All of you, dear readers, have definitely come across stories, poems, fanfiction or even entire books in which one or more characters speak in the first person. And all of you at school were probably asked to write essays about the image of a lyrical hero or the author's position in such and such a work. Many schoolchildren, readers or even novice writers, faced with all this, clutch at their heads: what does it all mean and how to deal with it? How to answer the teacher's question correctly? How to respond to first-person narration in the text - is the author writing to himself or not? So we have four terms. Let's try to understand everything in order. AUTHOR. The author is the person who wrote the work and came up with the characters. This person is quite real, just like you, he goes to work / school, lives in an ordinary house in an ordinary city and goes about his daily business. What does he have to do with the characters in his books or poems, even if they speak in the first person? None, he just made them up, unless the header or preface says that such and such a character is autobiographical or even a Mary / Marty Sue. BE CAREFUL: I have repeatedly heard stories from my friends and acquaintances about how children at school are taught to retell texts written in the first person, or to analyze such poems. Unfortunately, even many teachers confuse the author and the character and advise students to start retelling such works with the words “Writer Sidorov went to the forest”, although Sidorov could write his book when he was already over seventy, and the main character is a ninth grade student. Remember: the author and his characters are not the same thing. The author may well write off one of the characters from himself or endow him with a similar biography, character traits, and so on, but by no means every hero who speaks of himself in the first person can be considered autobiographical. And, on the contrary, the alter ego of the author may turn out to be some third-rate character in the third-person narrative. I understand it sounds complicated. How to recognize which characters are autobiographical and which are not? Ask the author himself. Carefully read the header and comments. If you are studying a book at school or college, read the writer's diaries and notes, and much will become clear to you. HERO STORY. An excellent literary device, which is very fond of many writers. Its essence lies in the fact that something or another event is from time to time or constantly covered in the work from the point of view of a certain hero, while the narration is constantly or again from time to time conducted in the first person. Anyone can act as a hero-narrator: one or more characters in the book, some third-party person who, as it were, observes events from the side or tells a story, sometimes even an unborn child, an animal or an inanimate object, which in fantastic works is endowed with the ability to perceive and evaluate what is happening. BE CAREFUL: you should not associate the narrator with the author of the book, consider him Mary / Marty Sue or the bearer of the author's position, unless the author explicitly indicated this. Such a mistake is very common: when I myself once introduced a hero-narrator into the narrative in my school years, some of my readers sincerely decided that I was describing my own impressions and expressing my opinion about events. The opinion of the hero-narrator is his own opinion, and it is not a fact that the author shares or approves it: it can be just a literary experiment or a device to show the reader the features of the thinking and worldview of this character. So, for example, Alexandra Marinina in the book "Death for the sake of death" and Alexander Vargo in his novel "The House in the Ravine" narrate on behalf of maniacs-murderers, but it does not follow from this that the authors sympathize with them or share their point of view. And if the author, suppose, composed a story, where the main character, speaking in the first person, is an animal or a thing? CHARACTER. With him, in principle, everything is clear: this is one of the characters in the book. However, even here there are certain difficulties. It happens that in a work readers come across some bright, interesting image, and they immediately begin to believe that this hero is certainly positive, the author likes it or expresses his position. BE CAREFUL: want to know exactly how the author perceives the hero and his role in the story? Ask the author. Some people, after reading a couple of my texts, sincerely decided that Sauron in them is a positive hero and I sympathize with him. There were also those who asked if certain characters in this text were my alter ego. To be honest, my image of Sauron turned out to be quite bright and extraordinary, in principle I am satisfied with the result, but at its core this hero is an outright manipulator and an unscrupulous type with a perverted consciousness. In everyday life, it is better not to communicate with such people. A LYRICAL HERO is a character in a poetic work, through which various thoughts, feelings, and impressions can be conveyed in the text; The story can be told in either the first or third person. The lyrical hero is not identical to the author of the poem; the same rules apply to him as to the character in general or the hero-narrator. BE CAREFUL: yes, a lyrical hero can also be autobiographical and reflect the feelings, thoughts, position and life experience of the author. It may not be. Try to analyze from the point of view of all the above a few texts familiar to you - and you will see how interesting it can look.
Similar material:- Hero of Socialist Labor, laureate of the State Prize of the USSR and RSFSR Mikhail, 680.56kb.
- “The use of information computer technologies in French lessons, 94.87kb.
- I. S. Turgenev “Mumu” Turgenev was a hater of serfdom all his life. , 15.1kb.
