The beginning of the creative path. Theater man. New look - new forms.

Yevgeny Grishkovets literally burst into the theatrical life of Moscow in 1998 with a performance with a shocking title "How I ate a dog." And he won not only the love of the public, but also the recognition of professionals. In the same year, he received two "Golden Masks" in the "Innovation" and "Critics' Prize" nominations, and in 2000 the "Antibooker" and "Triumph" awards. Then recognition came in Europe, including at the famous Avignon Theater Festival.

His creative way began in the provinces (Grishkovets was born and lived in the city of Kemerovo), where he graduated from the philological faculty of the university and in 1990 organized student theater"Lodge", already then distinguished by "a person with a non-general expression." The capital's critic wrote: "Of all the Moscow and Russian theaters then, on the threshold of the 90s, only the "Lodge" heard the passionate challenge of the generation." Today's Grishkovets grew out of the "Lodge", which he himself invented. After leaving it, he created the unique Grishkovets Theater, where he is one in all faces - a playwright, stage director, stage designer and actor.

The theater of Grishkovets, and above all Grishkovets, the writer of the text, the playwright himself, amazes with the nature of life material and the way it is translated into stage action. Weird Tales, most often from everyday life, filled with seemingly meaningless particulars, for some reason excite and hurt. And “reading” into the text and “listening” to one’s own emotional state unexpectedly reveal how sharp-sighted and attentive the author’s gaze is, which selects everyday details how serious, and not at all from the everyday sphere, the questions that are posed in the play. M. Davydova, who devoted an article to Grishkovets’ work in her monograph “The End of the Theatrical Era”, accurately defined the features of the playwright’s “new look”: “Life in all its manifestations is recognizable: and at the same time it is unique, look at another and recognize yourself - here reference points of philosophy and poetry of Grishkovets. He managed to merge with each of the spectators and at the same time remain himself. To convey on stage the poetry of everyday life. To embody unique typicality. To make you feel that there are no boundaries between sailors, scientists, students, teachers, actors - in general, all of us. This is why we love the playwright, actor and director Grishkovets.”

The playwright’s interest in everyday life in its “unique typicality”, in the problems of a private person, by no means a hero, the desire to infect the reader and viewer with real and close attention to oneself - not admiring oneself for the sake of, but in an attempt to know oneself, to understand the content of one’s own life - characteristic features of the dramaturgy of Grishkovets. It would seem that there are so many everyday realities and recognizable everyday conflicts in the play "City". But the main thing in the dramatic action of this play, the core of which is also a monologue - the reflection of the hero, his path to knowing himself. And the character of the play "Simultaneously" is in search of his "I". Even on school anatomical diagrams, he is desperately looking for this elusive “I”.

In all his plays, Grishkovets conveys life as current time by various means. Life time - movement time, time simultaneous the accomplishment of many events and the time of every second change of a person: approaching the present oneself or running away from oneself. This metaphysics lends a philosophical ambiguity to the seemingly simple texts of Grishkovets.

At first glance, Grishkovets' texts, and especially his performances, seem like free, sometimes careless improvisation. However, the playwright himself emphasizes: “I am the author of the play ... I tell my text. I don't improvise it, I create it every time - here and now. This is an integral process of life, which, in essence, is theater as a momentary experience. Grishkovets creates a theater of "direct utterance", in which the right intonation is so important and the dictate of the author-ideologist is completely excluded. At the same time, in all his texts, even if it is not a play-monologue, one can hear the author's voice ironic or seriously commenting on what is happening.

In the case of Grishkovets, we have an amazing, truly indissoluble unity of form and content. The author chooses a play-monologue, concluding all the ends and beginnings, turns of the dramatic action in the space of the monologue word of the hero, the author's alter ego. The nature of the author's super-task is the living in the word of a certain event, segment life path in order to know oneself - explains the absence of a rigid causal sequence in the plot movement of the play. On the contrary, in the text there are constant, as it were, unmotivated digressions, backtracking. Basically the coincidence of the author and the actor. Grishkovets-actor can see the reaction of the viewer, Grishkovets-author reacts to it. And this is not a sequential, but a one-time process. “I don't play anything - I'm not at the level of the topic all the time, but at the level of the word, syntax, etc. And thus all the time the playwright himself stood.

And in this way I work all the time .. ”, - the playwright himself comments on this circumstance.

Mastering a new genre form. Intonation as a means of embodying dramatic action.

In the dramaturgy of our days, the genre form of the monologue play is updated not only in the work of Grishkovets. L. Petrushevskaya has monologue plays, N. Kolyada also loves this genre form. The play, the generic nature of which is determined by the action, the clash of characters, which find expression in the dialogue, is unexpectedly embodied in a monologue and at the same time retains the dramatic principle and theatricality. The transformation of genre forms in the historical development of literature is, paradoxically, a traditionally routine phenomenon. “The breaks of genres,” wrote V. Shklovsky, “occur in order to express new life relations in shifts of forms.” "Relationships", as you know, tend to change. It is precisely the rethinking of life, a qualitatively different approach to it that causes the need for the genre of a monologue play. Modern man (and the author and hero of the play cannot jump out of their time, they are his product) is a man of urban civilization and experiences the strongest influence of the environment, often aggressively hostile. Society encroaches on the individual - her time, choice, freedom. A defensive reaction from this leveling energy of the environment is the desire of the individual to withdraw into himself, distrust of the world, awareness of the impossibility of dialogue and understanding, and, as a result, loneliness.

In the play by the great French existentialist writer A. Camus “State of Siege”, her character Above triumphantly tells the Plague about the total disunity of people, alienation, the exhaustion of dialogue and the doomedness of a person to introversion: “We are approaching a perfect moment when everyone will speak, not finding answers from others.

In the plays-monologues of modern playwrights, the theme of social dead ends, the breakdown of human ties, and loneliness is being developed. It happens in the interpretation of this theme of penetration into the depths of metaphysical loneliness, when a person has lost contact with the transcendent, absolute reality and emptiness becomes his destiny.

The play by E. Grishkovets "How I ate a dog" is the most representative work of the author. The playwright's worldview, his model of the world, his attitude to tradition, a wide range of innovative means of expression - everything is in this seemingly tongue-tied monologue that recreates a real case from life. The hero of the play, under certain tragicomic circumstances, ate a dog in the literal, and not in the idiomatic sense of this expression. The “reverse metaphor” in the title of the monologue play is intriguing, alarming, and carries a charge of irony. Its structural, syntactic unusualness (the title is part of a complex sentence, the main part of which is easily reconstructed: “a story about that”) enhances the intrigue. The title of the play is not only formally and structurally uncharacteristic of the poetics of the titles of a dramatic work, but also ambivalent in terms of semantic content. The direct meaning of the phraseological unit “to eat a dog”, that is, “to gain experience, knowledge of something”, is also updated in it. Both meanings are interdependent; meanings are reflected in each other, as in a mirror, creating a certain main meaning for the playwright: a person, the hero of a play, uttering a monologue, gains experience that destroys all previous connections, makes him a different person, rejects him from the world from which he came.

The title of the play introduces the reader and viewer into the playing space. But it's not a game for the sake of a game. The ambivalence of the word, the reduction of speech as one of the characteristic features of the structure of the text, pauses, default techniques, lexical, syntactic, rhythmic repetitions, the reader’s spelling technique, a brilliant finale that excludes any unambiguous assessment or final knowledge - this is the arsenal artistic means, which are designed to solve the main, as it seems to us, the task of the playwright - to show how in everyday situations of everyday life, work, military service, a transformation of the personality occurs, leading to the disintegration of its integrity. Touching the essential collisions, fraught with tragedy, can provoke pathos or sentimentality literary text. But the author safely and masterfully leaves pathos, escaping with irony.

The story of the hero about serving in the navy of his native multinational country is full of many realities, details of the surrounding world, and at the same time, all of them are a means of revealing the inner state of a person who fixes in his monologue with merciless certainty how, in what way he became different.

The playwright avoids traditional psychological analysis. His art space located in a different field. In the play "How I Ate the Dog" explores not feelings and emotions and problems awareness the meaning of one's own existence, self-identification of the personality of the hero-narrator, loss of integrity. The exposition of the play is swift. The author begins with questions to which there are no answers, but the everyday example conveys a sense of the excruciating mutual misunderstanding of people. Within the monologue, the playwright constructs an imaginary dialogue of native people, but their lines bounce off each other without creating dialogic cohesion.

It is speech saturated with lexical repetitions (“I didn’t drink, but I didn’t drink, I didn’t drink ...”), homogeneous predicates that convey the state of the unbearable flow of life in its emptiness, in which you still can’t achieve understanding (“you strain through your teeth, wave your hand and go, really sleep, and what else to do something”). The ending of the sentence with the colloquial sounding “what else to do is wonderful”, there is a special expression both in the verb forms of the imperfective form and in the alliteration of hissing in their endings.

