Etc. A character is any person, person, personality, or entity that exists in a work of art. The process of submitting character information to fiction called a characteristic. Characters may be completely fictional or based on real, historical basis. Characters can be human, animal, supernatural, mythical, divine, or personifications from the abstract.

In its usual meaning, the same as a literary hero. In literary criticism the term character used in a narrower, but not always the same sense. Most often under character the actor is understood. But here, too, two interpretations differ:

1. A person represented and characterized in action rather than in description; then the concept character Most of all correspond to the heroes of dramaturgy, the images-roles.
2. Any actor, subject of action in general. In this interpretation, the character is opposed only to the “pure” subject of experience appearing in the lyrics, which is why the term character not applicable to the so-called “lyrical hero”: you cannot say “lyrical character”.

Under character sometimes only a minor person is understood. In this understanding the term character corresponds to the narrowed meaning of the term hero- the central person or one of the central persons of the work. On this basis, the expression “episodic character” arose.

Archetypes

A character in particular may be based on an archetype, which is a general characterization image, such as those listed below. Jung's archetypes are modeled on mythology, legends and folk tales. For example, Puck from William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream and Bugs Bunny demonstrate the Jungian trickster archetype, as they challenge established standards of behavior. After being accepted by literary criticism, archetypes began to play special role in the plot.

See also

• Ethos is an ancient Greek term for character, used by Aristotle in Poetics

Notes

Categories:

• Literary theory
• Characters
• Film and Video Terminology
• Role-playing game concepts
• Computer games
• Theater
• Analytical psychology

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Character” is in other dictionaries:

- (French personnage, from personne person, personality). A significant, important person; a role played by an actor or actress. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CHARACTER character Ph.D. theatrical... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

character- a, m. personnage m. 1. A character in a work of art (usually a drama, novel). BAS 1. Each of the courtiers was afraid that the character’s old age would stick to him along with his clothes. Duty. Temple 70. Here are all the main singers... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

In fiction there is a character. Since it is man who is the carrier public relations, to the extent that in fiction, images reflecting people in their interactions are the most frequent and the most... ... Literary encyclopedia

Cm … Dictionary of synonyms

CHARACTER, character, vin. pl. eat and live, husband. (French personnage). 1. A character in a dramatic or literary work(lit.). Character in the play. 2. transfer Person, personality (ironic). Comic character. Dictionary Ushakova. D.N.... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Copyright Competition -K2
The word "hero" ("heros" - Greek) means a demigod or deified person.
Among the ancient Greeks, heroes were either half-breeds (one of the parents is a god, the other is a human), or outstanding men who became famous for their deeds, for example, military exploits or travel. But, in any case, the title of hero gave a person a lot of advantages. They worshiped him and composed poems and other songs in his honor. Gradually, the concept of “hero” migrated to literature, where it has stuck to this day.
Now, in our understanding, a hero can be either a “noble man” or a “worthless man” if he acts within the framework of a work of art.

The term “hero” is adjacent to the term “character”, and often these terms are perceived as synonyms.
Person in Ancient Rome they called the mask that the actor put on before the performance - tragic or comic.

A hero and a character are not the same thing.

A LITERARY HERO is an exponent of plot action that reveals the content of the work.

A CHARACTER is any character in a work.

The word “character” is characteristic in that it does not carry any additional meanings.
Take, for example, the term “actor.” It is immediately clear that it must act = perform actions, and then a whole bunch of heroes do not fit this definition. Starting from Papa Pippi Longstocking, the mythical sea captain, and ending with the people in “Boris Godunov”, who, as always, are “silent”.
The emotional and evaluative connotation of the term “hero” implies exclusively positive qualities = heroism\heroism. And then it will not fall under this definition yet more people. Well, how about, say, calling Chichikov or Gobsek a hero?
And now literary scholars are fighting with philologists - who should be called a “hero” and who a “character”?
Time will tell who will win. For now we will count in a simple way.

