Material for my students. Preparation for the Unified State Exam

2. The hero’s place in the system of images and his role in revealing the author’s intention.

3. Typical character of a literary hero; presence or absence of prototypes.

4. Characteristics of a literary hero.

5. Means of creating a literary character

1. determining the scope of the topic (what exactly needs to be remembered, you cannot write about everything, even if you know the text of the work perfectly).

2. Learn to ask questions (to yourself in order to pose a problem): why did the author compare certain events and characters? What artistic means does the author use to depict events and characters? What role do these events or characters play in the context of the work?

3. Accuracy, focus of evidence (if you can clearly and concisely answer your own questions, then you know what to prove in your own work).

4. Selection of arguments, planning specific paragraphs of the essay.

5. Mastery in writing an introduction (for the examiner: the author of the essay is completely fluent in the material and chooses the best way disclosure of the topic).

6. Not “for peace”, but “for health” (conclusion): these are not just conclusions, this is a way out of your topic into the wide world of Russian literature - a conclusion of everything stated above.

7. Check: at least twice! the first time - checking the general ode of evidence, logic, compliance with the norms of literary language. The second time is a literacy test only. In this case, you should read the text from the end to the beginning (you abstract from the content and check only literacy).

8. And a few more tips:

never write about what you don’t know or know poorly;

Do not use words whose spelling you are not sure of; try to replace them with synonyms;

don’t be clever, don’t complicate your phrases, in this case it’s easy to get confused;

write simply, rely on the text of the work of art, good knowledge the text always makes a favorable impression.

“Superfluous people” in literature are images characteristic of Russian prose of the mid-nineteenth century. Examples of such characters in works of art- topic of the article.

Who coined this term?

“Extra people” in literature are characters that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is unknown who exactly introduced this term. Perhaps Herzen. According to some information - Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. After all, the great Russian poet once said that his Onegin is “an extra man.” One way or another, this image was firmly established in the works of other writers.

Every schoolchild, even if he has not read Goncharov’s novel, knows about someone like Oblomov. This character is a representative of the outdated landowner world, and therefore cannot adapt to the new one.

General signs

“Superfluous people” are found in the works of such classics as I. S. Turgenev, M. Yu. Lermontov. Before considering each of the characters that can be classified in this category, it is worth highlighting common features. “Extra people” in literature are contradictory heroes who are in conflict with the society to which they belong. As a rule, they are deprived of both fame and wealth.

Examples

“Extra people” in literature are characters introduced by the author into an environment alien to them. They are moderately educated, but their knowledge is unsystematic. The “superfluous man” cannot be a deep thinker or scientist, but he has the “ability of judgment”, the gift of eloquence. AND main feature this literary character - disdain to others. As an example, we can recall Pushkin’s Onegin, who avoids communication with his neighbors.

“Superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century were heroes who were able to see vices modern society, but do not know how to resist them. They are aware of the problems of the world around them. But, alas, they are too passive to change anything.

Causes

Characters about we're talking about in this article, began to appear on the pages of the works of Russian writers in the Nicholas era. In 1825 there was a Decembrist uprising. For the next decades, the government was in fear, but it was at this time that a spirit of freedom and a desire for change emerged in society. The policy of Nicholas I was quite contradictory.

The tsar introduced reforms designed to make life easier for the peasants, but at the same time did everything to strengthen the autocracy. Various circles began to appear, whose participants discussed and criticized the current government. Landlord lifestyle for many educated people caused contempt. But the trouble is that the participants in various political associations belonged to the society towards which they suddenly became inflamed with hatred.

The reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature lie in the emergence in society of a new type of person, not accepted by society and did not accept it. Such a person stands out from the crowd, and therefore causes bewilderment and irritation.

As already mentioned, the concept of “superfluous person” was first introduced into literature by Pushkin. However, this term is somewhat vague. Characters in conflict with social environment, have been found in the literature before. Main character Griboyedov's comedy has features inherent in this type of character. Can we say that Chatsky is an example of a “superfluous person”? To answer this question, you should do brief analysis comedies.

Chatsky

Griboyedov's hero rejects the inert foundations Famusov society. He denounces veneration for rank and blind imitation. This does not go unnoticed by representatives of Famus society - the Khlestovs, the Khryumins, the Zagoretskys. As a result, Chatsky is considered strange, if not crazy.

Griboyedov's hero is a representative of an advanced society, which includes people who do not want to put up with reactionary orders and remnants of the past. Thus, we can say that the theme of the “superfluous person” was first raised by the author of “Woe from Wit.”

