everything has worked out!”. Then he must be an excellent actor, in whose mouth any text becomes poetry, a word - an image, a thought - a problem ... well, nonsense, you see. With his specific physiology, completely ridiculous plasticity, with his speech apparatus, which, as he himself said, he has "not without a defect", it is extremely difficult to turn even a beautiful poem into poetry. And what happens? It turns out that Grishkovets is a bad playwright, a bad director and a bad actor. Actually it's not, it's just he is all for himself. Now I will explain everything.

The dramaturgy of Grishkovets is structured in such a way that it is much more interesting and pleasant to perceive by ear than to read. And in no case should it be “played”, it must be told. And this is the strength of the union of Grishkovets-playwright and Grishkovets-actor: only the latter can, without acting, without acting, tell what the former wrote, because this is his language, the language of his thought. Any other actor, taking his play, will no longer speak his own language, and, as a result, will act, which will radically change the essence of the play. And this important thing most often turns out to be sincerity and frankness, with which Grishkovets so fascinates. And when the plays get to another director, their fate immediately becomes rather nondescript and predictable ... Partly because they, as a rule, end up in the "School modern play". There they are not unsuccessfully played out, spatial issues are resolved, but the worst thing is they are trying to interpret (the climax of Reichelgauz's interpretive directing came in the second act of the play "House"). Therefore, it becomes clear that the best actor for Grishkovets' plays is Grishkovets, the best director for this playwright is Grishkovets, that is, Grishkovets for Grishkovets, it's like Chekhov for Stanislavsky or Efros for Rozov. (It should be noted that the main achievement of Grishkovets was his mono-plays and solo performances, so in this article I will deliberately not talk much about the rest of his dramaturgy).

And here, of course, it is worth mentioning the Titanic. You should be surprised that the first performance I spoke about is not quite mono and not quite Grishkovets. The fact is that the narrator here is Pavel Kolesnikov. But, as I have already said, only their author can become the narrator of his stories, and the one who retells them, even with verbatim and intonational accuracy, will be the performer of the role of the narrator. Of course, it is meaningless to say that Kolesnikov plays his role poorly: he plays it well, as it should be, as a marketer from Volgograd can play it. It is impossible to look away from his plump figure in a short double-breasted jacket, he simply fascinates with his seriousness and dilettantism. And so he reads the text of Grishkovets, a text that was born back in 1992 in that same "Lodge", a text that the author himself in the prologue calls amateur, just like the whole performance. And this short, chubby man comes out to the viewer and, as the mayor announces the arrival of the auditor, informs us that "the world is dying." And he is here, in fact, in order to find the causes of death, explain them, eliminate and fix everything. A kind of little titan. Therefore, the name of the performance is in no way connected with the tragic death of a huge ship, or with Kate Winslet, or even with Leonardo DiCaprio. This performance is about a little titan - "Titanic", which is trying to understand the meaning of the endless self-destruction and mutual destruction of peoples, the meaning of death and life. Needless to say, these topics raised by Grishkovets and spoken through Kolesnikov's mouth cannot be perceived without loud laughter. And when at the end they ask us: “Why are you giggling all the time ?! I tell terrible things! ”, You really rewind the performance back, remember all the stories and marvel at their horror. And for a few seconds you think that the world is really dying. But then you come to your senses, you look at the Titanic-Kolesnikov - and again it's funny.

Thus, both the text of the play and the performance turn into a good comedy about people who do not know what they are doing. And the reason for this is not the text itself, but, of course, its performer. I am sure that in the mouth of Grishkovets it would all be no less funny, but in addition it would be imbued with a sincerely disturbing, empathetic meaning, which would not allow the viewer to attribute this performance entirely to a comedy. It would not be a tragedy, nor a tragic farce, nor a sentimental drama, nor a comedy, nor a vaudeville: it would be another performance by Yevgeny Grishkovets.

Grishkovets is trouble-free.

The people love Grishkovets. The people find in him something in which the “real” theater often deceives. He finds in Grishkovets intelligibility, clarity, fun and kindness. But that's not the point. The main thing is that the people see in front of them a man, an ordinary man, in a plain shirt, in trousers, now made of canvas, now from God knows what, a man with stubble on his face, with an ordinary voice and with ordinary gestures. The viewer sees his own kind on the stage. And what is this ordinary person talking about? He talks about things that are almost equally familiar to everyone: about going to school, about a train ride, about aspen birches, about a moment of falling in love, about a fun drink and about a morning hangover. Yes, not to list everything that he tells, but in each story everyone recognizes himself with great pleasure. And this one is not ashamed to recognize himself, because Grishkovets speaks about him without reproach, without sarcasm, without negativity. He speaks of it with love. More precisely, he does not talk about him, he talks about himself, and here, excuse me, there is no way without love. But he loves his neighbor as much as he loves himself. And he loves himself because he loves a person in general. An ordinary ordinary person: a child, a campaigner, an idler, a scoundrel, an American, a Russian, anyone. And he is engaged in the fact that he is trying to justify this person. And the viewer is delighted, amazed: how is it that one simple Kemerovo peasant managed to tell in such ordinary words what everyone thinks, so deftly describe the situation in which everyone found himself, so pick up the words exactly, so console and reassure that I am not the only one like that. And indeed, at the moment of the performance, you understand that a portly citizen in a suit is laughing at the same thing as a seventeen-year-old girl in torn sneakers. And this girl laughs not at something, but at herself, at her similarity with this citizen, with the Kemerovo peasant and with everyone in the hall. And every viewer feels about the same. And he loves it. (Unless, of course, he positions himself as an antisocial element and does not try with all his guts to show his originality and dissimilarity to others). And for this people love Grishkovets.