The narrator's monologue is structurally multifaceted, which makes it dramatic. The text includes laconic grotesque pictures from life, sharp, internally dramatic scenes of naval service, memories of childhood, school years, letters to mother, etc. Each fragment has its own rhythm, its own intonation, but this is the voice of one person. The fragmentation of the composition of the play is deliberately emphasized by the peculiarities of the syntax, the nature of the remarks. This is the function of the remark - "Pause". Numerous dots serve the same purpose, although their role in the text is not exhausted by this. The dramatic unity of the text does not fall apart. Episodes are subject to a complex author's super-task - in a narrative devoid of emotional reaction and evaluation, in a story-stating, to convey the process of changing the worldview of the individual, the birth of the "other self", who is aware of the discrepancy between external behavior and internal self-awareness. Thanks to the intense listening of the hero to himself, the details and pictures outside world are linked into a single whole. In different fragments of the text, a key word is almost suddenly “spoken out”, through which the author conveys the true state and mood of the hero.

For example, a recruit has been taken by train from the Taiga station to the east for seven days now. He will serve in the Navy: “And soon the train will take us to Vladivostok, and there is still a little bit of some sea and some countries ... Reluctance!!! Because although I didn’t know anything specifically, I suspected that, of course, everything there was somehow not just like that, Australia, New Zealand, and there is something else so basic that I don’t want to know, what I’m afraid of, what I’m very afraid of and that will definitely begin very soon. ”

The text of Grishkovets is sounding, it is phonetically, musically rich. The role of the keyword can be played by sound, in addition to the semantic load, it also creates a mood: “The boat was moving quietly, in the sense that it did not make noise, and everyone was sitting in silence, everyone was silent, and even those who accompanied us were also silent. So - shsh-shsh-shsh - the water rustled. No one turned their heads, did not look around, everyone seemed to freeze ... Scary-nooo" (emphasis added by me. - KS).

The hero is serving on the Russky Island. Russky Island becomes in the play the image of “The Motherland that Betrayed”: “I discovered in myself amazing sensations: at the same moments when it was really bad, when I was most offended, when I did what could not be done, for nothing I didn’t have to do something, that is, something very offensive ... when they called me with such words ... in general, at such moments, I felt sorry for myself.

I did not feel sorry for myself, I did not take offense ... I felt unbearably sorry for my parents and everyone who loves or loved me. After all, they love me so much, they are waiting for me. Mom, because I am for her ... And father ... They know me that I am such and such, that I am the only one like that. They love...

And they beat me... I'm so hard... I'm not there... The one they love so much is waiting... That one... He's gone. I don't have one, and my family doesn't know about it. But I don’t exist” (emphasis added by me - KS).

The name of the island also becomes a key word. The authenticity of this name enlarges the scale of the author's reflections. Grishkovets in the play is concerned not only with the individual and his drama, but also with the properties of the national character, features national life. Supporting keywords are like a framework for an internal plot and one of the means of creating dramatic tension in this multi-layered speech design of the text.

A kind of final chord is the opposition highlighted and spoken more than once in the text: - “Home! And there is no home ... ". Grishkovets spares neither himself nor the spectator-reader: the hero parted with illusions, learned the "wrong side" of life, gained experience and lost himself - he ate a dog caught in the city, killed and cooked by a colleague - Korean Kolya I. He did what there was no need to do it, there was no need to do it ... ".

The ending of the play is unusual. The hero's monologue is replaced by reduced remarks:

"Yes! Yes, yes, yes, I think so myself ...
It's not worth it ... it's
I wouldn't be so clear
I do not insist.
It's as you wish..."

Such text excludes unambiguity. Open phrases create a background, give the play a philosophical character. The finale of the play "How I Ate the Dog" invites everyone to contemplate, which will be the continuation of the story.

Obviously a two-pronged play "Dreadnoughts" with the subtitle "A Play for Women". There is an author's cunning in the combination of such a name and addressee. This is a play about giant dreadnought warships and naval battles of the First World War. Fundamentally dramatic, that is, internally conflicting, is the combination in the text of statistical information - about the dates of battles, displacement volumes, the height of ships, the weight of shells and other dry information - and the enthusiasm with which the narrator talks about it. The story of a sea battle becomes a dramatic reflection on the valor and honor of a man, on true heroism, on life and death, on the attitude towards war. About the inability of men to express their feelings in words, about the blindness of women in assessing men.

The play "Dreadnoughts" is not a jingoistic anthem. M. Davydova believes that in this play Grishkovets “is not afraid to seem old-fashioned. He seems to be saying: I'm tired of the mannerist shifters on which almost all modern art is built: I'll tell you about simple things - about male brotherhood and nobility. I dare say that valor and honor (personal and corporate) are not empty phrases. That death is not always terrible, it can be beautiful. Indeed, death is one of the most important events in life. In the finale, the hero signals with flags: "I'm dying, but I don't give up ...".

The simplicity of a high deed excludes pathos, and the author's enchantment excludes opportunistic falsehood. At the beginning of the play, it is no coincidence that the following text sounds: “In books about ships there is such information that I would like to tell about myself ... There, in books about ships, there is a lot about men's dreams, illusions and ambitions ... And there are descriptions! Yes, yes, descriptions of men and in a state in which women have never seen men. Description of how they, men, died. They died in battle. Short and accurate information about the destruction of ships. And the figures are the dead officers and sailors.

If women read these books, they might feel better and feel better. Maybe they would look at us with more hope.” And in this play of 2001, Grishkovets, not in events and actions, but through a complex tie of the author's word, filled with dramatic conflict, conveys auditorium the energy of reflection on the key issues of life.

The Grishkovets theater in the modern artistic process is an original and bright phenomenon. The playwright boldly transforms traditional forms, expands the scope of the content possibilities of the drama, transferring the dramatic action to the area of ​​personality reflection. The author's passion for the elements of language, the method of speech reduction, the rhythmic organization of the text, the ironic rethinking of social, ideological and cultural stereotypes, the use of non-verbal means - this is the arsenal of innovative artistic techniques, which allow us to consider the "monologues" of Yevgeny Grishkovets as a notable phenomenon in modern drama.

It is only important that Grishkovets, who has tasted success and recognition, does not exploit his successfully found tricks and does not enter into. space mass culture. This trend distinguishes today's socio-cultural situation. As noted by the famous English playwright Mark Ravenhill, when “the most painful issues are discussed in society by mass media, the depth of their understanding becomes shallow, and their value fades.”

Questions and tasks for self-examination for chapter 4

1. What is the problematic of the play "Dreadnoughts"?

2. Write a mini-review of one of the plays by E. Grishkovets.

3. What is the role of remarks in the plays of E. Grishkovets?

Goals and objectives of the lesson.

• Immersion in the modern literary process; acquaintance with new names in Russian literature.
• Formation of interest in the personality and work of Evgeny Grishkovets.
• Improving the skills of monologue speech.
• Formation of the ability to work with text.
• Formation of an active life position and a meaningful choice of a future profession.

Lesson equipment:

• portrait of E. Grishkovets;
• texts of the writer's works;
• an exhibition of books and a selection of newspaper and magazine materials about E. Grishkovets;
• video film “Mood improved – 2”;
• phonograms by E. Grishkovets and the Curler group.

Preparatory stage of the lesson:

• studying the writer's biography, preparing questions for a press conference;
• reading the story "Darwin";
• work with the text on questions.

During the classes

The music of the group “Curlers” + the monologue “Street” sounds.

A word about the writer:

Teacher. He is called "New Russian Pimen", the fact of his appearance on the literary arena is a phenomenon of universal recognition, and his prose work is something more than the literary leisure of an amateur. He was at the heart of everyone. In it they saw and heard something that they were waiting for. All. In any case, everyone who managed to get acquainted with his writings. He is serious about serious things. This is a playwright and actor, for a record short term(about 4 years old) who turned from a provincial director into a universal favorite, caressed by the press, the public and the jury of the most prestigious awards. This is the winner of "Antibooker", "Triumph", "Golden Mask" in the nominations playwright, actor and director. This is Evgeny Grishkovets.

Imagine that Evgeny Grishkovets is a guest of our lesson. What questions related to life and work would you ask him?

Student questions:

Where are your roots from?

I was born in 1967 to second-year students in Kemerovo. Mom - Sophia, father - Valery. They didn’t drop me off at their 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. I hope that life will arrange so that one day I will help my parents.

What was your path to literature like?