Eugene Onegin

But most literary scholars believe that this particular hero is the first “extra person” in the prose and poetry of Russian authors. Onegin is a nobleman, “heir to all his relatives.” He received a very passable education, but does not have any deep knowledge. Writing and speaking French, behaving at ease in society, reciting a few quotes from the works of ancient authors - this is enough to create a favorable impression in the world.

Onegin is a typical representative of aristocratic society. He is not able to “work hard”, but he knows how to shine in society. He leads an aimless, idle existence, but this is not his fault. Evgeniy became like his father, who gave three balls every year. He lives the way most representatives of the Russian nobility exist. However, unlike them, at a certain moment he begins to feel tired and disappointed.

Loneliness

Onegin is an “extra person.” He is languishing from idleness, trying to occupy himself with useful work. In the society to which he belongs, idleness is the main component of life. Hardly anyone from Onegin’s circle is familiar with his experiences.

Evgeniy tries to compose at first. But he is not a writer. Then he begins to read enthusiastically. However, Onegin does not find moral satisfaction in books either. Then he retires to the house of his deceased uncle, who bequeathed his village to him. Here the young nobleman seemingly finds something to do. He makes life easier for the peasants: he replaces the yoke with a light quitrent. However, even these good initiatives lead nowhere.

The type of “superfluous person” appeared in Russian literature in the first third of the nineteenth century. But by the middle of the century this character acquired new features. Pushkinsky Onegin quite passive. He treats others with contempt, is depressed and cannot get rid of conventions and prejudices, which he himself criticizes. Let's look at other examples of the “extra person” in literature.

Pechorin

Lermontov’s work “Hero of Our Time” is dedicated to the problems of a rejected person, spiritually not accepted by society. Pechorin, like Pushkin's character, belongs to high society. But he is tired of the mores of aristocratic society. Pechorin does not enjoy attending balls, dinners, or festive evenings. He is depressed by the tedious and meaningless conversations that are customary to have at such events.

Using the examples of Onegin and Pechorin, we can complement the concept of “superfluous person” in Russian literature. This is a character who, due to some alienation from society, acquires such traits as isolation, selfishness, cynicism and even cruelty.

"Notes of an Extra Person"

And yet, most likely, the author of the concept of “extra people” is I. S. Turgenev. Many literary scholars believe that it was he who introduced this term. According to their opinion, Onegin and Pechorin were subsequently ranked among the “ unnecessary people", although they have little in common with the image created by Turgenev. The writer has a story called “Notes of an Extra Man.” The hero of this work feels alien in society. This character calls himself such.

Whether the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” is a “superfluous person” is a controversial issue.

Bazarov

Fathers and Sons depicts society in the mid-nineteenth century. Violent political disputes had reached their climax by this time. In these disputes, on one side stood the liberal democrats, and on the other, the revolutionary commoner democrats. Both of them understood that changes were needed. Revolutionary-minded democrats, unlike their opponents, were committed to rather radical measures.

Political disputes have penetrated into all spheres of life. And, of course, they became the theme of artistic and journalistic works. But there was another phenomenon at that time that interested the writer Turgenev. Namely, nihilism. Adherents of this movement rejected everything related to the spiritual.

Bazarov, like Onegin, is a deeply lonely person. This trait is also characteristic of all characters whom literary scholars classify as “superfluous people.” But, unlike Pushkin’s hero, Bazarov does not spend his time in idleness: he is engaged in the natural sciences.

The hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” has successors. He is not considered crazy. On the contrary, some heroes try to adopt Bazarov’s oddities and skepticism. Nevertheless, Bazarov is lonely, despite the fact that his parents love and idolize him. He dies, and only at the end of his life does he realize that his ideas were false. There are simple joys in life. There is love and romantic feelings. And all this has a right to exist.

Rudin

It’s not uncommon to encounter “extra people.” The action of the novel "Rudin" takes place in the forties. Daria Lasunskaya, one of the heroines of the novel, lives in Moscow, but in the summer she travels out of town, where she organizes musical evenings. Her guests are exclusively educated people.

One day, a certain Rudin appears at Lasunskaya’s house. This person is prone to polemics, extremely passionate, and captivates listeners with his wit. The guests and the hostess of the house are enchanted by Rudin’s amazing eloquence. Lasunskaya invites him to live in her house.