Grishkovets is problematic.

But the critic has a contradictory attitude towards Grishkovets. On the one hand, he understands that the people rejoice, that the performances are good, but it is dangerous to rely on the opinion of the people. What if this is an ordinary mass-cult trick, about which no one will remember in five years? And then the critic starts digging. But here the main thing is not to bury yourself and feel the edge. After all, the critic often digs up something completely different from what the author laid down, and sometimes he finds diamonds where the author did not expect at all. Therefore, now, by virtue of the nature of my activity, I will try to prove the wrong of those who claim that Grishkovets is a singer of everyday life and that behind his stories there is nothing but the charm of recognition.

Let's start with what Grishkovets says about the eternal topic - about man. Everyone wrote about it tirelessly and at all times. Grishkovets also wrote. And he tells not about a deeply suffering, not about a rushing about, not about an oppressed, but about a deceived person. And the main salt and intrigue is that this person was deceived not by someone, but by himself. This is especially clearly discussed in two, perhaps, the best performances of Grishkovets: “How I ate a dog” and “Dreadnoughts”. "How I Ate the Dog" is, in my opinion, a story of deceit. And her sailor tells us, who deceived the defenseless child that he himself was. Now I will explain everything.

The fact is that “How I ate a dog” is like the story of the former sailor Grishkovets about his service. And everything that he says not about the service is somehow tacitly considered to be " digression". But if you take a closer look, you will find that in addition to the main "Mornaval" theme, the play tells about the childhood of this sailor. And this story does not go at all in parallel, but is constantly intertwined with the main one at key points. So going to school on a dark winter morning turns out to be quite similar to the way of conscripts to Vladivostok, waiting for a birthday with gifts, lasting a whole year, turns out to be similar to a three-year wait for the end of service. And the disappointment in the gift turns out to be just as bitter as the disappointment of the last morning of the service, the last "retransfer", the last departure from the parade ground. This boy from childhood waited all the time, and all the time hoped for this sailor. And the sailor deceived the boy, he did not become his continuation. And the boy was gone… the sailor destroyed him. Not evil, not intentionally, imperceptibly, but somehow by itself, therefore the sailor is not to blame, time and chance are to blame.

Grishkovets speaks about the same deception, but of secondary importance, in Dreadnoughts. Only here he talks about the boys in the photographs, the boys we once were and the boys who have become something. And it does not matter at all what these boys became, the important thing is that they were better than what they became, and turned out to be betrayed. And Grishkovets is always ashamed in front of the one depicted in his childhood photograph, and many of his stories and intonations, gestures and views are saturated with this shame. So in the "Planet" he is ashamed before his unjustified hopes, before falling in love, in "At the same time" - before deceived expectations. Grishkovets does not try to talk about great virtues, about spiritual torments on the level of Dostoevsky, he does not pretend to lofty feelings and forms. He touches those strings in a person’s soul that are responsible for some smaller and more private feelings, but with his stories he tries to bring these strings into a favorable state, to tune them, which, in the end, can make us at least a little better. And this is already a lot.

Well, sort of a composition.

Now, I believe, the time has come to deconstruct the performance of Grishkovets and try to discern its components. And here we are waiting for fun ...

Well, first of all, it turns out that in this "like a performance" there are all the elements that are always present, for example, in the Maly Theater, in the Bolshoi Theater ... in any theater. There is scenography, light and sound. Then there is the actor, there are metaphors (especially vivid in Dreadnoughts), the atmosphere and the audience.

How does light work? And the light works very simply: it either burns, then goes out, then shines yellow, then red. It is impossible to say that the light carries some kind of semantic load, it is here in order to emphasize the state of the narrator, and the atmosphere of what is being described. The scenography is aimed at the same. And what kind of scenography is here: a chair to sit on, a floor to stand on, and a few more elements (a bucket, a basin with boats, a table with a bottle), which, if already present, will definitely shoot, and be sure to be functional.

