Character system. A character (literary hero) is a character in a plot-driven work of art.
the organization of the characters in a literary work appears as a system of characters.
The character system should be viewed from two perspectives:
1. As a system of relationships between characters (struggle, collisions, etc.) - that is, from the point of view content of the work;
2. As the embodiment of the principle of composition and a means of characterizing the characters - that is, as the position of the author.
like any system, the character sphere is characterized through its constituent elements (characters) and structure (a relatively stable method = the law of connection of elements).
elements of the character sphere
the main ones are at the center of the plot, have independent characters and are directly related to all levels of the content of the work,
secondary - also quite actively involved in the plot, having their own character, but which receive less authorial attention; in some cases their function is to help reveal the images of the main characters,
episodic - appearing in one or two episodes of the plot, often without their own character and standing on the periphery of the author’s attention; their main function is to give impetus to the plot action at the right moment or to highlight certain features of the main and secondary characters).
In addition, there are also so-called off-stage characters in question, but they do not participate in the action (for example, in “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboyedov, this is Princess Marya Alekseevna, whose opinion everyone is so afraid of, or Famusov’s uncle, a certain Maxim Petrovich).
for example, Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe seems to be about the life of one person. However, the novel is densely populated. Robinson's memories and dreams live different faces(=non-stage characters): the father who warned his son against the sea; dead companions, with whose fate he often compares his own; the basket maker he watched as a child; a desirable companion - “a living person with whom I could talk.” The role of off-stage characters, seemingly mentioned in passing, is very important: after all, Robinson is both lonely and not alone on his island, since he personifies the total human experience, hard work and enterprise of his contemporaries and compatriots.
What parameters are used to determine the category of characters?
there are two of them. This:
– the degree of participation in the plot and, accordingly, the volume of text that this character is given;
– the degree of importance of a given character for revealing aspects of artistic content.
most often these parameters coincide. So, in “Fathers and Sons” of the bazaars, the main character in both respects, Pavel Petrovich, Nikolai Petrovich, Arkady, Odintsova are secondary characters in all respects, and Sitnikov or Kukshina are episodic.
example - " Captain's daughter» Pushkin.
“It would seem impossible to imagine a more episodic image than Empress Catherine: she seems to exist only to bring a rather complicated story main characters to a happy ending. But for the problems and the idea of the story, this is an image of paramount importance, because without it, the most important idea of the story - the idea of mercy - would not have received a semantic and compositional completion. Just as Pugachev, in his time, despite all the circumstances, had mercy on Grinev, so Catherine has mercy on him, although the circumstances of the case seem to point against him. Just as Grinev meets Pugachev as person to person, and only later does he turn into an autocrat, so Masha meets with Catherine, not suspecting that this is the empress in front of her, also like person to person. And if it weren’t for this image in the system of characters in the story, the composition would not be closed, and therefore the idea would not sound artistically convincing human connection of all people, without distinction of classes and positions, the idea that “giving alms” is one of the best manifestations of the human spirit, and the solid foundation of human coexistence is not cruelty and violence, but kindness and mercy.”
and it also happens that the question of dividing characters into categories generally loses all meaningful meaning.
for example, in the composition “ dead souls“Episode characters differ from the main ones only quantitatively, and not qualitatively: in the volume of the image, but not in the degree of the author’s interest in them.
the number of characters in the poem is literally off scale. Uncle Minyai and Uncle Mityai, son-in-law of Nozdryov Mizhuev, the boys begging Chichikov for alms at the hotel gates, and especially one of them, “a great hunter of getting on the heels,” and the captain of kisses, and a certain assessor Drobyazhkin, and Fetinya, a mistress of whipping feather beds, some lieutenant who had come from Ryazan, apparently a big hunter of boots, because he had already ordered four pairs and was constantly trying on the fifth, and further, further, further.
These figures do not give impetus to the plot action and do not characterize Messrs. Chichikov in any way. Moreover, the detailing of these figures is clearly excessive - let us remember the men who talked about manilovka and zamanilovka, Ivan Antonovich's jug's snout, the dog's wife, the daughter of the old foreman, who had threshing peas on her face at night, the box's late husband, who loved to have someone... I would scratch his heels at night, but I couldn’t fall asleep without it.
however, this is not excess and certainly not the author’s inability to construct a plot. On the contrary, it is thin compositional technique, with the help of which Gogol created a special installation. He showed not just images of individual people, but something broader and more significant - the image of a population, a people, a nation. Peace, finally.
Almost the same composition of the character system is observed in Chekhov's plays, and the matter is even more complicated: the main and secondary characters cannot be distinguished even by the degree of participation in the plot and the volume of the image. With the help of this system, the Czechs show “a certain set of ordinary people, ordinary consciousness, among which there are no outstanding, extraordinary heroes, on whose images one can build a play, but for the most part they are nevertheless interesting and significant. To do this, it is necessary to show a multitude of equal characters, without singling out the main and minor ones; This is the only way that something common is revealed in them, namely, the drama of a failed life inherent in everyday consciousness, a life that has passed or is passing in vain, without meaning and even without pleasure” (c)
character sphere structure
How many characters are necessary and sufficient?
While working on “Three Sisters,” Chekhov sneered at himself: “I’m not writing a play, but some kind of confusion. There are a lot of characters - it’s possible that I’ll get lost and give up writing.” And upon completion he recalled: “It was terribly difficult to write “Three Sisters.” After all, there are three heroines, each should be like their own model, and all three are the general’s daughters!”
like the classic, where “red natives and natives (positive and countless hordes)” are introduced into the play “Citizen Jules Verne.” (Bulgakov. Crimson Island).
So, the number of characters.
To form a character system, at least two subjects are required.
as an option, there may be a split of the hero - Semyon Semenovich with glasses and without glasses (kharms, “cases”).
The maximum number of characters is not limited.
According to some estimates, in Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” there are about 600 characters, in Balzac’s “Human Comedy” - about 2,000 (for comparison, the population of a medieval Western European city was 1-3 thousand inhabitants).
the numbers are impressive.
and the immediate question is: can you create a work with a similar number of characters? No, it's easy to cram characters into a plot. But then you will have to manage them so that your thing does not look like a telephone directory.
characters are required to interact with each other.
some people succeed. For example, King’s multi-character things – “needful things”, “Armageddon” (another translation is “confrontation” the stand), “under the dome”
or a classic example - Homer, "Odyssey". Philologists have established more than 1,700 connections between the 342 characters in the poem. There is a connection between the characters if they meet in the story, talk to each other, quote each other’s words to a third character, or it is clear from the text that they know each other. The structure of the “odyssey” surprisingly resembles a social network - such as Facebook or Twitter. Is history repeating itself?))