A hero is an important character for expressing the idea of ​​a work. And the characters are everyone else.

A little later we'll talk about the character system in work of art, there will be talk about the main (heroes) and secondary (characters).

Now let's note a couple more definitions.

LYRICAL HERO
The concept of a lyrical hero was first formulated by Yu.N. Tynyanov in 1921 in relation to the work of A.A. Blok.
Lyrical hero - the image of a hero in lyrical work, experiences, feelings, thoughts which reflect the author’s worldview.
The lyrical hero is not an autobiographical image of the author.
You cannot say “lyrical character” - only “lyrical hero”.

THE IMAGE OF A HERO is an artistic generalization of human properties, character traits in the individual appearance of the hero.

LITERARY TYPE is a generalized image of human individuality, most characteristic of a certain social environment at a certain time. It connects two sides - the individual (single) and the general.
Typical does not mean average. The type concentrates in itself everything that is most striking, characteristic of an entire group of people - social, national, age, etc. For example, the type of Turgenev girl or a lady of Balzac's age.

CHARACTER AND CHARACTER

IN modern literary criticism character is the unique individuality of a character, his inner appearance, that is, what distinguishes him from other people.

Character consists of diverse traits and qualities that are not combined by chance. Every character has a main, dominant trait.

Character can be simple or complex.
A simple character is distinguished by integrity and staticity. The hero is either positive or negative.
Simple characters are traditionally combined into pairs, most often based on the opposition “bad” - “good”. Contrast sharpens the virtues goodies and belittles the merits of negative heroes. Example – Shvabrin and Grinev in “ The captain's daughter»
A complex character is the hero’s constant search for himself, the hero’s spiritual evolution, etc.
A complex character is very difficult to label as “positive” or “negative.” It contains inconsistency and paradox. Like Captain Zheglov, who almost sent poor Gruzdev to prison, but easily gave food cards to Sharapov’s neighbor.

STRUCTURE OF A LITERARY CHARACTER

A literary hero is a complex and multifaceted person. It has two appearances - external and internal.

To create the appearance of the hero they work:

PORTRAIT. This face, figure, distinctive features physique (for example, Quasimodo’s hump or Karenin’s ears).

CLOTHING, which can also reflect certain character traits of the hero.

SPEECH, the features of which characterize the hero no less than his appearance.

AGE, which determines the potential possibility of certain actions.

PROFESSION, which shows the degree of socialization of the hero, determines his position in society.

LIFE HISTORY. Information about the origin of the hero, his parents/relatives, the country and place where he lives, gives the hero sensually tangible realism and historical specificity.

The internal appearance of the hero consists of:

WORLDVIEW AND ETHICAL BELIEF, which provide the hero with value guidelines, give meaning to his existence.

THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES that outline the diverse life of the hero’s soul.

FAITH (or lack thereof), which determines the presence of the hero in the spiritual field, his attitude towards God and the Church.

STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS, which indicate the results of the interaction of the soul and spirit of the hero.
The hero can not only reason and love, but also be aware of emotions, analyze his own activities, that is, reflect. Artistic reflection allows the author to identify the hero’s personal self-esteem and characterize his attitude towards himself.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

So, a character is a fictional animate person with a certain character and unique external characteristics. The author must come up with this data and convincingly convey it to the reader.
If the author does not do this, the reader perceives the character as cardboard and is not included in his experiences.