- Teacher Maskaeva Tatyana Vasilievna. “Yes, here they are, Russian characters!” (A. N. Tolstoy), 92.95kb.
- The works, which are on the surface, are the author's story about himself and his dog. Subtopic, 34.73kb.
- Reading lesson Topic: Bogatyrskaya "The Tale of Ilya Muromets", 89.32kb.
- Lecture the story in the excursion, 288.73kb.
- Trushkina Yulia Ivanovna, Candidate of Sciences in Philology, Senior Lecturer. Kirdyashova O. S. (502 gr.), 82.23kb.
- Diagnosis of educational difficulties and deviant behavior in adolescents, 238.79kb.
- "The use of local history material in English lessons", 196.21kb.
1. Genre of the work: a) memoirs; b) story; c) story.
2. The title of the work suggests that we have before us: a) the history of additional classes in French; b) a story about the lessons of morality and kindness; c) the story of the young hero about his favorite French lessons.
3. The action in the work takes place: a) before the Great Patriotic War; b) during the Great Patriotic War; c) after the Great Patriotic War;
4. “Big-headed, short-haired, stocky guy” is: a) Bird; b) Vadik; c) Fedka.
5. The character of the work, about which the hero says: “They were all about the same age as me, except for one - tall and strong, noticeable for his strength and power, a guy with a long red bang”: a) Ptah; b) Vadik; c) Fedka.
6. The narrator, who was not friends with anyone, believed that the main reason for his loneliness is: a) pride; b) homesickness; c) stinginess.
7. The narrator played "chika" in order to: a) save money; b) gain authority among the guys; c) buy milk every day.
8. Speaking about the characteristic features of the teacher’s voice and the voices of fellow villagers (“In our village they spoke, wrapping their voice deep inside, and therefore it was somehow small and light”; “... while studying, while adapting to someone else’s speech, the voice without sat down, weakened…”), the narrator used: a) antithesis; b) comparison; c) allegory.
10. Images of a teacher and a student (“She was sitting in front of me, all neat, smart and beautiful, and in clothes, and in her feminine young pore, which I vaguely felt, the smell of perfume from her reached me, which I took for breath itself ... " ; "... in front of her, a skinny, wildish boy with a broken face, untidy without a mother and alone, in an old, washed-out jacket on sagging shoulders ... in altered from his father's riding breeches ... easily soiled light green trousers crouched on the desk ...") are: a) description ; b) reasoning; c) storytelling.
11. Verbal portraits of the main characters are in the text side by side. The stylistic device used by the author in this case: a) comparison; b) irony; c) antithesis.
12. The young hero believed that French words: a) were invented for punishment; b) surprise with their originality; c) are not at all similar to Russian words.
13. In the sentence: “Already by nature timid and shy, lost from any trifle ... "- the highlighted words are: a) epithets; b) constant epithets; c) logical definitions.
14. In the sentence: “Here I was adamant, my stubbornness was enough for ten” - the author used: a) hyperbole; b) irony; c) a metaphor.
15. According to Lidia Mikhailovna, a person grows old when: a) he ceases to be surprised at miracles; b) ceases to be a child; c) live to a ripe old age.
16. The true meaning of the game in "zameryashki": a) the teacher's help to a capable but hungry student; b) the desire of the teacher to remember childhood; c) the desire of the teacher to interest the student in learning French.
Municipal educational institution
"Secondary school No. 12
working settlement (urban settlement) Progress of the Amur Region "
RESEARCH WORK
"The language of the heroes of the work as a means of comprehending their character"
Nomination: First steps in science
Participants: Soklakova Alena Evgenievna, 10th grade
Ruban Daria Valerienva, 10th grade
Head: Petrochenko Olga Vladimirovna,
teacher of Russian language and literature,
Progress
2011
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3
Main part………………………………………………………………………………5
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….13
List of used literature ………………………………………………. fifteen
INTRODUCTION
The study of literature cannot be considered a process aimed only at obtaining specific knowledge, educating the soul and expanding the reader's horizons - this is, first of all, penetration into the depths and ascent to the heights of the language - "one of the greatest creations of mankind." According to L. Novikov, language is “the most important means of communication, a subtle and flexible tool with which human thought is formed and expressed.” The question of learning the language of art and literaturework involves, first of all, the definition of the principletsipov selection by the writer of speech means. This selection of motivesis motivated by those specific tasks that it solves badlyartistic literature as a special form of social consciousness.