So, the system of characters is the interconnections and relationships between the characters, that is, a concept related to the composition of the work.
The most important property of the character system is hierarchy.
We already talked about this here:
in most cases the character is at the intersection of the three rays.
the first is friends, associates (good relations).
the second is enemies, ill-wishers (hostile relations).
third – other strangers (neutral relationships)
these three rays (and the people in them) create a strict hierarchical structure http://proza.ru/2013/12/17/1652
Let's continue the conversation.
“The plot in its formation is, first of all, the creation of a system of characters. An important stage is the establishment of the central figure and then the establishment of the remaining characters, who are located on a descending ladder around this figure” (G.A. Shengeli)
There are two types of connections between characters - according to the plot (thesis-antithesis) and according to the relationship of characters.
the simplest and most common case is the opposition of two images to each other.
Mozart and Salieri, Grinev and Shvabrin, Oblomov and Stolz, boy-kibalchish and boy-bad.
somewhat more difficult case when one character is opposed to all the others, as, for example, in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” where even quantitative relationships are important: it was not for nothing that Griboyedov wrote that in his comedy “twenty-five fools for one smart person».
“The characters in the work are grouped. The simplest case- this is the division of all characters into two camps: friends and enemies of the main character. In more complex works there may be several such groups, and each of these groups is connected by different relationships with other persons” (Tomashevsky B.V. poetics)
Thus, in Anna Karenina the main compositional grouping of characters follows the thematic principle stated at the beginning of the novel: “all happy families are similar to each other, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Different families in the novel develop this theme in different ways.
In “Fathers and Sons”, in addition to the obvious and implemented in the plot contrasting Bazarov with all other characters, another, more hidden and not embodied in the plot, compositional principle is implemented, namely the comparison by similarity of two groups of characters: on the one hand, this is Arkady and Nikolai Petrovich, on the other - Bazarov and his parents. “In both cases, these characters embody the same problem - the problem of relationships between generations. Turgenev shows that, no matter what individual people are, the problem remains essentially the same: this is an ardent love for children, for whom, in fact, the older generation lives, this inevitable misunderstanding, the desire of children to prove their “maturity” and superiority, dramatic internal conflicts as a result of this, and yet, in the end, the inevitable spiritual unity of generations" (c)
there are more complex ones compositional connections between characters.
an example is “crime and punishment.”
“the character system is organized around the main character Raskolnikov; the other characters are in complex relationships with him, and not only plot ones; and it is in extra-plot connections that the richness of the novel’s composition is revealed.
First of all, Raskolnikov is compositionally connected with Sonya. In their life position, they are primarily opposed. But not only. They also have something in common, primarily in pain for a person and in suffering, which is why Sonya Raskolnikova understands so easily and immediately. In addition, as the schismatic himself emphasizes, they are both criminals, both murderers, only Sonya killed herself, and the schismatics killed the other. Here the comparison ends and the contrast begins again: for Dostoevsky, these two “murders” are not at all equivalent; moreover, they have a fundamentally opposite ideological meaning. And yet both are criminals who are united gospel motif sacrifices for humanity, the cross, atonement, it is no coincidence that Dostoevsky emphasized the strange juxtaposition of “a murderer and a harlot who came together to read the eternal book.” So, Sonya is both an antipode and a kind of double of Raskolnikov.
the remaining characters are also organized around Raskolnikov according to the same principle; it is, as it were, reflected many times in its counterparts, but reflected with distortions, or incompletely.
So, Razumikhin comes close to Raskolnikov with his rationality and confidence that life can be arranged without God, relying only on himself, but is sharply opposed to him, since he does not accept the idea of “blood according to conscience.”
Porfiry Petrovich is the antipode of Raskolnikov, but there is also something Raskolnikov in him, because he understands the main character faster and better than anyone else.
Luzhin takes the practical part of Raskolnikov’s theory about the right to crime, but completely emasculates all the sublime meaning from it. In “new trends” he sees only a justification for his boundless egoism, believing that the new morality gives him the sanction to try only for his own benefit, without stopping at any moral prohibitions. Luzhin reflects Raskolnikov’s philosophy in the distorting mirror of cynicism, and Raskolnikov himself looks with disgust at Luzhin and his theory - thus, we have before us another double, another antipodean twin.
Svidrigailov, as is typical of an ironist, brings Raskolnikov’s ideas to their logical conclusion, advising him to stop thinking about the good of humanity, about the issues of “man and citizen.” But, like everyone, Svidrigailov does not accept Raskolnikov’s theory for himself personally, being skeptical of any philosophy. And Svidrigailov disgusts Raskolnikov; they again turn out to be mismatched twins, antipodal twins.
such a composition of the character system is caused by the need to pose and resolve complex moral and philosophical questions, to consider the theory of the main character and its implementation in practice in a variety of applications and aspects. The composition here, therefore, works to reveal the problematic” (c) L.V. Chernets. Character system.
Who it literary character? We devote our article to this issue. In it we will tell you where this name came from, what literary characters and images are, and how to describe them in literature lessons according to your desire or the teacher’s request.
Also from our article you will learn what an “eternal” image is and what images are called eternal.
Literary hero or character. Who is this?
We often hear the concept of “literary character”. But few can explain what we are talking about. And even schoolchildren who have recently returned from a literature lesson often find it difficult to answer the question. What is this mysterious word “character”?
It came to us from ancient Latin (persona, personnage). Meaning - “personality”, “person”, “person”.
So, a literary character is a character. We are mainly talking about prose genres, since images in poetry are usually called “lyrical hero”.
It is impossible to write a story or poem, novel or story without characters. Otherwise, it will be a meaningless collection of, if not words, then perhaps events. The heroes are people and animals, mythological and fantastic creatures, inanimate objects, for example, Andersen’s steadfast tin soldier, historical figures and even entire nations.
Classification of literary heroes
They can confuse any literature connoisseur with their quantity. And it’s especially hard for secondary school students. And especially those who prefer to play their favorite game instead of doing homework. How to classify heroes if a teacher or, even worse, an examiner demands it?
The most win-win option: classify the characters according to their importance in the work. According to this criterion, literary heroes are divided into main and secondary. Without the main character, the work and its plot will be a collection of words. But with the loss of minor characters, we will lose a certain branch of the storyline or the expressiveness of events. But overall the work will not suffer.