Character development is a rather labor-intensive process and requires skill.
Most effective way- this is to write down on a separate sheet of paper all the personality traits of your character that you want to present to the reader. Straight to point.
The first point is the hero’s appearance (fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc.). The second point is age. The third is education and profession.
Be sure to answer (first of all, to yourself) the following questions:
- how does the character relate to other people? (sociable\closed, sensitive\callous, respectful\rude)
- how does the character feel about his work? (hardworking/lazy, creative/routine, responsible/irresponsible, proactive/passive)
- How does the character feel about himself? (has self-esteem, self-critical, proud, modest, arrogant, vain, arrogant, touchy, shy, selfish)
- how does the character feel about his things? (neat/sloppy, careful with things/careless)
The selection of questions is not random. The answers to them will give a FULL picture of the character's personality.
It is better to write down the answers and keep them before your eyes throughout the entire work on the work.
What will this give? Even if in the work you do not mention ALL QUALITIES of personality (for minor and episodic characters it is not rational to do this), then all the same, the author’s FULL understanding of his characters will be transmitted to the reader and will make their images three-dimensional.

ARTISTIC DETAIL plays a huge role in creating/revealing character images.

An artistic detail is a detail that the author has endowed with significant semantic and emotional load.
A bright detail replaces entire descriptive fragments, cuts off unnecessary details that obscure the essence of the matter.
An expressive, successfully found detail is evidence of the author’s skill.

I would especially like to note such a moment as CHOOSING A CHARACTER NAME.

According to Pavel Florensky, “names are the essence of categories of personal cognition.” Names are not just named, but actually declare the spiritual and physical essence of a person. They form special models of personal existence, which become common to each bearer of a certain name. Names are predetermined spiritual qualities, actions and even the fate of a person.

The existence of a character in a work of fiction begins with the choice of his name. It is very important what you name your hero.
Compare the options for the name Anna - Anna, Anka, Anka, Nyura, Nyurka, Nyusha, Nyushka, Nyusya, Nyuska.
Each of the options crystallizes certain personality qualities and provides the key to character.
Once you have decided on a character name, don’t change it (unnecessarily) as you go along, as this can confuse the reader’s perception.
If in life you tend to call your friends and acquaintances diminutively and disparagingly (Svetka, Mashulya, Lenusik, Dimon), control your passion in writing. In a work of art, the use of such names must be justified. Numerous Vovkas and Tankas look terrible.

CHARACTER SYSTEM

A literary hero is a clearly individual person and at the same time clearly collective, that is, he is generated by the social environment and interpersonal relationships.

It is unlikely that there will be only one hero in your work (although this has happened). In most cases, the character is at the intersection of three rays.
The first is friends, associates (friendly relationships).
The second is enemies, ill-wishers (hostile relations).
Third - others strangers(neutral relationship)
These three rays (and the people in them) create a strict hierarchical structure or CHARACTER SYSTEM.
Characters are divided by the degree of author's attention (or the frequency of depiction in the work), the purposes and functions that they perform.

Traditionally, there are main, secondary and episodic characters.

The MAIN CHARACTER(s) are always at the center of the work.
The main character actively masters and transforms artistic reality. His character (see above) predetermines events.

Axiom - the main character must be bright, that is, his structure must be spelled out thoroughly, no gaps are allowed.

SECONDARY CHARACTERS are located, although next to the main character, but somewhat behind, in the background, so to speak, of the artistic depiction.
The characters and portraits of minor characters are rarely detailed, more often they appear dotted. These heroes help the main characters to open up and ensure the development of the action.

Axiom - a secondary character cannot be brighter than the main one.
Otherwise, he will pull the blanket over himself. An example from a related area. Film "Seventeen Moments of Spring". Remember the girl who pestered Stirlitz in one of the last episodes? (“They say about us mathematicians that we are terrible crackers.... But in love I am Einstein...”).
In the first edition of the film, the episode with her was much longer. Actress Inna Ulyanova was so good that she stole all the attention and distorted the scene. Let me remind you that there Stirlitz was supposed to receive important encryption from the center. However, no one remembered about the encryption; everyone reveled in the bright clownery of an EPISODIC (completely passable) character. Ulyanov, of course, is sorry, but director Lioznova made the absolutely right decision and cut out this scene. An example to think about, though!

EPISODIC HEROES are on the periphery of the world of the work. They may have no character at all, acting as passive executors of the author's will. Their functions are purely official.