And what can be said about the work of an actor playing the drama of Grishkovets in such a space? The actor is the main one here, he is the main one of all: the playwright, the director and the set designer. Moreover, he himself is all this. Grishkovets-actor from the very beginning doomed himself to confessional honesty, which does not require any visual and sound effects, due to his self-sufficiency. And this is what made the construction of the performance the way we see it. And we see a narrator on stage, telling either about his own life or about the life of someone else. And this narrator sometimes reminds us that this performance is not quite real, that it is only called that, but in fact it is all just like that, a conversation. This reminder is especially captivating in the play “Dreadnoughts”, where music suddenly starts to sound, the lights go out and the wary Grishkovets says to the audience: “Do you hear the disturbing music? This means that we kind of approached the topic. If I had expressive means, then I would use them all now ... but I only have smoke, so I will let the smoke in (let the smoke in) ... But if we had a real performance here, now such characters would come on stage in form, would have taken some significant poses, they would have started some kind of dialogue, you know, well ... the performance would have begun! .... And now nothing will start here, what was going on will continue ... ". And in this denial of oneself as a “theater” lies b about the most part of the theatricality of Grishkovets. Even the fact that every time he does a prologue and a small epilogue points to this. He constantly wants to say that he does not have a performance and at the same time he constantly arranges performances in his performance. He voluntarily or involuntarily gravitates towards very conventional theatricality with these shows of his, how someone moves, how what he dreams of (for example, playing bass in his favorite song, while acting in a film as a sailor killed in the first take, etc. .), he shows episodes from his life, shows them with pleasure, sometimes in rapid, sometimes just like that (as it was, for example, in "The Dog", in the episode about the shortest fight with a Japanese pilot). And in all these scenes and digressions there are no miracles of acting technique, no professionalism, but there is this absolute sincerity and theatricality. And besides, it’s an ordinary trick: after all, it’s difficult to listen to one burry man for two hours without interruption, and all the shows somehow distract from the general story, make it possible to relax and laugh at the very honest and very ridiculous plasticity of the beloved narrator.

"Where's grandma?" - "I'm for her!"

As you know, in any work there must be a hero. At least some. And who is the hero in the play by Grishkovets based on the play by Grishkovets with the actor Grishkovets? That's right, Grishkovets (the play "Dreadnoughts" is an exception and about it a little later). But here another question is born: “Is he a hero or just like that?”. My opinion is that Grishkovets managed to create the right image at the right time, which can be safely called, for example, “I am beloved.” And putting this “I” at the center of creativity, Grishkovets invented a new theatrical form: not a person talking about a misfortune that happened two hundred years ago with the daughter of a wealthy merchant, and finding similar situations in this story, but talking about himself, introspection, which is why something turned out to be so interesting to the public. And he likes to tell it, he likes to look for colossally accurate phrases, and we like to listen to him, so similar and close. Is it not possible to call the hero of the one whom the most diverse mass of people gathered in one hall fell in love with? And this hero is all Grishkovets.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that the hero in each performance by Grishkovets is different. And this difference is that he does not speak about himself beloved in general, but about himself very specifically. Now I will explain everything. The fact is that each performance tells us about Grishkovets through one dominant feeling, and therefore each performance shows us a little new and different Grishkovets. In "How I Ate a Dog" we see a kind of unpretentious sailor who speaks exactly the same as the man in the prologue, who has the same physiology as that man and in general they are one person. But the man in the prologue is a living Grishkovets, about whom we know nothing, and the man in the play is already a rather specific sailor who is no longer there, who lived only three years and at the same time radically changed the life of the man from the prologue. And we recognize Grishkovets through the lens of his shame in front of himself in childhood, in front of his mother, who sent him parcels when he was no longer there, but there was a sailor instead of him, we learn about crushed butterflies, about some actions about which “I don’t it’s nice to remember, but it’s not pleasant for you to listen to it ”... and it’s very funny, sincerely funny, in a kind way.

And in "Simultaneously" we see Grishkovets disappointed in his expectations. And there he, too, is a little ashamed of the deceit of these very expectations. He is dissatisfied with the inability to create the conditions under which the event should cause the expected effect. And he sincerely worries about this deceit of hopes ... and, again, it is very funny.

And in the "Planet" he talks about love, divided and unrequited, happy and unhappy, short and endless, and we already see a lyrical hero who dreams of flying in a dream and in reality, with clearly romantic manners (even the title speaks of something very abstract and romantic - "planet"). And he also worries, explains experiences, comforts himself and regrets ... and again it's funny, because it's familiar.

But now it is worth saying a little about the hero of the Dreadnoughts. The fact is that this is not a performance that is quite familiar to Grishkovets. And even those who say that our hero only talks about himself and amuses the audience will understand that in this performance there is thought and pain, which he must not have been able to find in others. And this crafty subtitle “a performance for women” or “a performance that didn’t work out” is immediately alarming: what about warships - and for women, how did it not work out, but is it going on? Of course, they later explain to us what the matter is, they tell us that a woman will never open a book about ships and therefore will never learn about the heroism of men, and that the performance, in general, is to tell women about these same heroes. But Grishkovets is concerned about a slightly different question: why did the sailors die on the Falkland Islands, why did sixteen-year-old John Cornwell turn the wheel of the cannon, realizing that it would not fire, why did they open the Kingston ships, on which there were several hundred officers and sailors, for what they did not lower the flag. And he does not find the exact answer, because he does not find the meaning for which one can give one's life. And the main conflict is that for these sailors there was a meaning, and it was in the flag, in these intertwined threads, and they died for it with songs and with a feeling of happiness. They fought for real, served for real and lived for real, because they had this flag and the opportunity to die like that. "And what are my options?" Grishkovets desperately asks the viewer. And it's not very funny anymore. Because the viewer is accustomed to the kind humanist Grishkovets, who tells sincere everyday stories, and here he begins to talk not so much about the meaninglessness of life, but about something more terrible - about the meaninglessness of death. The death that anyone who does not have this very flag dies. But at the same moment, he gives both himself and the viewer hope that “we, too, in principle, can, if we have such an opportunity,” die like that, look like that, so to speak. And this performance is for women solely because it is about real men, about heroes that we can suddenly become. And we're just like that. And if you stand up during the performance and ask Grishkovets: “Where is the hero?”, then he will probably answer: “I am for him ...”