The second classification option is more limited and is not suitable for all works, but for fairy tales and fantasy genres. This is the division of heroes into positive and negative. For example, in the fairy tale about Cinderella, poor Cinderella herself - positive hero, she evokes pleasant emotions, you sympathize with her. But the sisters and the evil stepmother are clearly heroes of a completely different type.
Characteristics. How to write?
Heroes literary works sometimes (especially in a literature lesson at school) they need a detailed description. But how to write it? The option “once upon a time there was such a hero. He is from a fairy tale about this and that” is clearly not suitable if the assessment is important. We will share with you a win-win option writing characteristics of a literary (and any other) hero. We offer you a plan with brief explanations of what and how to write.
- Introduction. Name the work and the character you will talk about. Here you can add why you want to describe it.
- The place of the hero in the story (novel, story, etc.). Here you can write whether he is major or minor, positive or negative, a person or a mythical or historical figure.
- Appearance. It would not be amiss to include quotes, which will show you as an attentive reader, and will also add volume to your description.
- Character. Everything is clear here.
- Actions and their characteristics in your opinion.
- Conclusions.
That's all. Keep this plan for yourself, and it will come in handy more than once.
Famous literary characters
Although the very concept of a literary hero may seem completely unfamiliar to you, if you tell you the name of the hero, you will most likely remember a lot. This is especially true for famous literary characters, for example, Robinson Crusoe, Don Quixote, Sherlock Holmes or Robin Hood, Assol or Cinderella, Alice or Pippi Longstocking.
Such heroes are called famous literary characters. These names are familiar to children and adults from many countries and even continents. Not knowing them is a sign of narrow-mindedness and lack of education. Therefore, if you don’t have time to read the work itself, ask someone to tell you about these characters.
The concept of image in literature
Along with character, you can often hear the concept of “image”. What is this? Same as the hero or not? The answer will be both positive and negative, because a literary character may well be literary way, but the image itself does not have to be a character.
We often call this or that hero an image, but nature can appear in the same image in a work. And then the topic of the examination paper can be “the image of nature in the story...”. What to do in this case? The answer is in the question itself: if we are talking about nature, you need to characterize its place in the work. Start with a description, add character elements, for example, “the sky was gloomy,” “the sun was mercilessly hot,” “the night was frightening with its darkness,” and the characterization is ready. Well, if you need a description of the hero’s image, then how to write it, see the plan and tips above.
What are the images?
Our next question. Here we will highlight several classifications. Above we looked at one - images of heroes, that is, people/animals/mythical creatures and images of nature, images of peoples and states.
Also, images can be so-called “eternal”. What is an "eternal image"? This concept names a hero created once by an author or folklore. But he was so “characteristic” and special that after years and eras, other authors write their characters from him, perhaps giving them different names, but without changing the essence. Such heroes include the fighter Don Quixote, the hero-lover Don Juan and many others.
Unfortunately, modern fantasy characters do not become eternal, despite the love of fans. Why? What's better than this funny Don Quixote of Spider-Man, for example? It's difficult to explain this in a nutshell. Only reading the book will give you the answer.
The concept of "closeness" of the hero, or My favorite character
Sometimes the hero of a work or movie becomes so close and loved that we try to imitate him, to be like him. This happens for a reason, and it’s not for nothing that the choice falls on this character. Often a favorite hero becomes an image that somehow resembles ourselves. Perhaps the similarity is in character, or in the experiences of both the hero and you. Or this character is in a situation similar to yours, and you understand and sympathize with him. In any case, it's not bad. The main thing is that you only imitate worthy heroes. And there are plenty of them in the literature. We wish you to meet only with good heroes and only imitate positive traits their character.
“Woe from Wit” is the first Russian realistic comedy in which the life of Moscow in the 10-20s of the 19th century appeared before us. Using one of the basic principles of realism - the principle of typification, the playwright created a gallery of images, each of which is typical for its time and class, but at the same time has individual, unique features.
A special role in comedy is given to off-stage and episodic characters, so widely represented in comedy. With their help, the spatial and temporal boundaries of comedy are expanded.
Griboyedov created vivid portraits, without which it is difficult to imagine regulars of the English Club or an aristocratic salon. The author himself, in one of his letters to his friend and writer Katenin, wrote: “Portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy.”
In the series of images of the old nobility, a special place is occupied by the portrait of Catherine’s nobleman Maxim Petrovich. The head of the house - the official Famusov - introduces this “nobleman in the case” as his ideal to follow and addresses him to the younger generation in the person of Chatsky. For Famusov, the important thing is that his uncle received orders, “he ate on gold, had a hundred people at his service, traveled forever in a train,” but the most important thing is that “a century at court.” Thus, a person in Famus society was valued by what rank he held and “what he ate.” Therefore, this society is fighting to ensure that everything remains unchanged. The main life principle was adherence to traditions, steadfastness of authority, social superiority. A nobleman in Russia was protected by the very fact of his origin, and if he followed the traditions and foundations of his class, society, and worshiped its ideals, then good prospects opened up for him career growth and material well-being. The main thing is not to be a loser, like Repetilov, or a crazy pleaser, like Zagoretsky, whom Chatsky described as follows: “Molchalin! Zagoretsky will not die in it!” Zagoretsky goes everywhere, knows a lot about the members of society, is a “master of service”: he gets tickets for the play for Sofya, two black little boys for Khlestova and her sister Praskovya. Molchalin also strives to please everyone, while following the precepts of his father “to please all people without exception”:
Who else will settle everything peacefully like that!
There he will stroke the pug in time,
There the card will fit just right.
The little official strives to make a career, take a certain place in society, and become like Famusov.
Among the representatives of this society there are also those who already have ranks, for example Foma Fomich. “There was a department head under three ministers,” Molchalin introduces him, to which Chatsky caustically remarks: “The most empty of the most stupid people.” Before us is a portrait of a man who has succeeded in life, in contrast to Repetilov, who “would have climbed into rank, but met failure.” He wanted to marry the daughter of Baron von Klotz, who “aimed to become a minister,” and receive a promotion and a good dowry, but nothing came of it. Repetilov is an unlucky person, and society does not take him seriously.