POSITIVE and NEGATIVE HEROES usually divide the system of characters in a work into two warring factions (“red” - “white”, “ours” - “fascists”).

The theory of dividing characters according to ARCHETYPES is interesting.

An archetype is a primary idea expressed in symbols and images and underlying everything.
That is, each character in the work should serve as a symbol of something.

According to the classics, there are seven archetypes in literature.
So, the main character could be:
- The protagonist – the one who “accelerates the action”, the real Hero.
- An antagonist - completely opposite to the Hero. I mean, a Villain.
- Guardian, Sage, Mentor and Helper - those who assist the Protagonist

Minor characters are:
- A bosom friend – symbolizes support and faith in the Main Character.
- Skeptic - questions everything that happens
- Reasonable - makes decisions based solely on logic.
- Emotional – reacts only with emotions.

For example, Rowling’s Harry Potter novels.
The main character is undoubtedly Harry Potter himself. He is opposed by the Villain - Voldemort. Professor Dumbledore=Sage appears periodically.
And Harry's friends are the reasonable Hermione and the emotional Ron.

In conclusion, I would like to talk about the number of characters.
When there are a lot of them, this is bad, as they will begin to duplicate each other (there are only seven archetypes!). Competition among the characters will cause discoordination in the minds of the readers.
The most reasonable thing is to stupidly check your heroes by archetypes.
For example, in your novel there are three old women. The first is cheerful, the second is smart, and the third is just a lonely grandmother from the first floor. Ask yourself – what do they represent? And you will understand that a lonely old woman is superfluous. Her phrases (if there are any) can easily be conveyed to the second or first (old ladies). This way you will get rid of unnecessary verbal noise and concentrate on the idea.

After all, “The idea is the tyrant of the work” (c) Egri.

© Copyright: Copyright Competition -K2, 2013
Certificate of publication No. 213010300586
reviews

Character(French personnage, from Latin persona - person, face, mask) - a type of artistic image, the subject of an action, experience, statement in a work. The phrases used in modern literary criticism have the same meaning literary hero, character(mainly in drama, where the list of characters traditionally follows the title of the play). In this synonymous series the word character- the most neutral, its etymology (persona - a mask worn by an actor in the ancient theater) is hardly perceptible. In some contexts, it is awkward to call a hero (from the gr. heros - a demigod, a deified person) someone who is devoid of heroic traits (“It is impossible for a hero to be petty and insignificant,” 1 wrote Boileau about the tragedy), and an active person is an inactive one (Podkolesin or Oblomov).

The concept of character (hero, protagonist) is the most important in the analysis epic and dramatic works where it is the characters forming a certain system and the plot (system of events) that form the basis objective world. IN epic The narrator (storyteller) can also be a hero if he participates in the plot (Grinev in “The Captain’s Daughter” by A. Pushkin, Makar Devushkin and Varenka Dobroselova in F. M. Dostoevsky’s epistolary novel “Poor People”). IN lyrics while recreating, first of all, the inner world of a person, the characters (if they exist) are depicted dottedly, fragmentarily, and most importantly, in inextricable connection with the experiences of the lyrical subject 1 (for example, a peasant girl “greedily” looking at the road in the poem “Troika” by N.A. . Nekrasova, an imaginary interlocutor in M. Tsvetaeva’s poem “An Attempt of Jealousy”). Illusion own life characters in lyric poetry (compared to epic and drama) are sharply weakened.