So what?

Thus, Grishkovets in his "Dreadnoughts" did not aim at the eternal themes of betrayal and murder, love and disappointment, etc. He just talked about such important things as heroism, which we are beginning to forget about, about friendship and brotherhood.

In general, for a representative contemporary art Grishkovets is quite conservative. He never talks about the dark corners of the dirty human soul, about the distorted consciousness modern man and society. He sometimes talks about what everyone thinks about, but he never says it, afraid to brecze some vulgarity. Sometimes he talks about some very understandable feelings that many also experienced, and also considered vulgar to say about them. And Grishkovets says. And it didn't work at all. Maybe in places it is too simple and sentimental, but from the heart and without pathos and pathos. It's so natural when a simple person says simple things.

But here one should not belittle the contribution of Grishkovets to the theater, because he created a new, almost improvisational theater. Of course, it is easy to argue with me, pointing at the play and saying: “All the moves are written here!”. But after all, everything in this play indicates the improvisation of what is happening, take, for example, the initial remark to the play “How I ate the dog”: “The text can be supplemented with your own stories and observations. Those moments that you especially do not like can be omitted. It is desirable to tell this story for at least an hour, but not more than an hour and a half. The performer is doomed to improvisation. Yes, and Grishkovets himself constantly says a text that only resembles a play, but does not fully correspond to it. He created a theater of free storytelling, not afraid to insert himself into the center for the experiment. And it must be very scary: to come up with a "theater", to remember the stories of one's own life, to gather fifteen people in the buffet of the theater Soviet army and tell them all about it. But this is exactly how the premiere of the play “How I Ate a Dog” took place, which went down in history, of course, not as revolutionary or reformative, but certainly as innovative. And even if this theater has now exhausted itself, it has proved that theater stage open to everything really new, even completely ordinary person, with universal problems and views, with an open soul, kind eyes and a simple but honest idea. I would be afraid to prove it, and I could not. But Grishkovets could. Let's applaud him.

Recently, Evgeny Grishkovets has been waging his "quiet war" with Channel One. War for your good name. He's not used to it. The biography of the writer and playwright was not always easy at all. At all times.

Evgeny Grishkovets has been telling us about himself all his life. As a result, we know almost nothing about him. Surprisingly closed person: goes on stage, writes books, acts in films - and at the same time remains a mystery. Meanwhile, it has become a symbol of a whole generation. People who have found the strength to be weak. The entire first half of the 2000s was marked by this generation. They courageously defended their right not to do anything special, not to be heroes. Live, not survive. The right to be a little childish, confused, doubtful.

"The Bear" tried to figure out who is behind the image created by Grishkovets.

Burial of an angel

- Zhenya, do you remember your childhood well?

Badly. In childhood, there is no time, it seems that it is endless. I only remember that I dreamed of acting in films. Don't even play, no. Just get into the movies, into the TV, let it in the background. I even wanted to go to the demonstration so that I could see myself later on TV. But it was a live broadcast, so, alas, nothing happened. I don't know why I wanted to be on TV so much. I can not explain.

- Do you want it now?

And now even stronger. But for some reason, the roles that I dream of are not being offered to me. I really want to play something heroic, really heroic. And I am most often offered to play myself, Evgeny Grishkovets. At the same time, Grishkovets is understood absolutely wrong. Like such a nostalgic intellectual. Well, I have no nostalgia either in books or in performances. At all! But the people have a stable illusion on this score. Even all the parodies of me are connected with some details from the past: how much did the sausage cost, what was the pioneer tie, what was the school uniform ... I carefully clean all this from my texts. I receive many letters where, say, detailed description courtyard, tells how the author of the letter was dressed as a child, what were the names of his friends, what Kindergarten walked. That is, the reader demonstrates to me that he himself remembers everything very well, although I don’t have anything close to that. Any details are perceived by me as archaic. I have never been interested in the realistic depiction of the era. And now he's not interested. The fact of a human biography is not as important as the feelings about this fact. And experiences are universal.

- For some reason I'm sure you never kept a diary...

Never. I also never take a camera with me and do not collect archives. I tried to stimulate myself by buying a new camera every year so that there would be some interesting technical device. It's an activity in itself - pushing buttons. But I realized that no, life is more important. You have to either shoot or watch.

But let's remember anyway. Did you really eat dog when you were in the military?

In the fleet. Yes, ate. It was on Russky Island in the Pacific Ocean. It was already the very end of the Soviet Union. Nobody believed or tried to believe in anything. But there were local codes of honor. One had to either accept them or resist them. I couldn't accept them. I have been broken many times and lived by these laws. It was shameful. In general, a lot of shame is connected with my memories of the service. I will never forget this, and the insult, of course, remained. On the state, on the people, on the era. But I struggle with this resentment. It is no coincidence that the first thing with which I arrived in Moscow, “How I ate a dog,” was an army one. I hoped that by speaking out I would be able to part with these experiences, with these dreams, with these grievances.

- Succeeded?

Of course not. But on the other hand, maybe that's a good thing. If I hadn't served, hadn't been in the Navy, I wouldn't have written or played anything. Never.

- What year was it?