In order to give a clear description of Rudin, Turgenev talks about facts from his life. This man was born into a poor family, but never had the desire to earn money or get out of poverty. At first he lived on the pennies his mother sent him. Then he lived at the expense of rich friends. Even in his youth, Rudin was distinguished by his extraordinary oratory skills. He was a fairly educated man, because he spent all his leisure time reading books. But the trouble is that nothing followed his words. By the time he met Lasunskaya, he had already become a man fairly battered by life’s hardships. In addition, he became painfully proud and even vain.

Rudin is an “extra person.” Many years of immersion in the philosophical sphere led to the fact that ordinary emotional experiences seemed to have died out. This Turgenev hero is a born orator, and the only thing he strived for was to conquer people. But he was too weak and spineless to become a political leader.

Oblomov

So, the “extra person” in Russian prose is a disillusioned nobleman. The hero of Goncharov's novel is sometimes classified as this type of literary hero. But can Oblomov be called a “superfluous person”? After all, he misses, yearns for why home and everything that made up the life of a landowner. And he is in no way disappointed in the way of life and traditions characteristic of representatives of his society.

Who is Oblomov? This is a descendant of a landowner family who is bored with working in an office, and therefore does not leave his sofa for days. This is a generally accepted opinion, but it is not entirely correct. Oblomov could not get used to life in St. Petersburg, because the people around him were entirely calculating, heartless individuals. The main character of the novel, unlike them, is smart, educated and, most importantly, has high spiritual qualities. But why doesn’t he want to work then?

The fact is that Oblomov, like Onegin and Rudin, does not see the point in such work, such life. These people cannot work only for material well-being. Each of them requires a high spiritual goal. But it doesn’t exist or it turned out to be insolvent. And Onegin, and Rudin, and Oblomov become “superfluous”.

Goncharov contrasted Stolz, his childhood friend, with the main character of his novel. This character initially creates a positive impression on the reader. Stolz is a hardworking, purposeful person. The writer endowed this hero German origin not by chance. Goncharov seems to be hinting that only Russian people can suffer from Oblomovism. And in last chapters it becomes clear that there is nothing behind Stolz’s hard work. This person has neither dreams nor high ideas. He acquires sufficient means of subsistence and stops, not continuing his development.

The influence of the “extra person” on others

It is also worth saying a few words about the heroes who surround the “extra person”. mentioned in this article are lonely and unhappy. Some of them end their lives too early. In addition, “extra people” cause grief to others. Especially women who had the imprudence to love them.

Pierre Bezukhov is sometimes counted among the “superfluous people.” In the first part of the novel, he is in continuous melancholy, searching for something. He spends a lot of time at parties, buys paintings, and reads a lot. Unlike the above-mentioned heroes, Bezukhov finds himself; he does not die either physically or morally.

One of the simplified life schemes is something like computer game with alternative variations of the outcome of events: the hero faces a choice, we make a decision for him and see what happens next. That is, life is a quest, a space of choice. And sometimes the choice that this or that person makes entails completely unexpected consequences. The heroes of the books in our selection today burned out in the most offensive way - they turned into the wrong corridor, met the wrong person, chose the wrong job, or were born in the wrong century.

Vladimir Nabokov "King, Queen, Jack"

It happens:

Young provincial Franz arrives in Berlin, where he is promised a place in the store of his uncle, whose name is Kurt. Kurt is married to a woman named Martha, who married him for his money and is completely cold towards him. Very soon the wife begins an affair with a young man and plans to kill her husband.

The flame burns out:

IN in this case It is worth talking not so much about the wrong choice as about the absence of choice at all. It all started not at the moment when Martha got along with Franz and decided to get rid of her husband - here you need to rewind the film 7 years ago, when Martha was persuaded into marriage by her parents. Here, of course, nothing surprising or symbolic happened either: the bankrupt merchants married their daughter to a promising and fabulously wealthy businessman; no one was particularly interested in her opinion. And Martha seemed to have made a choice, calculating the groom’s capital, and it seems that it can be called incorrect. But if you trace the dynamics of the development of feelings of hatred towards your husband, then preparation for the wedding will be the starting point. If only because before encroaching on someone else’s wallet, you first need to examine the character of its owner.

A weak will became a fatal mistake for Franz: neither the heroes nor the reader perceive him as a living, thinking creature - he is rather associated with the walking dolls that Kurt sells. This weakness leads Franz to another erroneous conclusion - and he begins to secretly hate Martha, who completely subjugated young man of your own free will.