Most often, a literary character is a person. The degree of concreteness of his presentation can be different and depends on many reasons: on the place in the system of characters (cf. in Pushkin’s “The Station Agent” the main character, Samson Vyrin, and the “crooked boy”, as if replacing his St. Petersburg grandchildren and introduced into the story for the completeness of the story about Vyrin), on the type and genre of the work, etc. But most of all, the principles of depiction, the very direction of detailing are determined by the concept of the work, the creative method of the writer: minor character a realistic story (for example, about Gagin in “Ace” by I.S. Turgenev) can be told more biographically and socially than about the main character of a modernist novel. “How many readers remember the name of the narrator in Nausea or The Outsider? - wrote A. Robbe-Grillet, one of the creators and theorists of the French “new novel”, in 1957.<..>As for K. from “The Castle,” he is content with a simple initial, he owns nothing, he has neither a family nor his own person; maybe he’s not even a land surveyor at all” 2. But the psychology, myths and paradoxes of consciousness of the heroes named novels J-P. Sartre, A. Camus, F. Kafka are depicted close up and deeply symbolic, not illusory.

Along with people, animals, plants, things, natural elements, fantastic creatures, robots, etc. can act and talk in a work (“The Blue Bird” by M. Maeterlinck, “Mowgli” by R. Kipling, “Amphibian Man” by A. Belyaev, “War with the Newts” by K. Capek, “Solaris” by St. Lem, “The Master and Margarita” by M. Bulgakov). There are genres, types of literature in which such characters are obligatory or very likely: fairy tale, fable, ballad, animalistic literature, Science fiction etc.

The character sphere of literature consists not only of isolated individuals, but also collective heroes(their prototype is the chorus in ancient drama). Interest in national problems social psychology stimulated in literature XIX-XX V. development of this image angle (the crowd in the “Cathedral Notre Dame of Paris» V. Hugo, the bazaar in “The Belly of Paris” by E. Zola, the workers’ settlement in M. Gorky’s novel “Mother”, “old women”, “neighbors”, “guests”, “drunkards” in L. Andreev’s play “The Life of a Man” etc.) 1.

The variety of character types comes close to the question of the subject artistic knowledge: non-human characters act as bearers of moral, i.e. human, qualities; the existence of collective heroes reveals the interest of writers in the general different faces. No matter how broadly one interprets the subject of knowledge in fiction, its center is "human essences, i.e., first of all, social” 2. In relation to epic and drama, this characters(from the gr. charakter - sign, distinctive feature), i.e. socially significant features that manifest themselves with sufficient clarity in the behavior and state of mind of people; highest degree characteristics - type(from the gr. typos - imprint, imprint). (Often words character And type used interchangeably.)

Creating literary hero, the writer usually endows it with one character or another: one-sided or multi-sided, integral or contradictory, static or developing, respectful or contempt, etc. “In it I wanted to depict this indifference to life and its pleasures, this premature old age of the soul, which has become distinctive features youth of the 19th century" 3, Pushkin explained in 1822 the character of the main character of the poem " Caucasian prisoner" “We write our novels, although not as rudely as we used to: the villain is just a villain and Dobrotvorov is a dobrotvorov, but still terribly rudely, monochromatic,” wrote L. Tolstoy in his diary for 1890. “People are all exactly the same.” , like me, that is, piebalds - bad and good together..." 1 For Tolstoy, people of past eras also turn out to be "piebald", falsely, from his point of view, reflected in literature: as "villains" or "Dobrotvorovs".

The writer conveys his understanding and assessment of life characters to the reader, conjecturing and implementing prototypes (even if these are historical figures: cf. the character of Peter in the novels “Peter and Alexei” by D.S. Merezhkovsky and “Peter the Great” by A.N. Tolstoy), creating fictional identities. “Character” and “character” are not identical concepts, which was noted by Aristotle: “A character will have a character if<...>in speech or action will reveal any direction of the will, whatever it may be...” 2 In literature focused on the embodiment of characters (and this is what the classics are), the latter constitute the main content - the subject of reflection, and often debate between readers and critics (Bazarov in the assessment of M.A. Antonovich, D.I. Pisarev and N.N. Strakhov; Katerina Kabanova in the interpretation of N.A. Dobrolyubov and D.I. Pisarev). Critics see different characters in the same character.