A. Tolstoy, in his insistence on the complete individualization of the speech of the character in the work, spoke of the need for the writer to see the gesture of the character that accompanies his speech in order to correctly construct each of his phrases in accordance with what he feels and does at the moment. The speech of the hero connects him with the whole world around him and can be understood precisely in this connection as a phenomenon not only of language as such, but precisely as one or another side of his character on a broader plane. The completeness of the transfer of all colors and shades of living individual speech, reproducing the most diverse aspects of the human character, fixing the real life process of verbal communication, is the most essential feature of the language of fiction.
Just as the character of the work is not a simple copy from this or that person, but a generalization of the properties and qualities of people of a certain type, so his speech is a generalized, characteristic speech, a kind of quotation from the language of that area of life that the writer draws.
The study of the speech of the heroes of the work is one of the means of revealing the artistic content of the work. The artistic content of the work is found in the study of its poetic forms. The scientific novelty of the proposed work is to identify new facets of the character of the characters, and the language of the characters of the work allows you to take a fresh look at their actions.
Observation of the language of the characters in terms of identifying their characters determines the relevance of this work.
The fact is that each work “teaches itself to read”, our task is to catch the “signals” that the work sends to the reader with its name, originality of style. The writer not only counts on a sympathetic reader, but educates him, leads him imperceptibly and unobtrusively, “prompting” what to look closely at, what to think about, what to compare with, what impression to return to. You just have to try to listen to the writer.
How to do it? Let's try to find the answer by referring to the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The methodology used in this work can be useful in the analysis of the work for both teachers and students.
Target: To trace how the study of the language of the heroes of the work helps to understand their character.
Tasks:
To get acquainted with the text of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons".
Study the speech of the characters in the story.
Analyze the relationship between language and characters.
Starting the analysis, it is necessary to accept the following idea as an axiom: reading is unraveling the secret, striving for understanding, familiarizing with the author's "I". Careful reading allows each participant in this process to make their own little “discoveries”.
Hypothesis work is the following statement: if the language of a person can be said about his intellect, his mind, his culture, then the character of a person, his mood, his attitude towards people is manifested in speech.
MAIN PART
In Turgenev's novel, each, even episodic, character speaks his own "special" language. At the same time, the speech of each character reveals his character with maximum completeness, so that even the replicas snatched from the text allow us to draw the right conclusions about the speaker.
The speech of the heroes occupies almost the first place in the characterization of Turgenev's heroes. As if emphasizing this, Turgenev very often "on his own" characterizes the manner of speaking.
Especially expressive are Turgenev's statements about Pavel Petrovich's speech. “Pavel Petrovich,” the author writes, “when he got angry, he deliberately said: “eftim” and “efto”, although he knew very well that grammar does not allow such words. This quirk concealed the remainder of the legends of Alexander's time. The then aces, in rare cases, when they spoke their native language, used one-efto, the other-ehto; we are, they say, native Russians, and at the same time we are nobles who are allowed to neglect the school rules.
This remark not only characterizes the speech of Pavel Petrovich, but also deepens our understanding of him as a person of a certain social group and a certain worldview.
Other statements of the writer about the speech of the characters are also expressive.
About Bazarov, he says: "This doctor's son was not only not shy, he even answered curtly and reluctantly, and there was something rude, almost impudent in the sound of his voice."
About Odintsova it is said that she "expressed herself in the correct Russian language." The remark is by no means accidental; many aristocratic women did not speak the “correct” Russian language.
Kukshina's characterization is satirically pointed. The "emancipated" lady "dropped her questions one after another with pampered casualness, without waiting for answers: spoiled children talk like that with their nannies."
Also interesting is a cursory description of the speech of the valet Peter (in the epilogue), who "froze with stupidity" and "pronounces all E as Yu: tyupyur, obuspyuchyun."
However, let us dwell in more detail on the language of Evgeny Bazarov.
The speech of Bazarov, the future medical scientist and revolutionary, is simple, clear, usually concise, exceptionally rich in vocabulary, in a variety of syntactic forms. This is the speech of a person who stands at the height of his contemporary culture - a speech in which we will meet both scientific terms (beetle ditiscus marinatus), and the names of scientists (Liebig, Rademacher, Peluz), and the words of the language of a public figure (doctrinalism, parliamentarism), but above all, this is the speech of a Russian person, a democrat who loves and appreciates the Russian language and has an excellent command of it.