If we draw an analogy with card game, then we can say that Martha lost the game by betting on the wrong card - making Franz a murder weapon, she did not calculate the possible circumstances. For example, the simple fact that her husband would not sit and wait own death. Or quite common plot twist– unpretentiousness and absolutely random nature of fate. Let's add a little metaphor: just because you're good at poker doesn't mean you don't need luck anymore.

Guy de Maupassant "Life"

It happens:

Zhanna returns with her parents from the monastery to the Topol estate, where a wave of dramas and misfortunes awaits her. A story about a woman's hard life in the French style.

The flame burns out:

Continuing the theme of ill-conceived marriage. Zhanna married the wrong guy - and now he is cheating on her with a maid (who, in addition to everything, is her sister), the heroine herself almost dies of a fever, her husband is killed by a jealous count, with whose wife the unlucky lover had fun in the evenings... I would like to imagine Zhanna with the face of Natalia Oreiro and launch a Latin American series based on the novel.

Things only get worse from there. You married the wrong guy, friend. Of course, from the position of emancipated women of the 21st century, it is easy for us to judge the naivety of a girl who did not know how it ended the wedding night. But still, the obvious facts are clear: even at that time, a girl was not obliged to immediately give a positive response to a marriage proposal. Jeanne's story is quite banal: the girl believed that she loved Julien, her future husband, so she agreed to marry him without much hesitation. And only some time after the wedding I discovered that he turned out to be a petty and cowardly person. At the same time, it would also be wrong to accuse Zhanna of lack of insight - alas, we cannot assume what life has in store for us. This is probably why Maupassant’s novel is titled so simply, but quite understandably. You live for yourself, live, marry a scumbag, give birth to a child from him. The husband dies, and the son starts an affair with a prostitute, who then, of course, also dies, but leaves her granddaughter. It’s both sad and not entirely hopeless, but all together – very vital.

Stephen Fry "How to Make History"

It happens:

A fantasy novel by Stephen Fry, who has never written before fantasy novels, but gave a head start to any writer in this genre. Cambridge graduate student Michael Young, along with Professor Leo Zuckerman, makes a fatal attempt to change the course of history by erasing Adolf Hitler from the face of the earth. The synopsis sounds like an anecdote, but Fry's novel is a social satire, a fantastic plot and a philosophical reflection.

The flame burns out:

In some ridiculous way, Michael Young decides that if you destroy one person, then only one thing will change in the world - in fact, one contraceptive pill changes the whole world. Stephen Fry invites the reader to find himself in an alternative universe where there is no Hitler. But here an interesting philosophy of the work emerges: the absence of Hitler does not mean the absence of Nazism. Fry shows that it could be worse: Germany took a different path, there were no concentration camps, but the genocide and the Second World War did not disappear along with the leader of Nazism - there was simply another person in his place.

The idea that man alone cannot change history is as old as science fiction itself. Here it is worth considering the motives of the main characters: Michael was inspired by the idea of ​​​​changing the present through the past, because life seemed boring and meaningless to him, and Leo was haunted by guilt for his Nazi father. The wrong solution is to get rid of pressing problems by shifting them to global events. Why did Michael decide that the feeling of uncertainty would go away with Hitler? Why did Leo decide that his father would be a good, decent man if he destroyed Nazism (as it seemed to him then)? In any case, time will take its toll, and all events of the present are consequences of the past that are better not to change. You can change history - but only the history of the future, because in any case it cannot be turned to your advantage.

Fyodor Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

It happens:

The most popular work Dostoevsky is a novel about the commoner hero Rodion Raskolnikov, who falls into a state of frustration and believes that he has the right. Crime and Punishment is mostly known for the scene with the murder of the old pawnbroker with an ax.

The flame burns out:

“Crime and Punishment” appears as a separate world, where each hero is what he chooses. Raskolnikov chooses despair in this world, so his every action ends in precisely this state. The theory he developed - about creatures trembling and having the right, about his identity with Napoleon - projecting his own fears and escaping from them. In fact, Raskolnikov's theory turned out to be completely unviable. Moreover, the hero was not even able to move from plan to action - the murder of the old pawnbroker cannot be called a fully conscious act, especially considering the consequences this crime brought.