Thus, the character appears, on the one hand, as a character, on the other, as an artistic image that embodies this character with one degree or another of aesthetic perfection.

In the stories of A.P. Chekhov's “The Death of an Official” and “The Thick and the Thin” Chervyakov and “The Thin” are unique as images: we meet the first in the theater, “at the height of bliss,” the second at the station, “laden” with his luggage; the first is endowed with a surname and position, the second with a name and rank, etc. The plots of the works and their endings are different. But the stories are interchangeable when discussing the theme of veneration of rank in Chekhov, the characters of the characters are so similar: both act according to the same stereotype, not noticing the comedy of their voluntary lackey, which only brings them harm. Characters are reduced to a comic discrepancy between the characters’ behavior and an ethical standard unknown to them; as a result, Chervyakov’s death causes laughter: this is the “death of an official,” a comic hero.

If the characters in a work are usually not difficult to count, then understanding the characters embodied in them and the corresponding grouping of persons is an act of interpretation and analysis. In “The Thick and the Thin” there are four characters, but, obviously, only two characters: “The Thin”, his wife Louise, “née Vanzenbach... a Lutheran,” and his son Nathanael (the redundancy of information is an additional touch to the portrait of a funny man) form one close-knit family group. “The thin one shook three fingers, bowed with his whole body and chuckled like a Chinese: “Hee-hee-hee.” The wife smiled. Nathanael shuffled his foot and dropped his cap. All three were pleasantly stunned."

The number of characters in a work (as in a writer’s work as a whole) usually does not coincide: there are much more characters. There are persons who do not have a character, fulfilling only a plot role (for example, in “Poor Liza” by N.M. Karamzin, the heroine’s friend who informed her mother about the death of her daughter). There are doubles, variants of the same type (six princesses Tugoukhovsky in “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov, Dobninsky and Bobchinsky in “The Government Inspector” by N.V. Gogol, Berkutov and Glafira, forming a contrasting pair in relation to Kupavina and Lynyaev, in comedy “Wolves and Sheep” by A.N. Ostrovsky). According to E. Kholodov's calculations, there are 728 characters in Ostrovsky's 47 plays 1 . The existence of characters of the same type provides a basis for critics to make classifications, to attract a whole series of characters to the analysis of one type (“tyrants” and “unresponsive” in the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “ Dark Kingdom», dedicated to creativity Ostrovsky; Turgenevsky " extra person" in articles " Literary type weak person» P.V. Annenkova, “When will the real one will come day?" Dobrolyubova). Writers return to the type and character they discovered, finding new facets in it, achieving aesthetic impeccability of the image. Annenkov noted that Turgenev “for ten years was engaged in processing the same type - a noble, but inept person, starting in 1846, when “Three Portraits” were written, right up to “Rudin”, which appeared in 1856, where the most the image of such a person has found its full embodiment” 2.

According to their status in the structure of the work, character and character have different evaluation criteria. Unlike the characters that cause ethically colored attitude towards oneself, characters are evaluated primarily with aesthetic point of view, that is, depending on how brightly, fully and concentratedly they embody the characters. How artistic images Chichikov and Judushka Golovlev are beautiful and as such they provide aesthetic pleasure. Internal individualization of V.G.’s characters Belinsky considered the most important test of talent: “Spinelessness is general character the entire large family of persons invented by Marlinsky, both men and women; their author himself could not have distinguished them from one another even by their names, but would have guessed them only by their dress” 3 .

The means of revealing character in a work are various components and details of the objective world: plot, speech characteristics, portrait, costume, interior, etc. At the same time, the perception of a character as a character does not necessarily require a detailed structure of the image. Images are particularly cost-saving off-stage heroes (for example, in Chekhov’s play “Three Sisters” - Protopopov, who has a “romance” with Natasha; in the story “Chameleon” - a general and his brother, lovers of dogs of different breeds). The uniqueness of the category of character lies in its final, integral function in relation to all means of representation.