Bazarov’s attraction to the people is especially noticeable, because his speech is full of sayings and proverbs, replete with idioms, phraseological turns characteristic of Russian vernacular (the lip is not a fool; his song is sung; what a hunt; Lazarus sing; shake the old days; the devil pulled me; no, this pipes, seen the views, what kind of binding, you think, etc.); such colloquial words as waving, chatting, tea, wandering around, stuffed, plopped, plop, etc., aphorisms, sometimes somewhat altered: “I burned myself in my own milk, but blows someone else’s water”; "... was everywhere, and the sieve, and in the sieve"; "murder will out"; “grandmother said in two more”; “From a penny candle… Moscow burned down”; “It is not for the gods to burn pots”; "It's good where we are not"; "Poverty is not a vice".
At the same time, Bazarov resolutely rebels against the foreign words that clogged the language of the Russian noble intelligentsia in his time. He does not use them at all in his speech. The exceptions are Latin words that are natural in the speech of a scientist and a physician (utile dulci, pater familias, the Latin name for a swimming beetle), but do not clog Bazarov's speech at all.
The strong, sharp mind of Bazarov is reflected in his "own" Bazarov aphorisms, expressive and well-aimed. For example: "A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet"; “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it”; “I decided to mow everything - go ahead and kick yourself”; “A real person is one ... who must be obeyed or hated”; "The old joke is death, but a new one for everyone."
The literary language includes some phrases of Bazarov, which in form cannot be attributed to aphorisms, but which are very expressive. The words of Bazarov are used: "Oh, my friend, Arkady Nikolaevich! .. I ask you about one thing: do not speak beautifully." Bazarov's meaningful phrases are very expressive, such as "I want to mess with people"; “... Your brother, nobleman, cannot go further than noble humility or noble boiling”; "... but we (that is, nihilists, revolutionaries) want to fight."
Surprisingly marks, expressive, and sometimes figurative epithets, brief diverse assessments given by Bazarov to the people with whom he communicates. In these assessments lies the Bazarov attitude to the character, and those features of him that anyone recognizes. Here are some examples: an archaic phenomenon (about Pavel Petrovich); glorious fellow, kind fellow, ladybug (about Nikolai Petrovich); a woman with a brain, well, she has seen the views, grated kalach (about Odintsova); it's fresh, and untouched, and shy, and silent, and whatever you want (about Katya, Odintsova's sister); soft liberal gentleman; chick (about Arcadia).
The comparisons found in Bazarov's remarks are interesting, indicating a great ability for imaginative thinking, observation, a sharp and courageous mind and a broad outlook. Odintsova, he says: “Flying fish can stay in the air for a while, but soon they should plop into the water, let me flop into my element.”
Bazarov very aptly characterized the measured, somewhat solemn regularity of life in Odintsova’s house: “like rolling on rails,” he assured ... ”
He characterizes his mood to Arkady in the following way: “Ever since I have been here, I have felt nasty, as if I had read Gogol’s letters to the governor of Kaluga.” After an explanation with Pavel Petrovich, which led to a duel, Bazarov exclaims: “Damn it! How beautiful and how stupid! What a comedy we broke off! Learned dogs dance like that on their hind legs.”
Expressive and figurative, but at the same time, a clear, clear, simple speech of Bazarov never turns into "beautiful words"; it is no coincidence that he reproaches Arkady for saying "beautifully." As proverbs and sayings, as well as comparisons in the speech of the "nihilist" always pursue the main goal: to make more clearly, more convincingly the thought that he seeks to express. To Pavel Petrovich’s question: “Don’t you chat like everyone else?” - Bazarov replies: "Than others, but this sin is not sinful." And this is profoundly true. A fighter, a revolutionary, Bazarov must already be fluent in words because in his future activities he will have to convince, prove the correctness of his point of view, and refute the arguments of his ideological enemies.
Bazarov knows how to do all this. In disputes with Pavel Petrovich, he was sometimes careless, did not develop a coherent logical system of evidence, replacing it with a number of sarcastic, contemptuous remarks about the enemy. He sometimes seemed to brush aside his adversary, whom he above all despises. This does not mean at all that Yevgeny Bazarov does not know how to argue in a businesslike manner, strictly logically developing his thought. This is evidenced by his sharp remarks in a dispute with Odintsova, showing his ability to clearly, accurately, directly, reasonably object to the arguments of the interlocutor.