At first he studied at Kemerovo University, entered the Faculty of Philology in 1984, graduated from it in 1994. From the third year I was drafted into the army. Three years in the Marine. At first it seemed that I served in vain, now I play the play "How I ate a dog", where I talk about my service. This performance determined a lot in my life, it turns out that it served not in vain.

How did your passion for theater start?

In 1990, after returning from Germany, he organized the theater "Lodge", and at the same time he somehow casually graduated from the philological faculty. Until 1998, we did one play a year, sometimes even two, performed at festivals of amateur theaters, traveled abroad.

Why did you leave Kemerovo?

I saw that our theater was dying, I didn’t have time to deal with it, I had to drive myself into conditions in which I would either continue theatrical activity or start doing something else. As a result, the play "How I Ate a Dog" arose, which I first showed for seventeen spectators in a smoking room at the buffet in the Theater of the Russian Army in November 1998. This show was a turning point in my life.

- “How I ate a dog”, “City”, “Simultaneously”, “Planet”, “Dreadnoughts”, “Shirt”, “Plank”, “Footprints on me”. These performances, stories and collections are by no means a complete list of what you have done lately. What else do you please your readers, viewers and listeners with?

I don’t know how joyful it is, but I recorded several albums with the group “Bigudi”. A little over a year ago, without understanding why and why, and most importantly, not knowing how, I started my LiveJournal, which was recently published in the form of the book “Year LJ life." Indeed, this is a documented year of my life, this desire and opportunity to be open, as honest as possible and stubborn in this. The guys from Irkutsk also entered my creative life, who brought and showed their wonderful work “The mood has improved - 2”. Their video proves that no budgets or producers are needed. And there is no need for actors: they filmed themselves. Artistic intent matters the most.

Why, unlike other celebrities who aspire to Moscow, do you live in Kaliningrad?

I live because I love it. I am from birth a resident of a provincial town. The regional center is a natural habitat for me. In addition, I did not get Kaliningrad by the fact of my birth in it, I myself chose this city and live. The reason is simple - I like it. There are no contradictions with Moscow. I never participate in provincial conversations when they scold Moscow. Vice versa. But I live in Kaliningrad.

Teacher. We thank Evgeny Valerievich for sincere answers to our questions. Now let's turn to his work.

After getting acquainted with the stories of Evgeny Grishkovets, everyone can exclaim: “I can write like that too!” Yes, the text is written in a fairly simple and accessible language. But out of fear, inability, or because of elementary shyness, having measured seven times, rarely anyone manages to successfully cut off. And, nevertheless, Grishkovets could. He sees his true destiny in conveying all the smallest details of life with full dedication for everyone and making them love their time.

Many of Grishkovets' stories are autobiographical. A significant place in his work is occupied by the themes of apprenticeship, student life, service in the navy. Let's go back to Darwin.

Analysis of the story "Darwin"

When you first saw the title of the story, you may have tried to guess what the story will be about. What were your predictions?

Many students are sure that the story, one way or another, will be connected with Charles Darwin, the famous English naturalist and traveler, who was one of the first to suggest that natural selection is the driving force of evolution.

- Determine the topic of the story.

We are talking about the “selection process” of the future profession, which the author is happy to recall.

How did the grandparents of the hero try to influence the choice of profession?

Grandparents are specialists in ichthyology, they did not make a scientific career. Our hero remembers their stories about the Caspian Sea, about a research vessel, about studying fish, adventures, about the fact that they then had more black caviar than bread, and they ate this caviar for life. Then a child was born. And then they worked at school all their lives: “My grandmother often brought me to school when I was four or five years old. I remember the biology classroom and its backstage. There were many skeletons of various small animals, anatomical diagrams of a person, various frogs and snakes in jars of alcohol, and so on. I remember the school greenhouse, which was kept in perfect order. I remember a flower bed and flowers in front of the entrance to the school. Grandmother loved to make flowers and for many years she won first place in the city in the competition of school flower beds. From childhood, thick volumes of Animal Life served as toys for our hero. In addition, there was a kind of attraction in the family: when guests came to the house, the little boy was asked what he wants to become. “ Entomologist! I yelled out loud and everyone laughed. - Who won't you? - An ornithologist! I yelled joyfully. Therefore, one direction of choosing a future profession and life was outlined early.

Why were the educational institutions of the capital and large cities not considered?

Yes, because, being an inexperienced person in life and unsure of himself, he was afraid of everything big and new: Moscow and St. Petersburg frightened him. In addition, he did not want to leave home, he was afraid of everyday difficulties and was not sure that he could live without conflict in a student team. He just wanted an interesting and fun student life.

Tell us about how the search for an educational institution was going on, in which the hero was to study. What disappointments awaited him along the way?

Kemerovo, the city in which our hero was born and lives, did not have a large selection of educational institutions. The Higher Military School of Communications was not considered: "I'm afraid that the military career for my mother was worse than the career of a janitor." The Polytechnic Institute, which the parents graduated from, was also not considered, due to the complete lack of interest in the exact sciences. For the same reasons, the Technological Institute of the Food Industry was not included in the plans. There were also a university, an institute of culture and a medical one. The medical institute attracted the hero, firstly, because his beloved uncle taught there; secondly, his cousin studied there, who took him to skits and student amateur concerts. In addition, students dressed fashionably and brightly, and in their youth they like everything extraordinary, bright. And everything would be fine, if not for one BUT. The very first excursion to the “anatomist” showed that it did not tolerate the smell of formalin at all, and everything he saw in the museum made him faint. “A fat cross was immediately put on the medical one.”

The Institute of Culture pushed the young man away with the lean and dreary faces of students, the feeling that they were singing and dancing were useless. This caused terrible melancholy and joylessness: “Of course, I didn’t faint from what I saw and heard, but the smell of formalin, it seemed to me, pursued me and came abundantly from everything I saw and heard.” “The very absence of hope for life's happiness and joy, which filled the corridors and classrooms of this educational institution, made me firmly abandon the idea of ​​​​entering the Institute of Culture.” The Kemerovo State University remained.

In your opinion, why does a young man refuse to enter the Faculty of Biology after an open day, although both his grandparents were biologists, and he himself “really wanted to enter the Faculty of Biology”?

Love for biology was originally caused not only by grandparents, but also by the images of romantic literary heroes: Dr. Aibolit and Paganel. The lady, who came to the open day with a delay of 20 minutes, looked around the audience unfriendly with a look. Everything she did seemed insincere and done for show: the event was held. The hero’s hopes that with a visit to the laboratories he would again experience his childhood love “for bugs and spiders” also collapsed. The dissected frogs were pitiful, and the auditoriums smelled bad. The conclusion is disappointing: “I did not meet there, in laboratories and classrooms, not a single person who would coincide with my image and my idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhat a scientist should look like.”

Why were the legal and historical ones eliminated?

Let's start with the fact that these two faculties were not immediately rejected by the hero at once. The Faculty of Law attracted him with its selectivity and elitism. Still, students with serious faces, dressed in fashionable leather jackets and with fashionable diplomats in their hands, gave rise to a feeling of unrealizability, impracticability. He realized that in some respects he fell short of this faculty, and often it is the feeling of inaccessibility that attracts him. Grishkovets says that he put a pale tick on it, that is, he left it as a possible option.

An excursion to the Faculty of History also did not clarify the professional self-determination of the hero. The speeches of the lecturers did not disappoint him in general, one of them even "took off applause". But student life was “twisted” around the guitar. The photographs of the faculty newspaper often featured people with a guitar: “These people were sitting by the fire and singing with a guitar, then they were standing on stage with guitars and singing, or they were walking somewhere with backpacks, but in addition to backpacks they also carried guitars ... here it’s obvious felt the cult of a man with a guitar. But I didn’t know how to play the guitar, I knew that I wouldn’t learn it any more, in connection with this I didn’t like the songs with the guitar, I didn’t believe in them and understood that I had no chance at the Faculty of History.”

What made the hero go to the most unsympathetic ladies' department for him?

The Faculty of Philology was preceded by a trip to the Romano-Germanic Faculty. The speech of a teacher promising a “magic world”, which opens up knowledge of foreign languages, the idea that “one who knows at least a couple of languages, in addition to his native one, can consider himself a truly cultured person”, speeches of students - all this, in fact, convinced the hero that this is exactly what he wants. Therefore, the trip to the philological faculty was a pure formality: to reassure myself and my parents and remove all possible doubts.

Are there details in the story that tell us that the hero will still go to the philological faculty?

From the very beginning, we understand that this faculty will be chosen by the hero. Firstly, the selection of language means convinces us of this: in the library “ smelled good” (remember the smell in the laboratories of the biology department?), “ reigned muffled sounds, reading room It was light and Good". It was here that he finally realized that studying at the university is “a reality, and that it may be difficult, but it’s good.”