There is another way to study the character - solely as a participant in the plot, current face (but not as a character). In relation to archaic genres of folklore (in particular, to Russian fairy tale, considered by V.Ya. Propp in the book “Morphology of the Fairy Tale”, 1928), to the early stages of the development of literature, this approach is to one degree or another motivated by the material: there are no characters as such yet or they are less important than the action. Aristotle considered the main thing in tragedy to be the action (plot): “So, the plot is the basis and, as it were, the soul of tragedy, and characters follow it, for tragedy is an imitation of action, and therefore especially of the characters” 1 .

With the formation of personality, it is characters that become the main subject of artistic knowledge. In the programs of literary directions (starting with classicism), the concept of personality is of fundamental importance, in close connection with its understanding in philosophy and social sciences. Both the view and the plot are affirmed in aesthetics as the most important way of revealing character, its testing and stimulus for development. “A person’s character can be revealed in the most insignificant actions; from the point of view of poetic evaluation, the greatest deeds are those that shed the most light on the character of an individual” 2 - many writers, critics, and aestheticians could subscribe to these words of Lessing.

The plot functions of the characters - in abstraction from their characters - became the subject of special analysis in some areas of literary criticism of the 20th century. (Russian formalism: V.Ya. Propp, V.B. Shklovsky; structuralism, especially French: A.-J. Greimas, Cla. Bremond, R. Barth 3 and others). In structuralist plot theory, this is associated with the task of constructing general models (structures) found in the variety of narrative texts.

CHARACTER is a character (a person or a personified creature, sometimes a thing, a natural phenomenon) in epic and drama, a subject of consciousness and partly of action in character lyrics. They also talk about collective heroes. These include images “ Famusov society” in “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov, “empty light” in the seventh chapter of Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin”, the image of the people in “War and Peace” by L.N. Tolstoy, “Who Lives Well in Rus'” N.A. Nekrasov, “Peter the Great” by A.N. Tolstoy, image Don Cossacks V " Quiet Don” M.A. Sholokhov, mothers of prisoners and generally writhing “innocent Rus'” in “Requiem” by A.A. Akhmatova, the image of the inhabitants of a degenerating village in the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn "Matrenin's Dvor". But such collective heroes do not exist without individual characters (in lyrics, the generalized “we”, for example in Lermontov’s “Duma” or Akhmatova’s “Courage”, does not refer to characters in the proper sense of the word). However, according to another opinion, collective heroes exist only in crowd scenes, where individuals are minimally individualized and highlighted, the author limits himself to “reproducing exclamations, laughter, and general movement, identifying the features of folk or mass psychology,” as in A.N. Tolstoy in the scene of Kulman’s execution: mostly non-personified voices are heard there, literally for a moment the “big-lipped guy” appears and then disappears.

The characters in the work are main and secondary, cross-cutting (passing through the entire plot) and episodic. Sometimes their roles in the plot and content are far from the same (see: Composition). A lot is determined by the character system. In Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit”, even off-stage, non-acting, but only mentioned characters are important: Skalozub’s cousin, Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew Prince Fyodor (like-minded people of Chatsky, who is alone in the plot action), a certain princess Marya Aleksevna, whose opinion Famusov himself is afraid of, etc. “Non-stage” characters also exist in epic. These are Raskolnikov’s deceased comrade and his father, whom, as the court learns, this killer “followed” and whom he “almost supported” when he was a student; these are the characters of numerous inserted stories (acting within their framework) in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus' ” (Kudeyar-ataman from the legend “About two great sinners”, emanating from the Solovetsky monk Father Pitirim, is an ideologically important figure along with the “main character” Grisha Dobroslonov, who appears only in the last part of the poem, “A feast for the whole world”) .