We are referring to the dispute between Bazarov and Odintsova, which began with Bazarov's phrase: "I considered the views of Saxon Switzerland in your album, and you noticed to me that this cannot occupy me."
But Bazarov not only argues. Turgenev puts him in various situations, brings him into contact with various people, compels him, in accordance with this, to speak out on the most diverse occasions and express the most diverse feelings. The richness, variety of intonations of Bazarov's speech is completely exceptional and reflects the breadth and depth of the speaker and the complexity of his character.
Bazarov's speech changes markedly depending on who he is talking to. The style of speech, vocabulary, its syntactic structure, the predominance of certain intonations to a greater or lesser extent reflect Bazarov's attitude to the speaker. An excellent example of a dialogue between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, with the utmost clarity reflecting the attitude of a raznochintsy democrat to his ideological enemy who does not deserve respect, can be a conversation between Bazarov and Kirsanov, the elder, before the duel.
The remarks of the opponents are directly opposite in nature and reflect two completely opposite world relations.
Pavel Petrovich, who decided to "fight seriously", speaks very seriously. His speech is saturated with verbal formulas, which a secular person is accustomed to use not to clarify and clarify thoughts, but to give speech "pleasant in society" a decent form.
Bazarov, on the contrary, emphasizes his frivolous attitude to the duel, which he theoretically denies. He says either simply and directly what he thinks, or contemptuously - ironically lowers the "high" tone of the opponent's speech.
In conversations with Nikolai Petrovich, condescending and respectful intonations prevail with Bazarov, with Arkady his speech is often didactic in nature, in conversations with his father, condescendingly good-natured intonations sound, often breaking through feigned dryness and coldness.
The rudeness of Bazarov's speech is usually emphasized, often reaching cynicism. Meanwhile, Bazarov sometimes puts a great, sincere feeling into his remarks and expresses it without further ado, simply, strongly. No long tirades can express Bazarov's great, sincere love for his parents in such a way as his short, simple answer to Arkady's question if he loves them: "I love you, Arkady."
The words of the mortally ill Bazarov addressed to his father are imbued with love and tenderness. To the words of Vasily Ivanovich, full of boundless love and sorrow: “Eugene! ... my son, my dear, dear son!” - Bazarov replies: “What, my father?”
Getting acquainted with the image of Bazarov, giving him a description, one can be mistaken, arguing that Bazarov “does not recognize nature as an object of admiration”, that he “denies nature”, based on the well-known Bazarov aphorism. Meanwhile, reading carefully into some of Bazarov's remarks, we come to the conclusion that he loves nature and only denies the aesthetic, abstract contemplation of it.
“The arbor has taken over well ... because acacia and lilac are good guys, they don’t require care.” This is Bazarov speaking to Arkady.
“I, as I drove up here, rejoiced at your birch grove, gloriously stretched out.” This is what he says to his father.
In the above statements by Bazarov, the words “good guys”, attributed to acacia and lilac, “gloriously stretched out”, referring to a grove, directly say that Bazarov loves nature the way people of agricultural labor love it, and admires it, but does not pour out his feelings in "beautiful" words.
The speech of Bazarov's ideological opponent, Pavel Petrovich, is primarily the speech of an aristocratic gentleman. Angloman Kirsanov idealizes the English conservative aristocracy, but his speech is interspersed with French words and expressions, since it was French that was adopted in secular society. Pavel Kirsanov resorts to French most often when he does not find the exact words in his language to express his thoughts in Russian.
The secularism of Pavel Petrovich is also indicated by the verbal formulas common in his speech, adopted in “society” to emphasize respect (at least outwardly and covering contempt and hatred) for the interlocutor: I dare say; I consider it my duty to announce to you; for this, gracious sir, I can only thank you; you deign to find my habits ridiculous; you deign to joke; sensitively obliged to you ... Pavel Kirsanov uses such expressions mainly in conversation and in disputes with Bazarov; this is natural, because the latter is the only stranger with whom the master communicates in the novel.
Being an aristocrat, Pavel Petrovich characterizes himself as "a man of liberal and loving progress." He is not averse to emphasizing this in conversation, which is reflected in the use of terms and phrases characteristic of the language of the then advanced and conservative noble intelligentsia: “Personality, dear sir, is the main thing ... because everything is built on it”; "logic of history", "materialism", "civilization". Pavel Petrovich’s favorite word is “principe” (principle), which he pronounces in French, but sometimes he is not averse to using colloquial speech, words and expressions of “low style”: “It is very necessary trudge for fifty miles of jelly to eat", " the hell with him!», « pull that stupid strap», « in the bag", "How, I mean, is he months old? Pavel Petrovich’s penchant for rounded, slender and beautiful spectacular phrases (“No, the Russian people are not what you imagine them to be. They sacredly honor traditions, they are patriarchal, they cannot live without faith ...”), does not interfere with him in the heat of a dispute indulge in rudeness towards Bazarov and his like-minded people, calling them blockheads.