Let us turn to the personality of Mikhail Nikolaevich Darwin, the title character of the story. What means of creating the image of the hero does the author use in this story?

Portrait. What figurative and expressive means in the description of appearance and costume help to understand the author's attitude towards the teacher? (In the description of the portrait, the word occurs several times beautiful. Comparisons (hair, once black as coal; clothes, like from a movie), epithets “a man is elastic, strong and healthy”, gestures “stingy, smooth, but expressive” help to imagine a truly beautiful person.

Speech characteristic. What does Darwin say? How does he choose vocabulary? How does he react to remarks from the audience and to his own words? (The manner is laid-back, he sneers at the audience and at himself, speaks honestly, openly, but without intimidating applicants, requires honesty in answers and writing an essay).

Gestures, actions. This typing tool is presented less brightly, but still some features can be seen. Which? How does the conversation with the lady on the porch of the university characterize the teacher? (We see him as completely natural: doubtful, capable of experiencing embarrassment for what he said, humane. That is, a natural person. And with this “naturalness” he arouses the sympathy of the hero, and therefore readers).

How often in life we ​​are faced with a choice. And often this choice depends on who is next to us, who can prompt, direct. Mikhail Nikolaevich Darwin turned out to be the very person who, with his appearance, his manner of speaking, sincerely, naturally, truthfully and naturally captivated the restless soul of the applicant and thus determined his choice.

What can you say about Grishkovets' writing style?

His work attracts with the simplicity and sincerity of the stories themselves and some kind of childish openness of the narrator. Little things and details in the stories do not irritate, but touch the author, who rejoices in them as details and, more broadly, as signs of life. Passion for trifles should be considered as part of his (his lyrical hero) general desire for simplicity.

His "open" texts provoke their own memory. And already after him I want to write my own stories based on real events of my own life.

I would like to see a fashion for Grishkovets appear among the reading youth - a fashion for "the now unimaginable slowness of the story, for repetitions and returns to what has already been said, for a calm, not excited by anything or anyone, not nervous tone." In the era of the heyday of the art of make-up and image-making, Grishkovets came out “without makeup”.

As homework students are encouraged to:

• read the stories of Yevgeny Grishkovets from the collections “Traces on Me” or “Plank” to choose from, write a review or an essay;
• prepare a presentation on the work of Evgeny Grishkovets.

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 musical group "Bilgudi". 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 the 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 is a good person. 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 wrongness 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 will turn 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 skits 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: it’s hard 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 at the right time to create desired image, 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 conversation of a person about a misfortune that happened two hundred years ago with the daughter of a wealthy merchant, and finding similar situations in this story, but a conversation about himself, introspection, which for some reason 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 ourselves 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 undivided, 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 name 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 did not 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 know 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 the theatrical stage is open to everything really new, even to 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.

FOUR-DIMENSIONAL MYTH CREATOR

Myth

What can make one person listen to another? What can they have in common? Not a common life (the details may be different), but a common myth. To feel its outlines - this is what main plot Evgeny Grishkovets. He's more of an epic than a lyricist.

Of course, the myth must be told in confidence. It is inextricably linked with the voice of the myth-maker. It needs to be voiced, to give it warmth - to embody.

This is what Grishkovets does. Homer is in front of you - he is unshaven, stammers and charmingly burrs. The myth turns into everyday life. Bytovuha becomes epic. Behind the narrator, in a beam of light, a whole world is looming.
For example, in the play "Dreadnoughts" (2001), the narrator talks about last day sailor in the port city on the eve of the battle. Before becoming a legend, a sailor walks into a bar, drinks, then spends the night with a random woman...

Grishkovets now and then borrows "boring" stories from books and enlivens them. It turns out not a postmodernist game for highbrows, but a step towards the viewer, an attempt to express something native, one's own.
Being under the walls of Troy in the play "The Siege" (2003), the soldiers shout into the mouthpiece. Achilles has not a heel, but a heel. Sisyphus is just a "man" who turns a stone. Friends call Heracles Bubnila. In the end, there is a feeling that the real Odysseus could well have said to his comrade-in-arms, as one of the heroes says: “Yes, you just pissed!”

Furthermore, best snippets the play “How I Ate a Dog” (1998) is not even a past, but a possible one, something that happened in the imagination. And the selfless playing of the invisible bass guitar, the lightning-fast victory over the Japanese pilot, many details of the military service on the Russian Island - all this acquires timeless power, being on the verge of the ridiculous or the ordinary. For example, the first butterfly that a sailor kills is nothing more than a metaphor for the Fall. But just very beautiful butterfly who died...

And now you yourself are already a little Icarus or Sisyphus.

Connection

The Grishkovets Theater is antediluvian, primitive in the best sense of the word. "Cheap" effects take their strength again: the light bulb lit up, fake snow began to fall, a cardboard star flew down. In the play "+1" (2009), the author stands in a spacesuit and waves the Russian tricolor. And in the finale, his favorite photos appear on the screen accompanied by a slow song.

The artist is now four-dimensional. The following confession by Grishkovets the writer is important:

I do not believe that in today's state of affairs, a work of art in isolation from a person can be discovered by someone, that someone can see, feel, and most importantly, want to print, publish, sell this work. It is very important to provide your talent and your works with decent behavior, that is, to be contact, interesting, attentive, pleasant (“Year of Life”, p. 146).

Of course, speaking in the first person, creating a special sincerity, is as old as the world. Unique is the energy of courage, thanks to which Grishkovets strives to be sincere not in his memoirs, but right now: “I want to be modern, today’s, sharply today” (“Year of Life”, p. 174).

In LJ, Grishkovets wants to overcome the facelessness of badges, to find a face. That is why instead of “:)” in his blog there is a “smile”, or even a “shy smile”. So the author signals that he is not a disappearing Cheshire cat, but a person. Similarly, in one of the most striking moments of the play "Po Po" (2005), the hero exclaims: "I'm alive!"

But, in this case, does the current artist have at least some degree of privacy, at least a limited area of ​​"private life"? .. It's hard to say, because the audience is constantly striving to shift this line. One thing is clear: being a lyrical hero tirelessly, without borders is no easier than being a superhero.

The creativity of the artist becomes not work, but the totality of traits and actions, by himself.

Before the start of the performance, Grishkovets always makes a reservation: “I said all this, and now the lyrical hero will speak.” Because there is always the danger of not distinguishing them.

Without disenchanting the scene, the author during the performance may suddenly turn to the spectator: “Are you asleep, right? I understand times are tough right now. It happens that something mumbles, mumbles ... oh ... ”, - and again return to what was said before, again enter the image that I left for a moment.

The viewer returns after the performance and reads on LiveJournal that the artist is already at home, he wanted to run quickly and eat a cupcake with milk, but the milk turned sour, and he was very offended. Or, preparing for the New Year celebrations, find out: the author has lost a Christmas tree stand. Then, in the next blog, I found ...

The renaissance divergent interests of Grishkovets are impressive. It seems that any forms in which communication takes place are equally organic for him: a performance, a song, a film, a “sound piece” ...

And yet, literature stands apart in this series: it is an opportunity to shake off the automatism of a skill, to feel the nobility of a craft. Hide without disappearing. Switch.
But at the moment when the author enters the area fiction, the rules of the dialogue become different. By the way, let me give you another example of backstage, where Grishkovets lets us in before the premiere:

… a manuscript can be compared to a water-soluble tablet. Because only when the tablet falls into the water, some process begins. And if the book is good, the space seethes a little, and most importantly, it changes ... At least for a while, it is saturated with something ... In the meantime, this pile of paper lies on my table and is silent (“Year of Life”, p. 178).

Perhaps the difficulties that Grishkovets encountered more than once in writing are related to the nature of the myth, which is transferred to paper.

This happens when they no longer really believe in him, when he loses the power of the present ...

Grishkovets has no style, but there is an intonation, which is much less common.

He knows how to pronounce the same phrase so that at first you laugh, and at the end you cry. As the author himself notes, often “those who read books written by me perceive them as if they were read in my voice. Someone says that it helps him, someone says that it insurmountably interferes. I treat this as a problem. The book, of course, should not sound like my voice to the reader.<…>The book should sound like the voice of the reader” (“Continuation of Life”, pp. 195-196).

It didn't take long for me to catch the tone. Maybe it's because in the beginning read. In the first year in the fall, turning into winter, Nastya showed me a thin, apparently very rare book “Evgeny Grishkovets. Plays. Nastya was at the performance and talked about this event, infecting me, who did not see, did not know. I took a read, she shared.

Paper and letters.

Ottochi, interjections, stumbling ... that, in fact, that's all.

Returned: "Well, maybe ...". Distant hum. Then there was an audiobook of the play. Average.