1985th. During the service, it seemed to me that nothing could be more difficult and more important than my experiences. And when I returned, I realized that what I experienced in the service was baby talk. Love, leaving my hometown, or even the funeral of a dog, which I describe in the story "Burial of an Angel", all this means much more to me than military service. These are all very big events for a normal person. It is no coincidence that I do not have characters in books who suddenly suddenly became deputies or accomplished a military feat. Or they came up with an Internet program and sold it for a billion dollars. This has never happened to me and never will. This is all extreme, it is on the periphery of life, I see absolutely no point in writing about it.

Nevertheless, you communicate with very unusual people. At least very rich. Among them, for example, banker Alexander Mamut ...

Mamut and I met about ten years ago and became friends. He repeatedly came to my performances, and it was rather his initiative - to get to know each other. To be honest, I didn't even know what he was doing. The surname was well known, but I did not know the details. And so we met. As stated in the novel Treasure Island, "Silver turned out to be an incredibly interesting conversationalist."

- Do you treat him like a villain?

Of course not. I won’t compare my friend with Silver, he’s just a really interesting conversationalist. He knows poetry and painting much better than me. In general, he has an incredibly interesting and inaccessible experience for me.

- They say that Grishkovets, with all his talent, would never have made it if not for Mamut.

I met rich people, including Mamut, already when I became known to the general public. That's the whole answer. But there is a shadow of truth in these rumors. Because some rich people... No, not like that. People who think they are rich often offer to help me. After all, from their point of view, I'm almost a beggar. Offers are different. For example, a person says to me: “I am starting construction of a new house. Invest a hundred thousand there, you get three hundred.

- And you?

I refuse. First, I understand that nothing happens just like that. Not in the sense that I was deceived. But I know for sure that I will have to think about this business, but I really don’t want to think about it and do all this. In my hands there is only the money that people paid for a ticket to the performances. Or paid for books. I didn't have any other money. Well, still a fee for filming a movie. In the occupation of one's craft there should be an obligatory vital necessity. I need to play a certain number of performances in order to maintain the standard of living that I'm used to. And I will never make it so that I give a hundred and get three hundred. Because if I do that, I don't know if I can keep myself from repeating this trick. Invest three hundred and get nine hundred. And then it is no longer clear why to play performances and write books. Then it will all turn into a kind of hobby and charity. But a hobby will never lead to significant results. And in this sense, I am very protective of my life and my profession from external influences.

- But your profession, the profession of an artist, today can be interpreted quite broadly. Take, for example, corporate events. Do you have such experience?

I sometimes, very rarely, play corporate parties with the Curlers group. There were many proposals to conduct some kind of events. And I even saw myself on the list of the most expensive hosts a few years ago. My name was in eighth place in the ranking. Serious amounts were indicated. And only opposite my surname was written "does not lead." But money was offered, really. I just try not to know about it. And my director doesn't tell me about it. I asked him not to tell. I am scrupulous in this sense. I understand that if I have to conduct some kind of wedding or birthday, or the anniversary of some bank, it will be so embarrassing that ... Thus, I will lose all the viewers and readers who will be at this corporate party. And I'm very afraid of losing them. Although there were performances with the Curler group at such events, however. We have discs coming out, but they don't sell well because there are so many pirated copies on the market. And this is absolutely impossible to earn. And the musicians, my friends, with whom we work, spend a lot of time and energy on recording albums. And in order for this project to pay off, you have to go to corporate parties. And one more thing: when you perform in a musical genre and perform something already prepared, you are still a little separated from the public, protected. Only I have a requirement. I can't perform when someone is eating. Of course, this is cleanliness. But nevertheless, people, if they really want to see me, agree to this condition.

This is a private party

- It has long been noticed that your performances have a psychotherapeutic effect. The principle is the same as in psychoanalysis. Do you have a problem? Do you want to talk about it? Let's talk and you'll feel better.

Yes, I understand. I once received a huge number of offers from psychotherapists to participate in some of their affairs, in sessions. Our methods are really similar to them. But the tasks are different. The task of the psychotherapist is to calm the person. My task and the task of art in general is different - to alarm. Sharpen perception. Make sure that a person wakes up and copes with his problem. Yes, I would not have taken on such a responsibility - to solve other people's problems. I have a rather pessimistic view of human relations. It is impossible to truly understand even a very close person. And we have almost no chance to make ourselves understood. I am very equipped in terms of expressing and explaining my actions, but there are such hidden sides, territories and moments for which there are no words to explain this to the closest person. Yes, even to himself.

- Is it necessary to explain anything at all in this case? You live and live...

Necessary. Another thing is that the task is impossible. The attempt is doomed to failure. But the result of this attempt are my texts. My formula is very simple: I do not understand what life is, but nevertheless I continue to live. I do not understand what literature is, although I know a lot about it. And the more I know about literature, the less I understand its phenomenon. But I'm ready to talk about it. By the way, I'm sure that more needs to be said. About anything. I do not accept such phrases: “I don’t want to talk about it” or “Now is not the time to talk about it.” In an attempt to talk - salvation. During the conversation, you can not agree on anything. But make sure that people are at least dear to each other. This is already a lot. This is, I would say, a lot.

But you started in the theater not at all with conversations, but with pantomime. And in some strange way they came to the genre, which is now called “Grishkovets”.