Let us briefly dwell on the characteristic features of the speech of other characters in the novel.
The speech of Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov reflects the features of a gentle liberal gentleman. Uncertainty, caution, fuzziness, sometimes verbosity - qualities that are decisively opposite to the qualities of Bazarov, are highly characteristic of Nikolai Petrovich's speech. For example: " Well? Maybe Bazarov is right; but me I confess, one thing hurts: I was hoping exactly now get close and friendly with Arkady, and coming out that I was left behind ... ". The highlighted words in his speech do not carry a semantic load, they only slow down speech, reflecting the uncertainty inherent in the speaker.
Speaking out, Nikolai Petrovich “marks time”, needlessly repeating the same word: “This is from the Latin nihil, nothing, as far as I can tell; therefore, this word means a person who ... who does not recognize anything? "I'm sorry that your stay in my house got such...such an end."
The speech that Nikolai Petrovich delivers at a farewell dinner in honor of Pavel Petrovich is characteristic: “You are leaving us ... you are leaving us, dear brother,” he began, “of course, not for long; but still I cannot help expressing to you that I… that we… how I… how we…”. Here the "trampling" of Nikolai Petrovich is explained by excitement, but in essence the features of his usual speech are strengthened here.
The speech of Bazarov the father is exceptionally characteristic. The language of Vasily Ivanovich reflects the features of a simple, sincere, talkative, enthusiastic person. Especially vividly in his speech is expressed the desire to show his learning, his progressive views. In his speech, the names of prominent people, especially scientists, mythological names are not uncommon. Foreign words are also frequent in his speech. He uses Latin words and sayings more often than his son. Characteristic for Vasily Ivanovich is the use of distorted French words and expressions - the result of his communication with people of the noble circle. He tries to speak German as well, but stops trying when he finds that he can't do it. Vasily Ivanovich willingly uses foreign words that have entered the Russian language, for example, medical terms: "etherization", "ikter", "palliatives". All this points not only to the desire to “show education”, but also to some awareness of science and his sincere love for it.
Usually the speech of Bazarov the father is somewhat pompous, florid, unnecessarily complicated; sometimes in it we see old formulas of politeness, but in contrast to similar formulas in the speech of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, they are the result of a sincere desire to be kind to people he likes. For example, "... and you, gentlemen, let me ask you to the office of a retired veteran"; “And now, I hope, Arina Vlasyevna, that, having satiated your motherly heart, you will take care of satiating your dear guests, because, as you know, the nightingale does not feed fables.” The nature is emotional, enthusiastic, the old man Bazarov is inclined to resort to hyperbole when expressing his feelings: Arkady turned out to be "the great of this world"; turning to Arkady and his son, he exclaims: “How much strength, youth of the most flowering, abilities, talent!”
"Fathers and Sons" belongs to those works that have enriched our literary language with aphorisms, winged words. First of all, the title of the novel became such winged words. The word "nihilist" has also become a winged word. His popularity abroad turned out to be even greater than in Turgenev's homeland.
CONCLUSION
So, in the course of the study, we came to the conclusion that a careful study of the speech of the heroes of the work helps us to better understand their character.
It turns out that Bazarov has a complex character - a raznochint-democrat, a man of broad, sharp and deep mind, with a broad outlook, independent in judgment, direct, sometimes sharp to the point of rudeness, an enemy of chatter and unnecessary prettiness, who knows how to hate and despise and love deeply, deeply .
Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a refined Anglomanian aristocrat who does not have any creative abilities at all, everything is feigned, fake, although he is smart, honest, educated, handsome, he has a delicate elegant taste, strong convictions, but at the same time his horizons are limited. Contemptuously, he looks down on everyone. In the depths of his soul, he is a conservative, an ardent defender of the old foundations, he is cut off from real life, did not know it, did not have a real idea about the homeland, about the interests of the Russian people. He observed life from the outside, from the height of that eternal aristocratic morality, which he considered unshakable.