Famus society treats the Frenchman from Bordeaux with great respect and reverence, who was going “to Russia, to the barbarians,” but arrived as if “to his province,” “he did not meet a Russian sound or a Russian face.” Chatsky is indignant against blind admiration for everything foreign. The English club depicted by Griboyedov can also be called “blind imitation.” The “most secret union” that meets on Thursdays, whose members say to themselves: “We’re making noise, brother, we’re making noise,” can also be considered a parody of secret meetings. To create the appearance of activity is typical for this society, as it is typical for Russia as a whole, which Gogol will later show in his immortal comedy"Inspector".
But another phenomenon characteristic of the Moscow nobility is the omnipotence of women. Take, for example, Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband,” who is entirely under the thumb of his wife. He is not entirely satisfied with the fact that Natalya Dmitrievna gives him instructions, like a mother to an unreasonable child: “You opened up all over and unbuttoned your vest!.. Fasten it quickly!”, but, nevertheless, he does not say a word to her.
The same state of affairs reigns in another family: Prince Tugoukhovsky does everything that his wife says: he goes to bow, invites guests to the house. By the way these representatives of the fairer sex control their husbands, we can judge them as powerful women who will not cede their power to anyone and will defend the existing order to the last.
Famusov also characterizes other women, episodic characters: “Judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them,” - they can command the army, sit in the Senate - they can do everything. Famus society, despite the existence of the emperor, lives in a state with female rule. The author introduces readers to no less important and significant ladies who occupy high position in society - Princess Marya Aleksevna and Tatyana Yuryevna. That’s why Molchalin advises Chatsky to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, because “officials and officials are all her friends and all her relatives.” And Famusov himself is very worried about “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say.” For him, a government official, the princess's court is more terrible, because her word is very significant in society. Also, many are afraid of Khlestova’s trial, because her opinion is also public. In addition, she, like many other representatives Famusov society, loves to gossip. The countess-granddaughter is an embittered gossip, since she has been “in girls for a whole century.” She is unhappy that many people go abroad and get married there.
Natalya Dmitrievna greets the princesses in a thin voice, they kiss and look each other up and down, trying to find faults that will be a reason for gossip. Gossip reigns in Moscow bar society. It is the gossip about Chatsky’s madness, started by his beloved Sophia, that makes the hero a social madman and dooms an intelligent man to exile.
Among the off-stage characters one can distinguish not only representatives of the “past century”, but also like-minded people of Chatsky. This is Skalozub’s cousin, who is condemned by society because “his rank followed him: he suddenly left his service and began reading books in the village.” He missed the opportunity to receive a rank, and this is unacceptable from the point of view of Famus society, and besides, for them “learning is a plague.” Or Prince Fyodor, nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya - “he is a chemist, he is a botanist”, “runs away from women”, as well as professors of the Pedagogical Institute, “practicing in schisms and lack of faith.”
It should also be said about Lisa, the servant in Famusov’s house. She has a practical mind and worldly wisdom. She gives apt descriptions of the heroes: “Like all the Moscow ones, your father is like that,” she says to Sophia about Famusov, who is “known among monks for ignorance” and is not averse to hitting on Liza, and the one after Petrusha’s heart. Lisa has a low opinion of Skalozub: “He’s eloquent, but he’s not very cunning.” She is more favorable towards Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” Lisa is the second reasoner in the comedy, expressing the opinion of the author himself. The characteristics of the characters given by Lisa are additional touches to the portraits created by Griboyedov. It is also interesting that the author gives associative surnames to many of the characters: Repetilov, Tugoukhovsky, Skalozub, Khlestova, Molchalin.
Thus, episodic and off-stage characters help to reveal the characters of the main characters, expand the spatial and temporal framework of the play, and also help create a picture of the life and customs of the life of the Moscow nobility of the 10-20s of the 19th century, contribute to a deeper disclosure of the conflict of the play - the clash of the “century” present” with “the past century”.
Tasks and tests on the topic "Off-stage and episodic characters and their role in A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit""
- The role of soft and hard signs - Spelling of vowels and consonants in significant parts of words, grade 4
Let's move on now to more familiar material. When analyzing epic and dramatic works a lot of attention has to be paid to the composition of the system of characters, that is, the characters in the work (we emphasize - the analysis is not of the characters themselves, but of their mutual connections and relationships, that is, composition). For the convenience of approaching this analysis, it is customary to distinguish between main characters (who are at the center of the plot, have independent characters and are directly related to all levels of the content of the work), secondary characters (who are also quite actively involved in the plot, who have their own character, but who are given less authorial attention; in in a number of cases, their function is to help reveal the images of the main characters) and episodic (appearing in one or two episodes of the plot, often without their own character and standing on the periphery of the author’s attention; their main function is to give impetus to the plot action at the right moment or to highlight certain other features of the main and secondary characters). It would seem a very simple and convenient division, but in practice it often causes bewilderment and some confusion. The fact is that the category of a character (main, secondary or episodic) can be determined according to two different parameters. The first is the degree of participation in the plot and, accordingly, the amount of text that this character is given. The second is the degree of importance of this character for revealing aspects of artistic content. It’s easy to analyze in cases where these parameters coincide: for example, in Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” Bazarov is the main character in both parameters, Pavel Petrovich, Nikolai Petrovich, Arkady, Odintsova are secondary characters in all respects, and Sitnikov or Kukshina are episodic. But it often happens that the character’s parameters do not coincide with each other; most often in the case where a minor or episodic person from the point of view of the plot carries a large content load. So, for example, a clearly minor (and if we take into account his necessity for the development of the plot, even episodic) character in the novel “What is to be done?” Rakhmetov turns out to be the most important, the main one from the point of view of the embodiment of the author’s ideal (“the salt of the salt of the earth”), which Chernyshevsky even specifically stipulates when talking with the “insightful reader” that Rakhmetov did not appear on the pages of the novel in order to take part in the plot, but in order to satisfy the main requirement of artistry - proportionality of composition: after all, if the reader is not shown at least a glimpse of the author’s ideal, a “special person,” then he will be mistaken in assessing such heroes of the novel as Kirsanov, Lopukhov, Vera Pavlovna. Another example is from Pushkin’s story “The Captain’s Daughter”. It would seem that it is impossible to imagine a more episodic character than Empress Catherine: she seems to exist only to bring the rather complicated story of the main characters to a happy ending. But for the problems and the idea of the story, this is an image of paramount importance, because without it, the most important idea of the story - the idea of mercy - would not have received a semantic and compositional completion. Just as Pugachev, in his time, despite all the circumstances, had mercy on Grinev, so Catherine has mercy on him, although the circumstances of the case seem to point against him. Just as Grinev meets with Pugachev as person to person, and only later does he turn into an autocrat, so Masha meets with Catherine, not suspecting that this is an empress, also like person to person. And if it weren’t for this image in the system of characters in the story, the composition would not be closed, and therefore, the idea of the human connection of all people, without distinction of classes and positions, would not sound artistically convincing, the idea that “giving alms” is one of the best manifestations human spirit, and the solid foundation of human coexistence is not cruelty and violence, but kindness and mercy.