But then the performance came. And here a feeling of warmth, novelty and at the same time - classicism, some kind of eternity of the story surged.

It was no coincidence that Grishkovets began his theater with pantomime. His plays are built not on words, but on their lack. He has a typical gesture: when speaking, he catches phrases, captures, pinches. The search for the right expressions, the deliberate impossibility of getting them, the break in communication, which gives hope for a new meeting - this is the essence of his favorite stage conflict.

A recorded play consisting of monologues is still under-literature. She has yet to come to life. The play is always sewn upside down. Not so with prose. The words of Grishkovets himself are indicative:

This is in the theater: he said the wrong thing, understood, apologized and said the right thing. Because in the theater you have eyes, gestures, the ability to pause or vice versa, to accelerate to the limit. And the text is letters, words, and everyone decides for himself how fast he should read it (“Year of Life”, p. 14).

However, burrowing into prose, the author still builds an image as an actor who feels a lack of four-dimensionality, the impossibility of existing here and now. A person on the stage may well exclaim: “Oh! I remember the name of his wife! Ninka! ("Footprints on me", p. 270) - because he remembers spontaneously, suddenly. But the writer who writes in this way must inevitably bring this principle to the end, dive into the element of narration. Or shorten.

The author seems to want to voice what is being told so that it acquires its intonational ups and downs: “I did not notice that Ivan Nikolayevich somehow especially loved work. He just worked. A lot of! Lots of. What else could he do? He didn't drink. That's worked. I don't think he even liked it very much. work, he just worked and that's it!" (ibid., p. 267; my italics - F.E.).

Or else: "My grandfather told me ... I still don’t understand and I will never understand why he did this ... Why did he told I am eleven, twelve, well, a maximum of a thirteen-year-old person ... Actually, something told. When I look at twelve or thirteen year old people, I don't have a desire tell something similar to what I told my grandfather. And he told... ”(“ Rivers ”, p. 8).

Just as an artist on stage is not allowed to cross out, so an author on a letter is not allowed to cough or measure out a long pause. It's better to see once...

And yet, in the autobiographical things "Rivers" (2005), "Footprints on me" (2007), written on behalf of "I", Grishkovets' intonation lives on.

In the novel "Asphalt" (2008) - in its own way, a very risky experience - Grishkovets goes from the opposite: he decides to shut up, muffle his voice as much as possible, write in the third person. But in this case, his manner of speaking is involuntarily adopted by the characters - throwing each other like a "hot potato" ...

For example, Misha, the main character, thinks: “I will fly tomorrow to snatch my piece. And I will tear it out! Why am I here? Why do I live here? Why do I live in Moscow, and, as you say, I do not live in Moscow? Why do I resist this very Moscow? I do not understand! So don't say I'm right and I'm right. It also seemed to me that everything was right ... ”(“ Asphalt ”, p. 540).

Signature weaving of words characteristic of Grishkovets: several key words and their variations. But after all, Anya, Misha's wife, is explained by monologues - with the same forcing of questions, exclamations, repetitions.

And then the narrator of Asphalt himself throws the shackles of objective writing a la Flaubert, and begins to think about how he should be next:

How can you describe a series of memories? You can say: "he remembered a long conversation with a friend" - after that you can reproduce this conversation itself. But in practice, in the process of remembering, the conversation itself is remembered and, at the same time, this conversation itself is not reproduced. He is remembered all at once. In the same way, episodes, events, situations, people come from the past completely and at once. And it can take a lot of time to describe these memories and to recreate their very sequence, and the details will disappear, and the meaning will disappear (“Asphalt”, p. 257).

Grishkovets' conductor of reality is his voice. He thinks not in pictures, but in speech. And it seems that in "Asphalt" there is the main thing that is needed for a modern novel: today's man is shown in his everyday life and holidays, in his turmoil and inner growth. A panorama of Misha's life is given - how he works, whom he loves, what he is afraid of, with whom he is friends, what he eats and drinks . By the end, the author even manages to compress the spring of the plot almost to a thriller.

However, the most important thing for Grishkovets is missing - a myth that is in common with the reader, told directly.

Communication wires are too branched.

………

But in the recently published novel by Grishkovets "A....a", that is, "America" ​​("Makhaon", 2010), everything came together again. Theme - the most skyscraper-giant modern myth- "American dream" - and the confidential tone of the narrator. Absolute simplicity, minimalism of means - and the absence of verbal noise.

As always, where Grishkovets succeeds in identifying meeting points with the viewer or reader, the memory mechanism starts itself, just beckon. My turns out to be painful our. The most generalized - the most native.

You hear: “You are in the sixth grade ...” You read: “Imagine, the heat, the very end of July. South. And not even our south, but the South in general” (“Rivers”, p. 6). And the dive begins. The author already says as if “from me”.

The story has a strong voice mythmaker. This is an individual story of how the narrator discovered "terra incognita". At the same time, a hidden, but constant reconciliation of experiences: how are you? Is it the same sense of myth, its color, taste, elusiveness?

Ah… Ah! He was getting to these heights, even when he portrayed a neighbor on the landing in a cap with the inscription "Montana" in the collection "Footprints on me."

"A ... .. a": everyone has their own core. The dots are the connecting thread between the author and the audience, a reason to fill the content with an individual experience.

A cliché, an erased hint - a lifesaver for the theater, since ancient times playing with masks - the more common, the closer - is transferred to literature, and also falls on the soul.

This is the dedication of a four-dimensional artist who sacrifices the personal for the sake of the common.

This book, I believe, is easily translated. Each word in "America" ​​means what it means, acquires its original intelligibility. Grishkovets writes what everyone knows - and becomes a discoverer of new lands. Not creates but reminds. For example, when he talks about the fairy tale “The Wizard of the Emerald City”: “Those with whom this book happened in childhood, and so they remember it, and with whom it didn’t happen, it makes no sense to retell it” (“A ... .. a”, p. 33).

In the story "Rivers", the continuation of which was "America", it is impossible to find out exactly where the narrator lived in childhood: he tells about the Hometown. So in "America" ​​- unobtrusively, half asleep, in the evening - a myth floats into the room:

Here I am sitting at home, writing this, outside the window is a familiar street, across the street, a little to the right, the windows of the shop are shining, where I buy bread, milk, water and something else. The store is closed. It's night now. Cars rarely pass by. The city where I live is asleep. Somewhere now my friends, acquaintances. In my mind I can drive through my city. I remember all the main streets, I know how the city works. And somewhere in America it’s morning now (“A…..a”, pp. 13-14).

And the story turns into a constant mutual recognition or telepathic connection...

Similarly, in the play "Simultaneously" the hero undressed to his underpants, then took out an anatomical diagram human body and applied it to himself. He showed that it is impossible to live and constantly remember that you are the same as in the diagram. The hero defends the myth - and fights for human.

Inevitably grows up on this path, grows old, becomes more serious. It becomes simpler, tougher - different.

Constantly changing, losing again and winning again. Illuminates with happiness.

How was such a bird, like an eagle, from the ashes, or something, arose ...

By the way, it is no coincidence that Grishkovets liked the film "District No. 9" so much, which he specifically wrote about in his blog. The alien myth in Neill Blomkamp's film is shown through the lens of a shaking handheld video camera.

Dostoevsky was sneered: it is strange that he does not write about how he got his feet wet, returning home from the printing house - the writer's desire to enter into a “home” dialogue with the reader was so obvious.

By the way, at the end of the year, Dostoevsky published his "Diary of a Writer" as a separate book - Grishkovets is doing the same now with his "Life".

There is another dilemma faced by a media artist in Russia. Video pirates can unauthorizedly steal and reproduce his image. Simplifying: the author would like the performance or film with his participation to be watched by as many people as possible, i.e. Did as many people as possible join the dialogue? Or would he prefer to be given real money for each viewing, even if at the expense of the popularity and wide circulation of his works?

The “people” basically solves this problem unilaterally. He believes that he can use the artist's work free of charge, by the right of the spectator: go ahead and dance! This says a lot about the relationship between the artist and society, about the complexity of the "communicative situation" in general. No wonder the play "Dreadnoughts" has a subtitle "The performance that did not work out." In The Siege, while trying to listen to the narrator, the second hero eventually falls asleep. Before the beginning of "How I Ate the Dog," the author notices that he can't begin to speak, and so on.

There are a lot of apologies, greetings, goodbyes in the dialogues, which can be perceived as a kind of courtesy textbook, an example of the communication style: “Styopa, dear, please forgive me!” (“Asphalt”, p. 105); "Mishenka! Native!<…>Well, how long can you wait! (ibid., p. 356), etc.