In contrast to him, his brother Nikolai Petrovich, according to Bazarov’s apt description, “a nice fellow, kind fellow, ladybug”, is unsure, cautious, gentle, always balanced, emotional to the point of sentimentality, loving and subtly feeling poetry, music, beauty of nature. A "coward" by nature, he was afraid of new trends, although he understood that it was becoming impossible to live in the old way. That is why, as soon as Arkady arrived home, he asked him to become an assistant, to get closer to him, "to get to know each other well." He was afraid of his brother and did not talk to him about anything. In his son, he saw a "dove", a native by blood and character of a person.
And Bazarov Sr. is a very kind, hospitable host, an original person, a provincial philosopher, he tries to prove his education, is progressive, likes to talk a lot, strives to speak beautifully, solemnly, but it turns out funny. This is a man of work, deeds, at the same time he loved to dream, talk about the greats of this world.
Whether the writer in his novel conveys a friendly conversation or a dispute of ideological enemies, whether he describes the atmosphere of a room or an early morning, whether he talks about the grief of parents losing their beloved son, whether he turns into a satirist, he always remains a great artist of words, able to find words to express his thoughts. the only, irreplaceable word, the only, best phrase.
It is by studying the language of the heroes of the work that you can improve your language, your speech, cultivate the ability to speak not only beautifully and correctly, but also intelligibly, convincingly, so that the listener understands that he is respected and reckoned with his opinion, develop linguistic and aesthetic flair, bit by bit to absorb the real Russian literary language, which should be the pride of the nation.
Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov - at all times people read their works, more than one generation grew up on them, and today they constitute the true literary heritage of our country.
LIST OF USED LITERATURE:
Bobylev B.G. "Experience of philological analysis" РЯШ № 2, 1991.
Kachurin M.G. "Organization of research activities of students". Moscow "Enlightenment" 1988
Litvinov V.V. "Learning the Language of Artistic Works at School". Moscow. Uchpedgiz 1988
Petrov S.M. Trofimov I.T. "Creativity of I.S. Turgenev", Moscow Enlightenment 1981
Popova E.V. "A work of art as an aesthetic value", Literature at school No. 4, 1998.
Turgeneva I.S. "Fathers and Sons".
Steinsaltz A. "Simple Words". 1993
I hope no one else has any doubts about how important his goal is for the hero (some of the heroes are ready to kill for their own).
Now let's talk about character. As I said before, cinema is a movement. The hero is the one who moves, the goal is what makes him move. And character is what sets the speed and trajectory of movement.
In the last session, I asked you to try to name a character whose character has changed over the course of the film.
Anakin Skywalker, Kisa Vorobyaninov, Raskolnikov, Andrea from The Devil Wears Prada, Tyler Durden, Plushkin, Monte Cristo, D'Artagnan and many, many others were named.
Let's take Raskolnikov as an example. Indeed, at the beginning of the book (film, series, story) he is a poor student who suffers terribly from the thought - whether he is a trembling creature or has a right. In the finale, he is a convict who is convinced that yes, he is a trembling creature and repents of his delusions in the arms of Sonya Marmeladova. To put it bluntly, there are two differences. But has his character changed?
In general, what is character?
Here is the definition from Wikipedia:
Character (Greek charakter - a distinctive feature) - the structure of persistent, relatively constant mental properties that determine the characteristics of the relationship and behavior of the individual.
I ask you to pay attention to the words of persistent, relatively constant. What are these properties? Let's try to define them without digging too deep into psychology:
1) Energy level (strong - weak)
2) Temperament (speed of reactions, excitability)
3) Introvert-extrovert (behavior in society)
4) Habits (stereotypes of behavior)
The hero already has all these properties as soon as he is born (I mean the light of a movie projector) and all of them remain with him when he leaves for the ZTM.
Raskolnikov was weak. Got stronger? No. I was melancholic. Became sanguine? No. Was an introvert. Became an extrovert? No. Gained or lost any habits? No. Which one came, which one left.
Character is the main thing that distinguishes one hero from another. The viewer recognizes and remembers the hero by his character, and not by his appearance.
If you know the character of your hero, it will be easy for you to build a plot - you just need to erect obstacles between the hero and his goal and see how he, in accordance with the characteristics of his character, will overcome them.
If the character does something that is not in his nature, the viewer will feel that he is being deceived. Or a hero, or an author. If the hero deceives, it is the sacred duty of the author to expose him. Otherwise, the viewer will no longer believe the author. And you need to expose quickly, clearly, rudely and visibly (but not stupidly).