In some artistic systems we encounter such an organization of the system of characters that the question of their division into main, secondary and episodic ones loses all meaningful meaning, although in a number of cases differences between individual characters remain in terms of plot and volume of text. It’s not for nothing that Gogol wrote about his comedy “The Inspector General” that “every hero is here; the flow and progress of the play produces a shock to the whole machine: not a single wheel should remain rusty and not included in the work.” Continuing further by comparing the wheels in the car with the characters in the play, Gogol notes that some heroes can only formally prevail over others: “And in the car, some wheels move more noticeably and more powerfully, they can only be called the main ones.”
The same principle in the composition of the character system is maintained by Gogol in the poem “Dead Souls,” but meanwhile, do we notice all the people created by the writer during analysis? In the orbit of our attention, first of all, Chichikov is the “main” character (the word “main” inevitably has to be put in quotation marks, because, as it gradually turns out, he is not more important than all the others). Further, landowners, sometimes officials and, if time permits, one or two images from among Plyushkin’s “souls” come into our field of vision. And this is unusually small compared to the crowd of people who inhabit the space of Gogol’s poem. The number of people in the poem is simply amazing, they are at every step, and before we get to know Chichikov, we have already seen “two Russian men”, without a name or external signs, who do not play any role in the plot, do not characterize Chichikov in any way and in general seem to be of no use. And we will later meet a great many such figures - they appear, flash and disappear, seemingly without a trace: Uncle Minyai and Uncle Mityai, Nozdryov’s “son-in-law” Mizhuev, boys begging Chichikov for alms at the hotel gate, and especially one of them, “big a hunter to stand on his heels,” and staff captain Potseluev, and a certain assessor Drobyazhkin, and Fetinya, “a mistress of fluffing feather beds,” “some lieutenant who came from Ryazan, a big hunter, apparently, for boots, because he has already ordered four couples and constantly tried on the fifth one.”... There is no way to list them all or even a significant part. And the most interesting thing about Gogol’s system of “episodic” characters is that each of them is unforgettably individual, and yet none of them performs any functions usual for this type of character; they do not provide impetus to the plot action and do not help characterize the main characters. In addition, let us pay attention to the detail in the depiction of these characters, which is clearly excessive for a “passing”, peripheral hero. By giving your characters a unique manner of behavior, a special speech face, a characteristic feature of a portrait, etc. Gogol creates a bright and memorable image - let us remember at least the men who talked about Manilovka and Zamanilovka, Ivan Antonovich Kuvshinnoe Rylo, Sobakevich’s wife, the daughter of the old policeman, on whose face “there was threshing peas at night,” Korobochka’s late husband, who loved to I scratched his heels at night, but I couldn’t fall asleep without it...
In the composition of Gogol's poem episodic characters differ from the main ones only quantitatively, and not qualitatively: in the volume of the image, but not in the degree of the author’s interest in them, so that some Sysoy Pafnutievich or a completely nameless owner of a roadside tavern turn out to be no less interesting for the author than Chichikov or Plyushkin. And this already creates a special setting, a special meaningful meaning of the composition: before us are no longer images of individual people, but something broader and more significant - the image of a population, a people, a nation; peace at last.
Almost the same composition of the character system is observed in Chekhov's plays, and here the matter is even more complicated: the main and secondary characters cannot be distinguished even by the degree of participation in the plot and the volume of the image. And here, a similar, but somewhat different substantive meaning than Gogol’s, is conveyed by such a composition: Chekhov needs to show a certain set of ordinary people, ordinary consciousness, among which there are no outstanding, extraordinary heroes, on whose images one can build a play, but for the most part they are themes no less interesting and significant. To do this, it is necessary to show a multitude of equal characters, without singling out the main and minor ones; This is the only way that something common is revealed in them, namely, the drama of a failed life inherent in everyday consciousness, a life that has passed or is passing in vain, without meaning and even without pleasure.
Quite complex compositional and semantic relationships can arise between the characters of a work. The simplest and most common case is the opposition of two images to each other. According to this principle of contrast, for example, the system of characters in Pushkin’s “Little Tragedies” is built: Mozart - Salieri, Don Juan - the Commander, the Baron - his son, the priest - Walsingham. A somewhat more complex case is when one character is opposed to all the others, as, for example, in Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” where even quantitative relationships are important: it was not without reason that Griboedov wrote that in his comedy “there are twenty-five fools for one smart person.” Much less often than opposition, the technique of a kind of “doubleness” is used, when characters are compositionally united by similarity; a classic example is Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky in Gogol.
Often the compositional grouping of characters is carried out in accordance with the themes and problems that these characters embody. Thus, in Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina,” the main compositional grouping of characters follows the thematic principle stated at the beginning of the novel: “All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Different families in the novel develop this theme in different ways. In the same way, in Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons,” in addition to the obvious and implemented in the plot contrast between Bazarov and almost all the other characters, another, more hidden and not embodied in the plot, compositional principle is implemented, namely the juxtaposition of two groups of characters by similarity: on the one hand, these are Arkady and Nikolai Petrovich, on the other, Bazarov and his parents. In both cases, these characters embody the same problem - the problem of intergenerational relationships. And Turgenev shows that, no matter what individual people are, the problem remains essentially the same: this is an ardent love for children, for whom, in fact, the older generation lives, this inevitable misunderstanding, the desire of children to prove their “maturity” and superiority, dramatic internal conflicts as a result of this, and yet, in the end, the inevitable spiritual unity of generations.