That was a long time ago. At the time of the Kemerovo theater "Lodge". I was 25 years old, and, of course, in those years no one would have listened to me the way they listen to me now. It took almost ten years to make postmodern, provocative, experimental performances in order to eventually come to a direct artistic statement. When it appeared, then they began to listen. And at first it was the most tender postmodernism. I remember how I loved in those years, in the early nineties, pantomime, that is, extremely abstract, metaphorical, allegorical art. Then, in general, everything allegorical and miraculous was the main thing. The idol, the main man of the era was Vyacheslav Polunin.

- Then you suddenly left everything and left Kemerovo for Moscow. A strong act. Pick up and go nowhere.

Not strong at all. Vice versa. After all, I actually deserted, fled from difficulties. In Kemerovo it was already unbearable. I didn't have enough space, and I didn't know who to address from the stage. In addition, in Kemerovo, if there are drama theater there was still no theatrical environment. There was the only theater-studio "Vstrecha", where we all went as spectators. And we were, our theater "Lodge", as an alternative to all this. Everything, there was nothing else in the city.

- And Kemerovo is a big city.

All cities are small, except for Moscow ... And I left. Instead of resisting the circumstances, he decided to change them. There is not much courage here. I actually got saved. It seemed to me that what I was doing was not needed by anyone, there was simply no one to show it to. In addition, I was aware that the theater is impossible to earn a living. And here is 1998. A crisis. Year of birth of the play "How I ate the dog." I arrived in Moscow in late autumn, in November. Thoughts were such that it was time to finish with the theater and live out life. It was almost the last attempt to achieve something. Just to clear my conscience.

- And then you covered success.

Didn't cover. Everything happened very gradually. Before I played at the Hermitage Theater at the Golden Mask, there were many performances in small halls for free, for twenty to thirty spectators. At some festivals I played small ones. And so it went on for quite some time. And only then there was the Golden Mask, then the Antibooker Prize. All this was later. By this time two little pamphlets of my plays had come out, and so on. That is, it was not such that once - and woke up famous. And there was still a very long and hard life in last years in Kemerovo, moving to Kaliningrad, painful getting used to this city. An agonizing decision that it is necessary to finish with the theater and move into a completely different state of life. Because I thought: well, well, now the award, and what's next? I've never had the feeling that I did it, I did it, and it worked. And now no. As soon as work on a play or a book is finished, I am a person without a plan for a while. And I think: maybe I'll just now rest for a year. But this is where the idea comes in. And it needs to be implemented.

If you were shown the current Grishkovets twenty years ago, would you be satisfied with this person, would he not cause you disappointment and rejection?

I would probably be very surprised. I would be shocked that this man writes books. And I definitely look better now than then.

- You did not like your appearance?

Didn't like it at all. I was seriously concerned about my own appearance and disliked it very much.

- And now?

And now, to a certain extent, I don't care.

- You know, you have the image of a very gentle person. And looks work for that too. Unshaven, tired short-sighted look from under the glasses. Everything is somehow good, at home. I can't imagine you getting angry or yelling at anyone.

Most of the time, I live up to expectations. But it is worth, for example, to react harshly to some statement on the Internet, as people immediately begin to become hysterical: “We thought you were good, but it turns out you are bad.” Someone came to me and started scolding me or saying something with which I strongly disagree. Well, I can't, I can't resist. In the end, it still happens on my territory, in my LiveJournal.

- As the song of the group "Curlers" says, "this is a private party" ... Alas, whole crowds invade private territory with their demands and claims. You can, of course, explain to them what is good and what is bad. You can somehow fight them. But you, in my opinion, are not a fighter at all. If you fight for anything, then for the right not to do anything special, not to perform feats.

“I really don’t want to do anything special. You know what some women say? “God, how tired I am of being strong!” I, too, am tired of being strong and have the right to be weak. Like everyone else, really.

- And what is happening now on this front, on the front of the struggle for the right to be weak?

“There are local battles going on. Sometimes, in hindsight, it turns out that you went on the attack. But most often there is a slow retreat with battles.

So, is it a retreat?

To my world

Dmitry Kolmychek

SOCIOTYPE OF EVGENY GRISHKOVETS

Evgeny Valeryevich Grishkovets is a famous Russian writer, director and actor. Engaged in creativity since 1990. Then he organized an independent theater "Lodge", in which 10 performances were staged in 7 years. In 1998 he moved to Kaliningrad, where he currently lives.

To date, Evgeny Grishkovets has presented 12 plays and 10 books to the public. Theatrical performances Grishkovets are distinguished by their chamber atmosphere (as a rule, these are solo performances). His most famous work is the play “How I Ate a Dog…”, for which the author was awarded the Golden Mask Award in the Innovation and Critics' Prize nominations.

On December 24, 2010, an online conference with the writer took place on the Lenta.Ru website. The spelling and punctuation of the writer's answers have been preserved, which gives us the opportunity to use the materials of the conference to determine the socionic type of Evgeny Grishkovets.

“I’m doing one endless performance…”

The sign of "extraversion-introversion" largely determines the direction of human activity. An extrovert is characterized by expansion, the desire to expand the boundaries of the sphere of his activity, to involve new objects in it. An introvert, on the other hand, tends to dive into a chosen sphere, “dig deep”, find new facets in it, subtle relationships.