In general, cinema is a crude art. Much more crude than prose, which allows you to devote dozens of pages, for example, to describing the thoughts of the hero. In the depiction of heroes, the rudeness of cinema is manifested as nowhere else.
Why do fans often protest against film adaptations, even successful ones? Because the cinema necessarily simplifies and coarsens the characters, sometimes making each of them the bearer of only one, the most striking feature. And some heroes are thrown out altogether, like Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Ring.
Sometimes this simplification kills the movie, as in the case of Johnny Mnemonic, when a great novel turned into a mediocre action movie.
More often, on the contrary, simplification makes it possible to create cinema, such as, for example, Pudovkin's Mother.
And the history of the creation of Dr. House? Dr. Lisa Sanders wrote a New York Times column for many years describing diagnosing a patient like investigating a crime. The columns were published as a separate book, and television people bought the rights to create a series based on this book. And for two years they did not know what to do with these rights. Until they finally came up with the hero we all know.
Would you watch a series about diagnosing patients if it didn’t have this hero with his unbearable, but such a bright character? Attention, this was a rhetorical question, not homework!
It is believed that there are two approaches to depicting the character of the hero: Molierovsky and Shakespeare.
Each character of Molière has one dominant feature - Harpagon is stingy, Scapin is a rogue, Tartuffe is a hypocrite and so on. This approach is suitable for genre films. For example, if you are writing an action film, your hero should not, having caught the enemy in the crosshairs, suddenly begin to doubt, like Hamlet.
Shakespeare's heroes are multidimensional: Hamlet is both ambitious and modest and resolute and prone to doubt. Shylock is both stingy and smart and loving to children. Falstaff is both voluptuous and lazy and brave and cowardly.
Is this why most of Moliere's plays have long since disappeared from the stage, while Shakespeare continues to be staged? The reader and viewer of Shakespeare not only follows the development of history, but he also embarks on an exciting journey deep into the character of the hero, gradually learning more and more of his features.
What should be the character of the hero to make this journey really exciting?
BRIGHT. It is foolish to expect great feats and unexpected deeds from an empty place.
DEFINITE. We must understand what the hero wants and why he wants it.
TRUE. Just do not copy the features of people you know. Life is not a screenwriter, it does not need to care about believability. And the screenwriter needs it.
WHOLE. The hero does only what he can do. For example, at one time in American cinema, action heroes did not kill anyone. Even during the last duel with the most evil villain, the villain used to stumble and fall on his own knife.
DIFFICULT. Internal contradiction gives the hero volume (remember Hamlet - probably the most controversial and most popular hero in the world). In order to become a hero, he must overcome this contradiction. Just don't overuse it. If the character's function is to give the hero cartridges, he must silently (or with the words here are the cartridges) give the hero cartridges and immediately fall with a bullet through his head.
The complexity of a character is directly proportional to the importance of the role the character plays in the story.
Even an action movie cannot be built on the fact that a one-cell hero is the strongest and shoots without a miss. He needs to come up with some kind of ficus on the windowsill, love for John Wayne films and friendship with a little girl.
Conversely, if you go too deep into the characters and stories of characters that play a small role, it will turn out funny. This effect was very well ridiculed in one of the Austin Powers episodes, when they showed in detail how the wife and son of one of Dr. Evil's henchmen learn about the death of this very henchman at the hands of the protagonist.
In some script writing primers, they write that in order for a character to be three-dimensional, the screenwriter must describe in detail his appearance, character, and social status.
When I read a ten-page detailed biography of the hero in the "bible" (terms of reference) of a new project, it makes me at least wary. And if at the same time I see that the hero has an uninteresting and unconvincing character, I immediately refuse the project, because I understand that such a technical task does not portend anything but fruitless torment.
In fact, it is not appearance or social status that makes a hero three-dimensional - what difference does it make to a screenwriter whether his heroine is blonde or brunette if he is not the screenwriter of Legally Blonde? In many films, it does not matter to us what kind of trade the hero earns a living. But the character of the hero is the foundation stone of any good script.
The task of the screenwriter is to make this stone precious.
However, the fact that the character of the hero remains unchanged does not mean at all that the hero himself does not change. But what does he change?
Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman, Kisa was an employee of the registry office, became a murderer, D'Artagnan was a poor Gascon, became a field marshal.
All these heroes changed fate.
And that's just about it, oh, we'll talk next time.