In addition, a benevolent critic might notice that "Asphalt" is almost a modern "Anna Karenina". In the plot - suicide, which the heroine Yulia commits; there is a restless Levin - Misha, who is going through a mental crisis and rebirth to a new life; Styopa's sybarite is almost a lover of life of Steve Oblonsky; family thought, like that of L. Tolstoy, opposes the nightmare of betrayal; the through motif of the road also looms (only not iron, but asphalt).

Starting to describe the speech portrait of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets, we were convinced that the solution of this problem can cause certain difficulties. Personality is infinite, so there are no possibilities for maximum full description. As an empirical material for describing the speech portrait, we used recordings of E. Grishkovets' solo performances, which were created in 2002 - 2008: "How I ate a dog", "Dreadnoughts", "At the same time", "Planet". The total recording time is more than eight hours of the lyrical hero's speech. The use of this material will make it possible to compose a speech portrait of a person with a unique personality, which at the same time very clearly embodies the features of his time, generation, culture, and people.

The lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets is a middle-aged man who received a higher education, was born and lived in his youth in the Soviet Union. He conveys the life of the country, its interests, thoughts and feelings in lyrical monologues from the stage. Everything he tells the listener about, be it memories of his school years, parents, feelings of love, thoughts about life and much more, is close to his contemporaries. This character (lyrical hero) becomes a kind of symbol of a modern adult living in Russia. The creation of such characters in the culture of the middle and late XX century. and at the beginning of the XXI century. was not uncommon. The description of the realities of life from the point of view of the person living in them attracted the attention of many writers, one of which was the infamous, but quite popular among the people, V. Erofeev with his work "Moscow - Petushki" (1969-70). This is a pseudo-autobiographical work that describes the realities of the modern, at that time, country, the thoughts and feelings of people, their condition. Similar characters appeared in the works of L. Ulitskaya, S. Dovlatov, in the plays of E. Schwartz. Thus, the character of E. Grishkovets becomes one of the lyrical heroes who embodied and reflected the era in their behavior, worldview and language.

Let us turn to the modeling of the speech portrait of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets, the plan of which we presented in the first chapter.

1. Features of the use of language tools.

Phonetics.

L.P. Krysin argues that at the level of phonetics and word usage, one can find some originality inherent in certain groups of the literary language and, above all, groups of educated and cultured people.

In the speech of each person, at least three phonetic layers can be distinguished: each speaker represents a certain generation of native speakers, belongs to a certain social group, and at the same time carries some individual phonetic features. Because in this research work a creative person was chosen as the object, we will consider the lyrical hero who appears in solo performances as one of several figures that form a single linguistic personality of E. Grishkovets.

As the audience sees before them real person, then, characterizing the pronunciation manner of the hero, we will have in mind directly the theater actor and director. The speech of E. Grishkovets can be characterized as the speech of a representative of the modern pronunciation norm, as the speech of an intellectual (educated and cultured person) and as the speech of an individual - Evgeny Valerievich Grishkovets.

Let's start our description with the individual in speech, first of all, about timbre, since the work of an actor involves the use of the voice as the leading instrument in his professional activity. Most Fans contemporary theater recognize the unique timbre of the voice of E. Grishkovets: a hoarse baritone and dislania, which has become the “calling card” of this actor. Due to the fact that the study of the vocal range of E. Grishkovets is not the object of this work, we confine ourselves to the statement that the voice of E. Grishkovets has rich possibilities both in the bass and tenor registers. A. Grishkovets skillfully uses these opportunities in his professional acting activities.

Let us turn to the phonetic side of the speech of E. Grishkovets, which correlates with the phonetic side of the speech of his lyrical hero, which basically reflect the modern Russian pronunciation form:

A) in the field of vocalism - this is akanye, that is, indistinguishability<а>and<о>in the first pre-stressed syllable after hard consonants and at the beginning of a word: behind [a] knom - a room; the situation is very [a] flock, what [a] can do; [a] g [a] snarled, the number of books hints at [a] limited [a] tv [a] of them in [a] possible; you see b[a]k[a] with your eyesight; I said [a] z [a] l [a] com in question; n[a]t[a]mu th[a] you hear what I said, etc.

B) after soft consonants, we note hiccups, characteristic of the Russian literary language, starting with late XIX century.

N[i]long ago I learned; here is h[i]lovek d[i]v[i]noo two years, he l[i]m[i]m[i]t to say; p[i]r[i] jumped; f[and] l[and] road runners; stands [and] per[i]d t[i]l[i]visor, and there och[i]r[i]one h[i]lovek congratulations[i]t; can [and] t [and] make a wish [and] desire, with [and] the sound of the building will fall; went to [and] ka; in a real way; special clothing; one ship is obligatory [and] ton [and] t, etc.

C) in the field of consonantism, we note the normative pronunciation of the r-plosive, which corresponds to the Moscow modern pronunciation style, as well as D) the tendency to eliminate positional softening of consonants:

I look at myself from the brain; excuse me; [performance; in my [in] time, etc.

The sound combination “sch”, “zhch” is read as “u”, and the combinations of the letters “ch”, “th” are often pronounced as combinations of “sh”, “sht”, “shn”, the pronunciation “ts” instead of “ts” is also characteristic and "to":

[pcs] about; [pcs]oby; it seems to me [c] a; could show [c] a; and he, mu[u]ina, of course, there are others.

E) widespread phonetic ellipsis and reduction.

It is known that Russian colloquial speech is characterized by a high degree of reduction and phonetic ellipsis. However, in speech different people these properties of Russian colloquial speech are reflected in different ways. E. Grishkovets, and, accordingly, his lyrical hero, they are inherent in a high degree. Moreover, not only individual sounds, but also entire syllables and words can be reduced:

[Che] talk about it; about the device [finally] a good example; [right now] will need to undress; [thousand] planes are flying, hundreds [thousand] planes are flying all the time; [et] somehow differently; you go to do somewhere [thread] and [th] - [thread] you take with you; such a fool, well, just [vapshche]; go to torture yourself with fishing on your [only] full-fledged day off; [right now] you can make a wish; and this wire, [kaneshn], broke; he [nervous]; I always thought that Shakespeare went too far; no one is waiting for me; and [then it became easier] (then it would be easier); dreadnought - [et] the name of a very large ship; there on the ship [takizh] (the same) people, etc.

In general, it can be argued that the speech of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets is characterized by the observance of all orthoepic rules inherent in modern standards of colloquial speech, this is also explained by the level and quality of education that the actor received (he received his first higher education in the specialty "philology").

Vocabulary.

L.P. Krysin notes that lexical facts are less frequent than phonetic ones. Therefore, observations on the lexical features of speech almost always contain an element of chance, but they can be considered as touches to a speech portrait.

The lexicon used by the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets is very diverse in its stylistic coloring. This is one of characteristic features educated native speakers - the ability to switch in the process of communication from one variety of language to another, depending on the conditions of speech. This feature distinguishes the intelligentsia, for example, from vernacular speakers, who, as a rule, are poorly able to vary their speech depending on the situation. The correct “binding” of a certain manner of speech to certain communication situations is a necessary component of a skill called “language proficiency”. This is due to the fact that E. Grishkovets is a very educated person, and can skillfully use all the richness of the language, easily using possible options in one case or another.

Neutral vocabulary is most widely represented in the lexicon of the lyrical hero. This is connected, first of all, with the image of the lyrical hero, his social status, as well as the role he plays on stage:

Here you see the window. Outside the window is a room. And in the room is a woman; There are many books, and even more windows; The stars begin to shine over the city; The woman is standing at the window; Cars rushing along the avenue in the evening, etc.

Often used in the speech of a lyrical hero and book vocabulary. Usually, book vocabulary includes socio-political vocabulary and terminology, often combined with socio-economic terminology, scientific (including philosophical) terminology, general scientific vocabulary, official business vocabulary, general book vocabulary:

This performance does not have a program, because when it was made, and I looked at it, I realized that I did not want it to be given to the public. Because in theater program there are mandatory elements, points: must be specified author, director, performer, stage designer, stage designer, costume designer... (theatrical terms); peakless cap, sailor's uniform, dagger, esvinets, logbook, navigator, bannik, turning over, cockpit, kingstones, evening verification, bulkhead. In this life, I will first be a cadet for five years, then a lieutenant, then senior lieutenant, after lieutenant commander, after captain of the third rank, then - the second, then - the first rank, then, if there is enough health and luck, I will become a rear admiral, then a vice admiral, and then, again, if I have enough health and luck, I will become an admiral. There was a squadron of battleships as black as irons. Everyone changed into everything new, in the first term, because there is a tradition in the Russian fleet: to die in everything new and clean. And our gunners are the best ... (naval terminology); The mechanism worked, which was not done by fools. A small piece of metal flew, made according to all the laws of ballistics (technical terms); The point is that in orthoepic dictionary of the Russian language indicated that both uses of the accent in this word, both equal in rights and equally possible; chemical reaction(scientific terms), etc.