What saves Raskolnikov is that he finally came to the realization of his mistake, unlike other heroes. For example, Luzhin, who can be seen as an example of how a person once makes the wrong choice and does not repent of it. His position is not as pathetic as that of a young man lost in life - with Luzhin everything is decorous, but not noble. The theories of the double characters are somewhat similar: both Raskolnikov and Luzhin put themselves above other people almost by birthright, but Luzhin has arguments from the “first achieve it” series. The thesis is this: you need to marry a poor, suffering girl, so that she will bow to her wealthy husband in the future. Quite cynical, at the same time not devoid of logic, but ultimately disgusting. Luzhin is an exaggerated image of Raskolnikov, a man who was not surrounded good people or did not consider them necessary. Why do you need goodness if it cannot be monetized? Raskolnikov succumbed to this wave of cruelty for some time, but his weak nature in any case would not have endured such a burden of guilt as Luzhin carries on his shoulders. Therefore, the demons tormented him a little, but ultimately released him. And yet, knowing about the general stupidity of the choice of the main character, you somehow humanly sympathize with him, feel sorry for him, feel a little like Sonechka - all-forgiving and understanding.

Gustave Flaubert "Madame Bovary"

It happens:

The main character of the novel is Emma Bovary, a doctor's wife who lives beyond her means and starts extramarital affairs in the hope of getting rid of the emptiness and ordinariness of provincial life.

The flame burns out:

Flaubert's novel Madame Bovary is similar to Maupassant's Life: in both works main character I thought that I had finally found simple female happiness, but in reality I received onion grief. There is no plagiarism here: Maupassant considered himself a student of Flaubert, and, by the way, Flaubert was really looking forward to the publication of the novel “Life”, but did not live to see it for just a couple of years.

The life of Emma Bovary - a look at an unhappy marriage from a different angle. If Maupassant's sufferer took upon herself all the hardships family life with the unloved and not loving husband, then Emma actively struggled with the feeling of hopelessness. True, not entirely correct methods from the point of view of public morality. Charles, her husband, of course, was spiritually weak person, but Emma perhaps belittled him too cruelly. The heroine found herself in a very life-like situation: disappointment after marriage, an attempt to fix everything with a series of infidelities almost in her own bedroom, shopaholism, debts and, ultimately, a dramatic outcome. That is, instead of improving relations with her husband or finding some kind of useful activity, Emma chose to distract herself from sad thoughts. “I’ll think about it tomorrow” is the eternal mistake of those who like to suffer because of problems without doing anything to prevent these problems from happening.