It is especially interesting and useful to analyze the complex compositional relationships of characters when they do not receive expression in the plot: then hidden at first glance, but very significant compositional connections are established between the images, and you also begin to better understand the harmonious integrity in the construction of the work. What, say, do Napoleon and Helene have in common; Kutuzov and Natasha? At first glance, nothing, these are characters from different plot lines of the novel. But the fact of the matter is that different, seemingly completely separate lines are connected by strong compositional bonds, in particular in the area of the character system. And from this point of view, all the characters in the novel are divided into two groups: some live a natural life and embody the moral principles of love and spiritual self-improvement dear to Tolstoy; the life of others is unnatural, subordinated to false goals, immoral at its core and embodies the idea of separation of people, deeply hated by Tolstoy. In this consideration, Natasha and Kutuzov, and Nikolai, and Marya Volkonskaya, and Pierre turn out to be connected with each other, who at the same time are opposed to Napoleon, Helen, Anatole, Berg and others.
Even more complex and non-obvious compositional connections between characters are established in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment. The character system is organized around the main character Raskolnikov; the other characters are in complex relationships with him, and not only plot ones; and it is in extra-plot connections that the richness of the novel’s composition is revealed. First of all, Raskolnikov is compositionally connected with Sonya. In its own way life position They are primarily opposed. But not only. They also have something in common, primarily in pain for a person and in suffering, which is why Sonya Raskolnikova understands so easily and immediately. In addition, as Raskolnikov himself emphasizes, they are both criminals, both murderers, only Sonya killed herself, and Raskolnikov killed the other. Here the comparison ends and the contrast begins again: for Dostoevsky, these two “murders” are not at all equivalent; moreover, they have a fundamentally opposite ideological meaning. And yet, both are criminals who are united by the gospel motif of sacrifice for humanity, the cross, and atonement. It is no coincidence that Dostoevsky emphasized the strange juxtaposition of “a murderer and a harlot who came together to read the eternal book.” So, Sonya is both an antipode and a kind of double of Raskolnikov. The remaining characters are also organized around Raskolnikov according to the same principle; it is, as it were, reflected many times in its counterparts, but reflected with distortions, or incompletely. Thus, Razumikhin draws close to Raskolnikov with his rationality and confidence that life can be arranged without God, relying only on himself, but is sharply opposed to him, since he does not accept the idea of “blood according to conscience.” Porfiry Petrovich is the antipode of Raskolnikov, but there is also something Raskolnikov about him, because he understands the main character faster and better than anyone else. Luzhin takes the practical part of Raskolnikov’s theory about the right to crime, but completely emasculates all the sublime meaning from it. In “new trends” he sees only a justification for his boundless egoism, believing that the new morality gives him the sanction to try only for his own benefit, without stopping at any moral prohibitions. Luzhin reflects Raskolnikov’s philosophy in the distorting mirror of cynicism, and Raskolnikov himself looks with disgust at Luzhin and his theory - thus, we have before us another double, another antipodean twin. Svidrigailov, as is typical of an ironist, brings Raskolnikov’s ideas to their logical conclusion, advising him to stop thinking about the good of humanity, about the issues of “man and citizen.” But, like everyone, Svidrigailov does not accept Raskolnikov’s theory for himself personally, being skeptical of any philosophy. And Svidrigailov disgusts Raskolnikov; they again turn out to be mismatched twins, antipodean twins. This composition of the character system is caused by the need to pose and resolve complex moral and philosophical questions, to consider the theory of the main character and its implementation in practice in a variety of applications and aspects. The composition here, therefore, works to reveal the problematic.
Character ( literary hero) is a character in a narrative work of art.
The organization of characters in a literary work appears as a system of characters.
The character system should be viewed from two perspectives:
- as a system of relationships between characters (struggle, clashes, etc.) - that is, from the point of view of the content of the work;
- as the embodiment of the principle of composition and a means of characterizing the characters - that is, as the position of the author.
Like any system, the character sphere is characterized through its constituent ELEMENTS (characters) and STRUCTURE (a relatively stable method = the law of connection of elements).
Elements of the character sphere
MAIN- are at the center of the plot, have independent characters and are directly related to all levels of the content of the work,
SECONDARY- also quite actively participating in the plot, having their own character, but who receive less authorial attention; in some cases their function is to help reveal the images of the main characters,
EPISODIC- appearing in one or two episodes of the plot, often without their own character and standing on the periphery of the author’s attention; their main function is to give impetus to the plot action at the right moment or to highlight certain features of the main and secondary characters).
In addition, there are also so-called OFF-STAGE the characters in question, but they do not participate in the action (for example, in “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboyedov, this is Princess Marya Alekseevna, whose opinion everyone is so afraid of, or Famusov’s uncle, a certain Maxim Petrovich).
For example, Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe seems to be about the life of one person. However, the novel is densely populated. In Robinson's memories and dreams there live different persons (= off-stage characters): the father who warned his son against the sea; dead companions, with whose fate he often compares his own; the basket maker he watched as a child; a desirable companion is “a living person with whom I could talk.” The role of off-stage characters, seemingly mentioned in passing, is very important: after all, Robinson is both lonely and not alone on his island, since he personifies the total human experience, hard work and enterprise of his contemporaries and compatriots.
Character category definition options
- - the degree of participation in the plot and, accordingly, the volume of text that this character is given;
- - the degree of importance of this character for revealing aspects of artistic content.
Character system of the work
The basis objective world epic and dramatic works usually comprise character system and the plot. Even in works main topic which is a person alone with wild, virgin nature (“Robinson Crusoe” by D. Defoe, “Walden, or Life in the Woods” by G. Thoreau, “Mowgli” by R. Kipling), the character sphere, as a rule, is not limited to one hero. Thus, Defoe’s novel is densely populated at the beginning and at the end, and in the memories and dreams of Robinson the hermit, different people live: the father who warned his son against the sea; dead companions, with whose fate he often compares his own; the basket maker he watched as a child; a desirable companion - “a living person with whom I could talk.” In the main part of the novel, the role of these and other off-stage characters, seemingly mentioned in passing, is very important: after all, Robinson on his island is both alone and not alone, since he personifies the total human experience, hard work and enterprise of his contemporaries and compatriots, including Defoe himself ( “fountain of energy” - that’s what biographers called him).