In the dictionary we will find the following definition of the concept of a term: “a term is a word or phrase that is the name of a certain concept of some kind. special field of science, technology, art ", that is, the lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets has knowledge in many areas, and not only professional, which indicates a high level of outlook, erudition and interest in learning new things.

He uses the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets and the vocabulary of a colloquial style, since he “serves” a person in informal communication, when the narrator shares his impressions, emotions, thoughts and views with his interlocutors. A similar format is achieved by E. Grishkovets both as an author, and as a director, and as an actor - a storyteller on stage. In the colloquial style, there is colloquial and colloquial vocabulary.

The usual form of the implementation of conversational style in oral form is dialogue, this style is more often used in oral speech. Dialogue in the performances of E. Grishkovets is also present: it is the reaction of the audience to the words or actions of the hero on stage, approving clapping, laughter or tears.

For the colloquial style of speech, extralinguistic factors play an important role: facial expressions, gestures, environment, since these factors complement the semantics of what was said, give emotional coloring to speech.

And if from a snow-covered yard with a snowdrift on its back (points to its back) such a penny Zhiguli creeps out (slowly moves across the stage) ... He left (stopped), looked around (looks back), jumped off the curb onto the avenue ... and he goes, and how would apologize (takes a step forward on the stage, two steps back); I look at myself from the brain (holds hands at ear level) like this, and I have a few questions; And for all this, there is this equipment. Moreover, I know that this equipment, at least for me, is not without a defect (points to his mouth); And then they sat down, put the horizon in order (draws a horizontal line in front of the eyes), etc.

The relaxed atmosphere of communication provides greater freedom in the choice of emotional words and expressions: the words colloquial or dialect are more widely used ( here you can’t figure it out with kondachka; it's better when you don't give a damn; but there is no such thing, no such thing; and then "tyn". And so I was born; These hysterics, all these soothsayers are all shouting: “Oh, computers will break, the second coming, the end of the world, trawl-wali”; And in the evening they drove everyone ...) and slang ( a lot of ships, this wire, bastard, of course broke; I am not idiot; runaway; Well, how can a pilot or a sailor be a bastard?; Nifiga yourself, brother, is that you? Healthy! Hold the crab, op-pa!; And in the cabins of the second and third class this porn is produced; Man, make your face simpler; What for in Russian is this word ?; And at the end of the cartoons, all the animals sing a song about friendship. Well, complete crap!). Note that most of the slang words are used by the lyrical hero to convey someone else's speech or thoughts.

Word-forming features that appear in colloquial speech are the widespread use of subjective evaluation suffixes “onk/enk”, “ichk/echk”, “its/ets”, “ek/ik/chik”, “ishk/eshk” and others: brother; There is a bowl, which stands by the refrigerator, there is some water left, which the dog did not finish; Birches are white with black spots, etc.

In modern linguistic science, it is believed that colloquial vocabulary, including colloquial, is within literary dictionary, and its use is regulated by the norm of the literary language.

Often in the speech of a lyrical hero one can see a mixture of styles of the Russian language, this is a subspecies of a language game in which the lyrical hero either elevates ordinary and vulgar objects, or comically reduces the connotation. A separate paragraph of the research work will be devoted to a detailed description of the language game techniques used by the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets.

Describing the speech portrait of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets at the lexical level, we cannot ignore the concept sphere of the described character, which can be represented mainly (i.e., the most used) by the following units (concepts): "life" and "love". They express the philosophical and conceptual picture of the world of the lyrical hero. It is essential to emphasize that the semantic field of each of the concepts necessarily overlaps, intersects with other fields through lexical groups that reflect certain specific aspects of the character's worldview. Each concept is represented in the lexicon of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets by a certain set of lexical units, located from the center to the periphery.

The core of the field is traditionally made up of: a word expressing the general meaning of the field, lexemes included in the immediate conceptual environment of this word. The arrangement of units within the semantic field depends on their semantic proximity to the general meaning of the field, so they can be located at different distances from the core. However, as is known, the allocation of boundaries between the parts of the field (core, center, periphery) turns out to be conditional, since there is no sharp transition from the core to the center and from the center to the periphery due to the semantic links between the lexical units that make up the conceptual-semantic field.

The individual semantic field "life" as a linguistic expression of the corresponding character concept is a fairly extensive conceptual sphere, important for understanding the attitude, worldview of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets.

The center of the field is represented by such lexical units as " loneliness», "freedom (movement, travel)". On the periphery are "development", "skills (work, study, service)". A vivid example of the feeling of life can be the following example: I want to escape to where there are no people, because where there are no people, there can be no loneliness. And the bigger the city, the more people, the stronger loneliness.

Probably, for the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets, every existing person, his individuality, is important. It is extremely important for a character to be able to know himself, and then each individual person, because this is the only way to comprehend the soul. However, loneliness begins to burden a person when “ love". This concept intersects with life” at the level of the lexeme “loneliness”. This once again confirms the fact that semantic fields not isolated, but interpenetrating. It is love experiences that push the lyrical hero to reflection. Love for a lyrical hero is not only feelings, attachments, but also a combination of incompatible concepts: a struggle that allows you to feel and closeness that causes a flight of the soul. In the center of this concept lie the lexemes "struggle", "proximity", "beauty", "native people": If there was sadness, melancholy, then why is this word in the Russian word? And this is love; Here love falls on you once again. So the bam-bam falls. Each next love is stronger than the previous one. How did you fall, and you think: “Well, my, well, the offset again?”;<…>Women who waited and waited for everyone - and everyone is happy.

Thus, based on the selection of two main concepts in the speech of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets, we can say that relationships between people and his own development as a person are very important for this character, therefore, he tries to choose the main topics for his monologues according to the principle of emotional intimacy: in the play "Planet" - this is the relationship between a man and a woman, about how love comes to life, and the performances "How I ate a dog", "Dreadnoughts", "At the same time" about human life in all its originality and complexity.

Summing up the results at the level of possession of the lexicon, we note that the lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets showed that he uses all the stylistic groups of vocabulary in his speech. However, the basis of his vocabulary is neutral vocabulary. Book and colloquial vocabulary are less represented. There are slang and jargon. Using words from different styles Russian language indicates that the lyrical hero is capable of communicating with representatives of different language groups, he will be able to perceive information without semantic loss, he will be able to choose the necessary style form, depending on who his interlocutor will be.

Not a single violation in the use of stylistically marked vocabulary was noted in the analyzed material, which once again confirms that E. Grishkovets, like his lyrical hero, belongs to a fully functional type of speech culture.

Syntax.

The analysis of the syntactic organization of the speech of the lyrical hero has become necessary, since the material of the study is oral (colloquial) speech, which differs from written, the main object of analysis of modern linguists. Researcher of Russian colloquial syntax O.A. Lapteva claims that “the oral-colloquial variety of the modern Russian language is one of the manifestations of the oral form of Russian national language generally" .

Oral speech, belonging, on the one hand, to the literary language, and on the other hand, belonging to the oral-speech formations of the national language, reveals a dual conditionality (factors of literary and oral) and occupies an intermediate position between non-literary formations (we mean the use of simple syntactic constructions ) and literary language (which is characterized by the presence of a complex syntax). This is expressed as part of the syntactic constructions that the lyrical hero uses in the monologue.

In all the material analyzed by us (more than 8 hours of recording), an equal presence of both simple and complex sentences was revealed. A practically equal division may mean that it is equally easy for the lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets to build complex and sometimes intricate constructions, as well as to speak briefly and very succinctly, using the parcelization technique - an expressive syntax construction, which is a deliberate division of a related sentence into several intonationally and in writing punctuationally independent segments. An indicator of such a syntactic break is a period or other end-of-sentence sign: I went. Into the room. One went into it; Company. Everyone drinks. Have a bite, etc.

One of the rather clearly defined trends in modern Russian syntax is the expansion of the circle of dissected and segmented syntactic constructions. The main reason for this phenomenon is the strengthening of the influence of colloquial syntax on written speech, the main result of which was a departure from the “classical”, verified syntactic constructions, with openly expressed subordinate ties and the relative completeness of the grammatical structure. This syntax respects sentence boundaries and syntactic links inside the offer. The researcher of Russian syntax N. S. Valgina in one of her works notes that “existing in parallel and partly replacing such syntax, the actualized syntax is becoming more widespread - with a dissected grammatical composition of the sentence, with the promotion of semantically significant components of the sentence to actual positions, with violation of syntagmatic chains, with a tendency to the analytical type of expression grammatical meanings. All these qualities of the syntactic structure are abundantly represented in the colloquial syntax, the appeal to which from the side of the book syntax is based on the internal possibilities of the language and is supported by the social factors of the time.