some right to do so." Later, when the murder has already been committed, the characterization of the hero will be replenished to let the reader understand why it was committed: “... a poor student, disfigured by poverty and hypochondria, on the eve of a cruel illness with delirium, which may already have begun in him, suspicious, proud, who knows his own worth... in rags and boots without soles - stands in front of some quarters and endures their abuse, and here is an unexpected debt in front of his nose, an overdue bill...” Here, the reasons put forward in the first place are those that caused by social status poor student. And the author reveals what is happening in the hero’s soul, his painful experiences to the reader, describing Raskolnikov’s dreams. There is one more, perhaps the most important meaning of the dream - Raskolnikov’s internal attitude towards crime. The terrible scene and the shed blood are connected in Raskolnikov’s mind with the planned murder. Waking up, the shocked Rodion immediately remembers what he was planning to do - the upcoming murder of the old pawnbroker: “God! - he exclaimed, “is it really possible... I’ll really take an ax, hit her on the head, crush her skull... I’ll slide in the sticky warm blood... Lord, really?” This is the beginning of the “experienced idea.” While she was mastering it logically, there was no fear. But then the hero’s feelings came into their own. Human nature rebels, and a confession appears: “... after all, I knew that I couldn’t stand it... I won’t stand it... it’s vile, disgusting, low... after all, just the thought in reality made me sick and terrified ..." But, pondering this dream, Raskolnikov more clearly imagines the motives for the murder. Firstly, hatred towards the tormentors of the “nag” is growing, and secondly, the desire to rise to the position of a judge, to “have the right” to punish the presumptuous “masters” is growing. But Raskolnikov did not take into account one thing - the inability of good and honest man shed blood. Having not killed anyone yet, he understands the doom of the bloody idea. A terrible decision nevertheless continues to ripen in Rodion’s soul. A conversation between a student and an officer overheard in a tavern about the murder of an old woman for the sake of money, with which one can do “a thousand good deeds and undertakings... In one life - thousands of lives saved from rotting and decay. One death and a hundred lives in return - but there’s arithmetic here!..” The phrase about the multiplicity of sufferers turned out to be very important for Rodion. From that time on, Raskolnikov’s vague ideas about murder were formulated into a theory about the division of people into the elect, high above ordinary people, who meekly obey strong personalities. Therefore, Raskolnikov is close to Napoleon. For Raskolnikov, his own “I” becomes the measure of all values. Later he will argue that an “extraordinary” person “has the right to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if the fulfillment of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) requires it.” Permission to “bleed according to conscience,” but for the sake of “destruction of the present in the name of the better,” defines Raskolnikov’s position. Dostoevsky proves how monstrous this worldview is, for it leads to disunity between people, makes a person helpless in the face of evil, turns him into a slave own passions and thereby destroys it. A world built on these principles is a world of arbitrariness, where everything collapses human values and people cease to understand each other, where everyone has their own truth, their own right and everyone believes that their truth is true, where the line between good and evil is erased. This is the path to the death of the human race. After the murder, a new period of Raskolnikov’s inner existence began. There was a turning point in his consciousness. It was as if an abyss had opened up between him and people - he felt such loneliness, such alienation, such hopeless melancholy: “Something completely unfamiliar to him, new... had never happened to him.” “It seemed to him that it was as if he had cut himself off from everyone and everything at that moment with scissors.” Raskolnikov cannot live in the old way. What he had done became an insurmountable barrier between him and everyone around him. In sorrowful loneliness, a painful comprehension of what he has done begins. And there is no end to pain and suffering. He cannot forgive himself that, out of a selfish desire to assert his strength, he committed an insane act: “... I should have found out then... am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Will I be able to cross or not!.. Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right.” Sufferingly, he comes to rethink moral values: “Did I kill the old lady? I killed myself." Raskolnikov's moral torment is aggravated by the fact that investigator Porfiry Petrovich guesses about his crime, and therefore meetings with him - new stage Rodion's self-examination, the source of further transformation. "Suffering - great thing“- says Porfiry Petrovich. He advises Rodion to find new faith and return to a decent life and points to the only way self-affirmation of the individual: “Become the sun, and they will see you.” Dostoevsky claims that only through the positive, lofty, humane can one rise. The true bearer of faith in the novel is Sonya Marmeladova. Sonya is not an exponent of the author’s consciousness, but her position is close to Dostoevsky, because for her the highest value on earth is man, human life. When Raskolnikov becomes unbearable, he goes to Sonya. Their destinies have a lot in common, a lot of tragedy. Sonya felt the main thing in Raskolnikov: that he was “terribly, infinitely unhappy” and that he needed her. Sonya believes that Raskolnikov committed a crime before God, before the Russian land and the Russian people, and therefore sends him to the square to repent, that is, to seek salvation and rebirth among people. For Raskolnikov, punishment by his own conscience is worse than hard labor. He understands that only in love and repentance can he find salvation. Gradually, Sonya becomes a part of his existence. Raskolnikov sees: religion, faith in God for Sonya is the only thing left for her “next to her unhappy father and her stepmother, crazy with grief, among hungry children, ugly screams and reproaches.”

The idea that a work of art represents a special, self-contained world has been known since the second century. half of the XVIII V. It is characteristic of the philosophical aesthetics of the era of pre-romanticism and romanticism, and in our country it was expressed, for example, in the literary critical articles of V.G. Belinsky.

However, this idea penetrated into literary theory only in the 1920s and 1930s. We find the concept of “the world of the hero” during this period in M. M. Bakhtin (“The Author and the Hero in aesthetic activity") and in the studies of R. Ingarden, included in his book “A Literary Work” (Das Literarische Kunstwerk).

Return to this the most important issue poetics after a long break was noted in our country by the widely known article by D. S. Likhachev “ Inner world work of art" (1968). Of the many existing designations for this subject, we prefer the option proposed by D. S. Likhachev: the hero’s world is “internal” because his perception is associated with an internal point of view. You need to “enter” the work to see it. The text is visible from the outside (“outside”).

The situation with definitions is more complicated (cf. a completely different situation with the term “text”). Even in the mentioned special monograph by Fedorov there is no definition of the concept; It is quite clear that the world created in the work is “poetic” (as opposed to the “prosaic” one that surrounds us) and therefore has specific properties and laws, but this specificity itself remains unclear. This situation is similar to the emergence and fate of the concept “ poetic language”, which initially equaled the concept of “language of fiction”.

Theory of Literature / Ed. N.D. Tamarchenko - M., 2004