Like any system, the character sphere of the work is characterized through its components elements(characters) and structure- “a relatively stable way (law) of connecting elements.” This or that image receives the status of a character precisely as an element of the system, a part of the whole, which is especially clearly visible when comparing images of animals, plants, things, etc. various works. In Defoe's novel, the goats bred by Robinson, his parrot, dogs and cats, the sprouted stalks of barley and rice, and the pottery he made consistently represent the “fayna”, “flora” created before our eyes “ material culture" For Defoe, according to one English critic (presumably W. Badget), “a tea rose is nothing more than a tea rose,” nature is “only a source of drought and rain” (W. Woolf). But in the conventional world of such genres as fairy tales, legends, fables, parables, ballads, personification of natural phenomena and things is common. In "The Tale of the Toad and the Rose" Sun. M. Garshina's rose - “more than a rose”, this is an allegory of a beautiful, but very short life. In works of a life-like style, higher animals are often introduced into the series of characters, in which, in the stable traditions of animalistic literature, what brings them closer to man is emphasized. “Does it matter who we talk about? Each of those who lived on earth deserves it,” begins I.A. Bunin his story “Dreams of Chang”, where the two main characters are the captain and his dog Chang. Synecdoche (“each of those who lived on earth”) unites the captain and Chang, and throughout the entire narrative the psychological parallel is maintained: both are aware of fear and melancholy, as well as delight and jubilation. After all, Chang’s heart “beat exactly the same as the captain’s....
To form a character system, at least two subjects are required; their equivalent may be a “split” character (for example, in the miniature by D. Kharms from the series “Cases” - Semyon Semenovich with glasses and without glasses). In the early stages of narrative art, the number of characters and the connections between them were determined primarily by logic plot development.“The single hero of a primitive fairy tale once demanded his antithesis, an opposing hero; Even later, the idea of heroin appeared as a reason for this struggle - and the number three became sacred number narrative composition." Around the main characters, minor ones are grouped, participating in the struggle on one side or the other (the most important property of the structure is hierarchy). At the same time, the variety of specific characters in archaic plot genres lends itself to classification. Numerous characters in Russian fairy tale(“There are miracles there: a goblin wanders there, / A mermaid sits on the branches...”) V.Ya. Propp reduced it to seven invariants, based on the plot functions they perform (absence, prohibition, violation, etc.—a total of 31 functions, according to the scientist’s calculations). This “seven-character” scheme included saboteur, giver, helper, princess (the desired character) and her father, sender, hero, false hero.
IN ancient Greek theater the number of actors simultaneously on stage increased gradually. The pre-Aeschylus tragedy was the song of a choir, to which Thespis added one actor-reciter, who periodically left the stage and returned with reports of new events. “... Aeschylus was the first to introduce two instead of one; He also reduced the chorus parts and put dialogue in the first place, and Sophocles introduced three actors and scenery.” This established the custom of performing a play by three actors (each could play several roles), which was also observed by the Romans. Aeschylus's innovation created "the precondition for depicting a clash between the two sides"; the presence of a third actor included minor persons in the action.
Plot connections as a system-forming principle can be very complex, branched and cover a huge number of characters. In Homer's Iliad, not only Achilles and his anger are glorified (“Wrath, goddess, sing to Achilles, son of Peleus...”), but also many heroes and their patron gods involved in Trojan War. According to some estimates, in “War and Peace” L.N. Tolstoy has about six hundred characters, and in O. Balzac’s “Human Comedy” there are about two thousand. The appearance of these individuals is in most cases motivated by the plot.
However, plot connection is not the only type of connection between characters; in literature that has said goodbye to its mythological cradle, it is usually not the main one. The character system is a definite character ratio. Given the diversity of understandings of “character,” typification itself and the associated individualization of depicted persons is a principle of artistic creativity that unites writers of different times and peoples. “...People are not alike, some love one thing, and others another,” says Homer through the mouth of Odysseus (“Odyssey.” Canto 14).
Most often, the plot roles of the heroes more or less correspond to their importance as characters. Antigone from tragedy of the same name Sophocles' main, passive role is prepared by myth. The conflict between her and Creon, reflecting " different understanding the essence of the law" (as a traditional religious and moral norm or as the will of the king), its bloody denouement (three deaths: Antigone, Haemon, Eurydice, the later repentance of Creon) - such is the mythological plot, "the basis and, as it were, the soul of the tragedy...", according to Aristotle. But by developing and dramatizing this “woven” plot, with twists and turns and recognitions, Sophocles “captures the characters...”. Of the ways in which the playwright creates a heroic and tragic aura around Antigone, the general relationship of characters, their opposition, is very important. “Antigone appears before us even more heroic and courageous,” writes A.A. Taho-Godi, when you see the quiet, timid Yemena next to her. Haemon's passionate, youthful audacity underscores Kreong's firm, conscious decision. The wise knowledge of the truth in the speeches of Tiresias proves the complete inconsistency and meaninglessness of Creon’s act.” Sophocles even “captures” the characters of episodic persons, especially the “guard.” “...This cunning cleverly shields himself by betraying Antigone into the hands of Creon.”
In the aesthetics of most directions European literature characters are more important than the plot, which is assessed primarily in its characterological function. “Action is the clearest revelation of man, the revelation of both his state of mind and his goals,” Hegel believed. Usually the main characters of the works through whom the creative concept is revealed occupy a central position in the plot. The author composes, builds a chain of events, guided by his hierarchy of characters, depending on the chosen topic.
To understand the main problem character(s) can play a big role minor characters, highlighting various properties of his character; as a result, a whole system of parallels and contrasts, dissimilarities in similarities and similarities in dissimilarities arises. In the novel by I.A. Goncharov’s “Oblomov”, the type of the main character is explained by both his antipode, the “German” Stolz, and Zakhar (who forms a psychological parallel to his master), but especially by Olga, demanding in her love, and the undemanding, quiet Agafya Matveevna, who created an idyllic pool for Ilya Ilyich. A.V. Druzhinin found the figure of Stolz even unnecessary in this series: “The creation of Olga is so complete - and the task she performed in the novel was fulfilled so richly that further explanation of the Oblomov type through other characters becomes a luxury, sometimes unnecessary. One of the representatives of this excessive luxury is Stolz.<...>to his share, in the author’s previous idea, fell the great work of understanding Oblomov and Oblomovism through a clear contrast between the two heroes. But Olga took matters into her own hands<.. .>the dry, ungrateful contrast was replaced by a drama full of love, tears, laughter and pity.”
All these and other characters, who also highlight Oblomov’s type in their own way (Alekseev, Tarantyev, etc.), are introduced into the plot very naturally: Stolz is a childhood friend who introduces Oblomov to Olga; Zakhar has been with his master all his life; Agafya Matveevna is the owner of the rented apartment, etc. All of them make up the protagonist’s inner circle and are illuminated by the even light of the author’s attention.