Evgeny Grishkovets gives the following description of the boundaries of his activities:

Question: We are quite sympathetic to your work, however, in our opinion, along with your access to the general public, you have occupied a specific niche and to this day remain within its framework. Are you going / thinking about changing the nature of your work?
Answer: In no case. This is my niche. I did not occupy someone else's niche. The niche has no boundaries. I will do what I think is necessary. As I went to Kemerovo a long time ago, at the Lozha Theater, to engage in this type of theater, this type of utterance, that's how I do it. I am doing one endless performance and writing one endless mega-text, and I intend to continue doing that. The scope of this is unknown to me. If they are led by someone, then the flag is in his hands.

As you know, extroverts, when talking about their impressions of a particular place, prefer to give a panoramic, objective picture - as if from a bird's eye view. Introverts, describing the geography of some area, speak mainly about their inner feelings, subjective marks (atmosphere, spirit, attitude, etc.).

Question: Of course, you have been to many, many foreign countries. Which country/city/place impressed you the most? Where would you recommend everyone to visit?
Answer: First of all, in Tbilisi. Any Russian person who loves literature, art, love of life, definitely needs to visit Tbilisi - this is a fantastic city, which I don’t know more beautiful. This is the city where I could live. I recommend everyone to visit Sevastopol. I love him very much, although he is terribly mutilated, but so much is laid in this city, it is so deeply shed with the blood of real heroes. There is such a beautiful place that you should definitely visit this city. I love Kyiv. It's an incredibly gentle city. His face changes, many rednecks appear, he becomes vulgar-bourgeois, this tenderness disappears, but so far it is still there. You need to hold on to this. He is beautiful. I really love Polish cities, for example, Wroclaw, Poznan. It has always been said that “a chicken is not a bird, Poland is not a foreign country”, and so in these cities you can see what pre-war Europe was like. Vilnius is a wonderful city. Of all the Baltic cities, of course, Vilnius is the most beautiful. It is small, there is no Riga foppishness, no puppetry of Tallinn, a wonderful city, probably, and I could also live in it. Paris is a city where I could live a lot of time. I think that's enough geography.

Evgeny Grishkovets prefers immersion in his activities, and his descriptions of other cities contain exclusively subjective, stylistic characteristics (“this is a city in which I could live”, “an incredibly gentle city”, “a city where I could live for a long time”) . After analyzing these answers, we can reasonably believe that the writer belongs to the introverted type.

“When I communicate with young people, I remember my youth”

A significant place in the answers of Evgeny Valerievich is occupied by the topic of age and time. But it is not time expressed in minutes, hours and dates. Grishkovets time is a continuous, changing, integral stream, each moment of which contains the present, the past, and the future:

Question: Evgeniy, what influences your work more - past, deeply meaningful experience or a sharp perception of the fast-flowing surrounding life? PS I love your works precisely for the soft nostalgia for Soviet childhood and youth. Thank you.
Answer: Still, it is rather today's true living of a moment of life. When I see children, even my own children, I immediately recall my childhood sensually. When I communicate with young people, I remember my youth. There is no process of recollection here, everything exists in one moment of life: both the acute living of the present moment, and the reaction to the moment, and the thrill associated with the already lived.

Even people are described primarily in terms of time - age:

Question: Not so long ago, my daughter, and she is 12 years old, read your book "Shirt". She really liked it. Please tell me, what age do you see your reader, listener, viewer?
Answer: A curious case - at the age of 12 to read a novel about love. I see my ideal reader-viewer somewhere at the age of 25-35, this is the main backbone. But I know people who are over 70 and they read. I also know 16-17-year-olds who read and listen. Each work has its own more specific target audience. Let's say that the listeners of our project with "Curlers" are not exactly the same people who read the novel "Asphalt".

People who are types with strong introverted intuition tend to have a great sense of style. They are not only able to be transported in their imagination at any time and feel its atmosphere, but they can also “take with them” a piece of this time, expressing it, for example, in a work of art. People of these types have a creative attitude to time, they are able not only to accurately convey the atmosphere of the past, but also to “play” with it:

Question: When I was last at the play “How I Ate a Dog,” I was very surprised at the changes in it. Why are you trying so hard to erase moments from the past? I am only 20 years old, but I perfectly understood and remembered those puppet cartoons that you spoke about so wonderfully. And before the performance, you said that the youth would not understand
Answer: You cannot attribute to me what I cannot say in principle. What does "the youth will not understand" mean? My main audience is young people, especially those who like what I do in music. Young people will understand everything no worse than I do, but in their own way, and after a while even deeper, that is, adequately to the way it was said. Just life experience— is an essential thing. I don't want to talk about the past. I want the play "How I Ate a Dog" to be today's story. But there are no puppet cartoons now, for today's children in today's context. 11 years ago, when I started to say this in the play, they were still there, but now it's a reference to the past. Even if people remember, it will be a moment of remembrance, and I want it to be significant today, so that it does not refer to some kind of past, also Soviet. I just want the performance to sound sharply today, and not be some kind of nostalgic picture.

A play written by the author based on his own memories is not at all a work about the past. A subtle sense of style allows Grishkovets to make such edits to the performance that turn it from a “nostalgic picture” into the plot of today.