According to their characters and actions, characters are divided into positive and negative. In pre-realistic official literature they were usually sharply contrasted: the first were idealized, and black paint was not spared for the second. But there were and are sublime characters, far from the usual negative ones. Strong passions raised enormously above the “ordinary” level negative characters not only the erring Oedipus and Othello in the tragedies of Sophocles and Shakespeare, but even the usurper Macbeth and the prince of darkness and evil himself, whether he was called Satan, as in the poem of John Milton “ Lost Paradise” (1667), or Woland, as in M.A. Bulgakov; in the same row are Lermontov’s Demon and Pechorin, who is not devoid of demonism. The character and sometimes the intentions of the hero are more important in the matter of “positivity” than the actions. And the not at all exalted, but clever and charming swindler Ostap Bender is the favorite hero of many readers, who in life do not sympathize with people of this kind.

The era of realism abandoned the clear opposition of positive and negative characters. N.V. Gogol (admittedly, decisively excommunicated from realism by the symbolists or V.V. Nabokov) directly calls Chichikov a scoundrel and yet does not deprive him of his attractive features. Soviet literary criticism worked in vain, trying to prove the pure negativity of either Oblomov, or Stolz, or both: they both good people and “complement” each other, need each other. Dostoevsky saw a particularly difficult task in creating an image completely wonderful person, but he subjected his beloved heroes to the most difficult tests: he made the humanist and champion of justice Raskolnikov an “ideological” murderer, Prince Myshkin, who resembles Christ, an idiot, Alyosha Karamazov was going to be put through the test of revolutionism and atheism. In the 20th century in Bulgakov, Margarita becomes a witch for the sake of her beloved, “the queen of the ball” for Satan; The master saved thanks to her, a rather weak, albeit extremely talented person, “did not deserve light, he deserved peace.” And yet Russian literature is rich in images of truly positive heroes. These are Chatsky and Tatyana Larina, Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova, some Chekhov intellectuals, a number of characters from the people of I.S. Turgeneva, N.A. Nekrasova, N.S. Leskova, Bulgakov's Turbines, Sholokhov's Grigory Melekhov (with all his throwing, even thanks to them) and Andrei Sokolov, Solzhenitsyn's righteous Matryona, Rasputin's old woman Daria, etc.

From the point of view creative process characters can be divided into “real” (historical, images of contemporaries, directly autobiographical), fictional (having a prototype, but appearing under a different name, in other situations, etc., for example, Tolstoy’s Vasily Denisov) and fictional, perhaps having several prototypes (Dolokhov in “War and Peace”). The separation is not absolute. In pre-realistic literature, and often in Soviet literature, historical names characters were named who had very little in common with the people who bore these names. Characters of myths, legends, etc. at one time or another were not considered fictional. Among fictional characters There are fantastic ones, but fantasy has not always been perceived and is not perceived by everyone as fiction. The reliability of the story and the authenticity of the characters need not be emphasized in any way (“Matrenin’s Dvor” by Solzhenitsyn). In “Eugene Onegin” the author-character passes off the hero as his friend, real person, and the narrator - only for a literary character. Romantic heroes are exceptional, and their fate is exceptional, not at all the author’s, but psychologically they are often very close to the author. Realists tried to objectively show characters that were not close to them: the merchant’s son I.A. Goncharov - the master Oblomov and his serf servant Zakhara, the liberal and artistic nature of Turgenev - the nihilist Bazarov, the ideological enemy of the Kirsanov brothers, who were close to the writer in age and convictions, Count L.N. Tolstoy - both aristocrats and peasants, commoner doctor Chekhov - representatives of the most different social strata, smart and stupid, good and evil, moreover, he tried to treat everyone with understanding. True, in the 20th century. maintaining such objectivity proved difficult. The refined intellectual Bulgakov did not love the proletariat just like the hero “ Heart of a Dog”Professor Preobrazhensky, and Sholokhov, who grew up among the Don Cossacks, disliked and underestimated the intelligentsia.

In early stage literature, action was in the foreground and, therefore, literally characters. In modern times, the emphasis shifts to characters.