It should be noted the fairly frequent use of interrogative and exclamatory sentences, including rhetorical ones: Where can a bitch get a sailor or a pilot from?; How can live children be shown puppet cartoons?; Came in and said: "Yes!" Why"? Everything is not so at all, and in life everything is not very good!; And what is around you? Around the night city!; And who are the boys in the boys' choir?; What can be seen? Chandelier. Shade. In general, a light source; What can she do? Call…; What are you, dogs, Germans, scoffing?! and etc.

This fully meets the objectives of the colloquial style of speech, in which the lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets speaks. Rhetorical figures are proxemic (from the Latin "proxemics" - rapprochement), thus helping to establish contact between the speaker and the audience, which is an important component of success for a person working on stage.

Quite often, one can observe introductory constructions in the speech of a lyrical hero that convey the subjective attitude of the speaker to what is being reported. They can serve to express an emotional assessment of the reported in terms of its favorable or unfavorable: And your dear, fortunately, washed the dishes; assessing the reliability of information or its compliance with the expected: And this person, of course, is. And, I emphasize, not a sailor or a pilot, but a man; Although, we say this all the time, more precisely, we often say this; Went, for example, into the room; perform metatextual functions, concretizing the semantic connections of a given statement with previous or subsequent ones: However, it is always difficult to start; serve to maintain contact with the interlocutor: You know, the fact is that in the spelling dictionary of the Russian language it is indicated that both variants of use in this word are both equal in rights and equally possible.

The abundant use of introductory constructions is one of the main characteristics of colloquial speech, thanks to which the speech of the lyrical hero receives emotional content, does not become impersonal.

The viewer can observe the reaction of the lyrical hero not only by carefully peering into the gestures and facial expressions of the hero, listening to the timbre of the voice, but also by analyzing his speech and speech behavior.

2. Speech behavior of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets.

According to N.I. Formanskaya, speech behavior is “an automated, stereotypical speech manifestation devoid of conscious motivation” which is expressed in stereotypical statements, speech clichés, on the one hand, and in some purely individual speech manifestations of a given person, on the other. Thus, speech behavior manifests a linguistic personality belonging to a given time, a given country, this region, a given social (including professional) group, a given family. All the rules of speech behavior generally accepted by society are regulated primarily by speech etiquette. it whole system linguistic means in which etiquette relations are manifested.

The researchers note that the elements of this system can be implemented at different language levels:

1) at the level of vocabulary and phraseology: special words and set expressions, as well as specialized forms of address;

2) at the grammatical level: the use of the plural for polite address (including the pronoun "you"); use instead of imperative interrogative sentences;

3) at the stylistic level: the requirement of competent, cultured speech; refusal to use words that directly name obscene and shocking objects and phenomena, the use of euphemisms instead of these words;

4) at the intonational level: the use of polite intonation (the same statement can sound like a request or like an unceremonious demand);

It is worth noting that, like E. Grishkovets, and his lyrical hero, he owns speech etiquette. He always greets his viewer, before the start of the performance, and also at the end of it, he always thanks the audience for their attention, it is not uncommon for him to give the audience some elements of the props: carved stars from cardboard (one-man show "At the same time") or paper boats (one-man show "Dreadnoughts" ).

The speech uses speech clichés using polite intonation: Hello; Thank you for your attention; Goodbye; Thank you for coming to my performance; You are wonderful viewers; Please turn off your phones during the performance, etc.

In his monologues, he tries not to use words that can cause a shock reaction in the audience, skillfully using euphemisms, which indicates a high level of language proficiency: You quarreled hard with someone, and then also put up hard; Then at school I got three photographs where there were well completely naked women and they lay in my secret place I met with them; Love is like short, furious bayonet attacks. And then all the fighters are ashamed, for what, that the attacks are so short, and so bayonet; Sitting next to him inexpensive local beauty(of sexual relations).

Based on all of the above, the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets can be characterized as a highly cultured person who knows how to choose the right speech behavior when reading monologues that does not cause rejection among the public.

Another important fact that speaks of a high command of the native language and, in general, a high cultural education of the lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets, can be considered the ability to create intertextual connections with precedent texts.

Precedent texts include not only quotations from works of art, but also myths, legends, oral poetic works, parables, legends, fairy tales, anecdotes, etc. A proper name can also be a precedent text, for example, the name of a famous historical figure, character any literary work or movie character.

In his monologues, the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets quite often uses this phenomenon, applying knowledge from world history, Russian folklore, world literature, and biology when creating texts. It is also possible to identify the creation of precedent texts based on Soviet realities and ideology, which are familiar to the vast majority of viewers: First there will be some Michurin areas(from biology); With kondachka I will not understand here(folk proverb); Work is a place where you can not feel no shame, no conscience; I have always liked Shakespeare's plays; And on who is really to blame here? (proverb: there is nothing to blame on the mirror if the face is crooked); Centuries passed. There were Tatar-Mongols, Teutonic warriors, Giordano Bruno. Inquisitors, one world war, the second<…>And now I was born (facts from world history); The poet who wrote these words, he is serious, honest, real, like this, hand on heart, to tell…; Where is everyone going? (from the formulation of the Soviet ideology "Go to a brighter future, comrades!"); In this darkness, the wolf begins to be felt sharply(proverb: to live with wolves - howl like a wolf); A pond flickers, stars, sparks, moths, and suddenly you can feel that sit on the surface of the planet(reference to " little prince» A. de Saint-Exupery); Because there is in the Russian fleet tradition: to die in everything new and pure; Either a pillow, like a frog, or a blanket ran away(quote from "Moydodyr" by K. Chukovsky); We pestered the sailors with questions (saying: sailors have no questions); Darling, this millennium is a responsible business. You understand ? As we meet him, so we will spend. Do you understand? (folk tradition), etc.

The abundant use of references to precedent texts in his speech speaks of the high cultural and linguistic level of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets, characterizes him as a person who knows how to competently use his cultural knowledge to create sentences and create reminiscences to express his own thoughts.

So, in this article we have presented a structured speech portrait of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets. The model (structure) that was used to write the speech portrait was revealed with the help of the given examples from the solo performances of the personality we analyzed, which gives us a certain idea of ​​the personality of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets, his quality of language proficiency and the general level of both speech and cultural behavior.

Based on the speech portrait described above, we can conclude that the lyrical hero of E. Grishkovets is a person who is fluent in the language, has a high cultural level, which he skillfully uses when composing monologues. Among other things, he has a high level of speech behavior, which helps him create a favorable attitude towards himself both as an actor-director-screenwriter and as a character participating in the play.

The speech portrait described by us characterizes not only the personality of the lyrical hero E. Grishkovets (and directly himself), but also shows the social environment to which the actor-director refers himself: intelligent, educated people middle-aged, brought up on Soviet ideals, as a result of which they had certain views on life and attitudes towards the surrounding modern world.

So, in the process of studying the personality of the lyrical hero analyzed by us, we found out that he is characterized by the use of a language game in his speech, which also indicates a high level of language proficiency.

Bibliographic list

1. Krysin L. P. Modern Russian intellectual: an attempt at a speech portrait / L. P. Krysin // Russian language in scientific coverage. - 2000. - S. 90 - 107.
2. Ozhegov S. I. Dictionary Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / S. I. Ozhegov // Russian Academy Sciences. Institute of the Russian Language. V. V. Vinogradova. - M .: LLC "Publishing house ELPIS", 2003. - 944 p.
3. Kosykh E.A. The Conceptosphere of Prince Myshkin (Analysis of Linguistic Personality in the Works of F.M. Dostoevsky) / E.A. Kosykh, E. Tushina, - [electronic resource] // access mode: http://www.ct.unialtai.ru/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D1 %8B%D1%85%D1%82%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B02011, free, from 30.03. fourteen.
4. Lapteva O. A. Russian colloquial syntax: monograph / O. A. Lapteva. - M.: URRS, 2003. - 400 p.
5. Valgina, N.S. Active processes in modern Russian / N.S. Valgina, - [electronic resource] // access mode: http://www.hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook050/01/part-011.htm, free, from 03/12/14.
6. Linguistic personality: aspects of linguistics and linguodidactics: Sat. scientific tr. / VSPU. - Volgograd: Change, 1999. - 260 p.
7. Vostryakova, N. A. Connotative semantics and pragmatics of nominative units of the Russian language: author. dis. cand. philol. Sciences / N. A. Vostryakova; - Volgograd, 1998. - S. 22.
8. Precedent text / [electronic resource] // access mode: http://www.lomonosov-fund.ru/enc/ru/encyclopedia:0127651:article , free, from 23. 04. 14.