The writer's answers in the online conference are “saturated” with time. If the reader once again turns to the geographical descriptions given by Grishkovets, he will notice that even the description of cities is given to them through time (“Paris is a city where I could live for a long time”).

Thus, it can be argued with a high degree of certainty that one of the strong functions of the Grishkovets sociotype is the intuition of time.

“My fee, in Moscow, in Almaty, in Kaliningrad, is the same, no more and no less…”

Acting and writing is not only creativity and getting into character on stage. An equally important place in it is occupied by the administrative and financial side. Negotiating with a publisher, organizing a tour schedule, approving the amount of the fee - this is what a creative person has to do if he does not have his own manager.

From the answers of Yevgeny Grishkovets, it can be seen that he is well versed in the economic aspects of his activities, has a clear idea about the pricing of tickets for his performances, regardless of the city where they are held, as well as the solvency of the audience:

Question: I was at your concert in Almaty, I really liked it. Tell me, in your understanding, if I was at your concert (50 USD), do I have the moral right to download your album from free torrents (the cost of your album in the store is 7-8 dollars)?
Answer: You have no right to it, because it is a crime. Moral rights are up to you. You have to understand that out of the $50 you paid most of the rent for the theater where I played, you paid for expensive tickets, because they were made that way.
In Almaty, everything has become much more expensive, hotels have risen in price. My fee, in Moscow, in Almaty, in Kaliningrad, is the same, no more and no less, whether I go far or close. I often communicate with theater directors who run government agencies, not private shops. They rent them out and rack up such sums! In Almaty, renting a theater was more expensive than in Moscow. There I was not able to ask why such a price, since I simply could not meet with the director. But usually I ask in different cities: “Excuse me, please, here you are breaking up such a lease, do you understand that tickets will be expensive for your fellow countrymen?” They blink their eyes and still do what they did because they don't care.

Grishkovets has a great sense of resource. It is easy for him to correlate the benefits (material and non-material) and prospects of Soviet students with modern ones, and also to give this ratio an expert assessment. This is a sign of strong business logic:

Question: In your last post on LiveJournal about students, nostalgia for the Soviet era is clearly visible, when the world was not permeated with the spirit of consumption, when students fearlessly looked to the future. But at the same time, you always spoke of the communists with hostility. Why?
Answer: I can't remember ever talking about the communists, so this is some kind of speculation. I have no nostalgia for the Soviet Union, in that post I expressed sympathy for the students in the sense that we had more time, because time passed more slowly. We did not have the fear of graduating from the university, because even if you do not find interesting work, then you will be distributed, and as a young specialist you will receive your 110 rubles. They will not leave you on the street, they will give you at least a room in a hostel or a bed. Let it be a district center, a poor school, but you won’t die of hunger and you won’t stay on the street. This made it possible to read a lot, not to earn extra money, not to look for work, and so on and so forth. And now it is much more difficult for students. They have less time to read books, less time and energy to devote to focused learning. That's what I was talking about. I expressed my sympathy that it is now much more difficult for them, although, it would seem, there are more opportunities. It just seemed that we did not have such opportunities, but we had more happiness of youth, happiness of youth and serene students.

From the above, it follows that the strong functions of the sociotype of the writer are the intuition of time and business logic. In combination with the sign "introversion" this gives the type "Balzac".

Intuitive-logical irrational introvert "Balzac" has an excellent vision of time, style and a sense of resource. People of this sociotype have a transparent idea of ​​what actions entail certain consequences and what it means to work for the future.

“I don’t know how to be offended at all, being offended is stupid”

On the fourth position Model A type "Balzac" there is extraverted ethics. Situations that require dramatic involvement in the experiences of others, creative participation in the heat of passions, are very painfully experienced by a person of this type. Therefore, emotional provocations (forcing emotions, antics, parody) can be perceived by him as unfriendly and stupid behavior:

Question: Why are you often so rude in your Journal comments? After all, it’s enough just not to respond to a stupid or naive comment. Are you unable to contain yourself?
Answer: I do not consider it necessary to restrain myself in these comments. I was extremely clear in the post and I want the idiots to comment less. I made it, comment less. I am not ashamed of the fact that I am a living normal person. Cheerful, angry, whatever. I don't want to mess around with idiots or rude people, I won't! Just don't answer? A man came to me, wrote some kind of nonsense, it's the same as shat on my territory. I will continue to be so.

Question: Are you offended by parodies? Who do you think is your best impersonator?
Answer: I don’t know how to be offended at all, to be offended is stupid. I've grown up a little. I can be angry, I can be upset, but there is no offense. I don't mind parodies.

Introverted logic in the eighth cell of Balzac's Model A gives him such a quality as "absolute ear for stupidity" and an unconscious sense of justice. An example of the presence of this feature in Yevgeny Grishkovets can be the following answer:

Question: What is your political position? Do you need a political position at all?
Answer: I have a civil position, some of my beliefs and feelings. Although I understand that justice does not exist, I have some sense of justice, social and other, but not political.

Conclusion

In the text of the article, the author quotes only a part of the statements of Evgeny Valerievich, on the basis of which conclusions about his sociotype are drawn. Fragments that duplicate an illustration of a particular feature, as well as parts of the text that require too much quotation, are not included in this work.

People of this type include L. Parfenov, G. Gref, A. Pochinok, K. Orbakaite, as well as all famous character donkey Eeyore.