However, there may be significant disproportions between the hero’s place in the plot of the work and in the hierarchy of characters. Their formal premises are numerous. In the plot itself, along with the events that form the causal-time chain (it is often called plot), there may be so-called free motives. Their appearance, shaking the rigid structure of events characteristic of archaic genres, is recorded very early. Thus, comparing the fables of the Roman poet Phaedrus (1st century AD) and the ancient Greek poet Babrius (2nd century AD), M.L. Gasparov points to a much greater thoroughness and freedom of presentation in Babriy. “Among the images and motifs of a work of art, there are structural ones that are organically included in plot outline, and free, not directly related to it: if you remove the structural motif from the work, the entire plot will collapse, if you remove the free motif, then the work will retain its harmony and meaning, but will become paler and poorer. And so, one can notice that Phaedrus develops almost exclusively structural images and motifs, while Babrius pays main attention to free images and motifs.” The introduction of free motives (deviations from the main plot), the combination in the work of non-overlapping or weakly connected plot lines, the very detailing of the action, its inhibition by descriptive, static episodes (portrait, landscape, interior, genre scenes etc.) - these and other complications in the composition of epic and dramatic works open up for the writer various ways of realizing the creative concept, including the possibility of revealing character Not only due to his participation in the plot.
In the novel “Oblomov” there is an introductory episode - “Oblomov’s Dream”, where time seems to stop; critics different directions(Druzhinin, Dobrolyubov, Ap. Grigoriev) saw in it the key to the entire novel, since it is here that the rootedness of “Oblomovism” in national life is revealed. Comparing Goncharov with the Flemish painters who poeticized their region, Druzhinin emphasized the deep meaning of the details of the description and episodic persons: “There is nothing superfluous here, here you will not find an unclear feature or a word spoken in vain, all the little details of the situation are necessary, all are lawful and beautiful. Onisim Suslov, whose porch could only be reached by grasping the grass with one hand and the roof of the hut with the other, is dear to us and necessary in this matter of clarification.” Ap. Grigoriev saw in “Oblomov’s Dream” “the grain from which the whole “Oblomov” was born”; It is here that “the author becomes a true poet...”. ON THE. Dobrolyubov, in his analysis of “Oblomovism,” also refers to the material from “The Dream,” in which the most important thing for him is the upbringing of Ilyusha. “...The vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery.”
Ariadne's thread, which allows us to see the character system behind the characters, is, first of all, creative concept, idea works; It is she who creates the unity of the most complex compositions. In understanding this concept, the main idea of the work, differences are, of course, possible and even inevitable: any interpretation is subjective to one degree or another. But both in adequate and in interpretations that are polemical in relation to the author’s concept, the characters and their arrangement are considered not naively realistically, but in the light of the general idea, the unity of the meaning of the work.
V.G. Belinsky in the analysis of “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov saw the connection between the five parts of this novel-cycle, with their different heroes and plots, in “one thought” - in the psychological mystery of Pechorin’s character. All the other faces, “each so interesting in itself, so fully educated, stand around one face, form a group with him, the center of which is this one face, look at him together with you, some with love, some with hatred... " Having examined “Bela” and “Maxim Maksimych,” the critic notes that Pechorin “is not the hero of these stories, but without him these stories would not exist: he is the hero of a novel, of which these two stories are only parts.” In Anna Karenina the main storylines(Anna - Karenin - Vronsky, Kita - Vronsky - Levin, Dolly - Stiva) united first of all family theme, in Tolstoy’s understanding and assessments. The writer’s words are well known: “I am proud of... the architecture - the vaults are built in such a way that it is impossible to even notice where the castle is. And this is what I tried most of all. The connection of the building is made not on the plot and not on the relationships (acquaintance) of persons, but on an internal connection.” “Internal connection”, a complex roll call of eras and values is the basis of the composition of “The Master and Margarita” by M.A. Bulgakov.
In the light of one or another concept of the work, covering it as a whole, and taking into account the diversity of image structures, the meaning of the character as a character is determined. It turns out that approximately equal employment in the plot does not mean a similar status of the characters. In Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is far superior - in terms of the potential for polysemy of the image - to his debtor Angonio, as well as to other persons (in spite of or thanks to the author's intention?). In Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” Tikhon Shcherbaty is incomparable with Platon Karataev—the symbol of “swarm life,” Pierre’s mental judge in the epilogue (although in the plot both Shcherbaty and Karataev are occasional persons). The main problematic character is hidden in the depths of the narrative (“ special person“Rakhmetov in the secret writing of Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?”), his image may even be “off-stage, as in Bulgakov’s play “The Last Days (Pushkin).” According to the memoirs of B.S. Bulgakova, V.V. Veresaev “at first... was stunned that MA. I decided to write the play without Pushkin (otherwise it would be vulgar), but after thinking about it, I agreed.” In the “absurdist” plays by E. Ionesco “The Chairs” and S. Beckett “Waiting for Godot”, images of the vainly expected are created in the dialogue of those present on stage.
The eccentricity of the reception is not inferior to the off-stage image bifurcation character, signifying different beginnings in a person (“ a kind person from Szechwan" by B. Brecht, "Shadow" by E. Schwartz, developing a motif coming from A. Chamisso), as well as his transformation(into an animal, an insect: “The Metamorphosis” by F. Kafka, “ dog's heart» M.A. Bulgakov, “The Bedbug” by V. Mayakovsky). The complex, double plot here reveals essentially one character.
The non-participation of a character in the main action of the work is often a kind of sign of his importance as an exponent public opinion, symbol, author's reasoner, etc. In artistic realism, with his attention to socio-historical circumstances, such persons usually embody these circumstances, helping to understand the motives of the actions of the main characters. In Flaubert’s “Madame Bovary,” the symbol of vulgarity is the pharmacist Homais, a local educator, correspondent for the newspaper “Latern de Rouen,” whose reasoning is reminiscent of the “Lexicon of common truths” compiled by the writer; the eternal presence of the smug Homais and Emma's boredom are closely linked. The role of the grotesque Ippolit Ippolitich in Chekhov’s story “The Literature Teacher” is similar, saying in his dying delirium that “The Volga flows into the Caspian Sea...”; his commonplaces exaggerate the mechanical, ritualistic nature of the remarks of the Shelestovs and their guests, which was not immediately revealed to Nikitin. In "The Thunderstorm" A.N. Ostrovsky's plays Feklush and Kuligin, which do not participate in the intrigue, are like two poles of the spiritual life of the city of Kalinoy. According to Dobrolyubov, without the so-called “unnecessary” faces in “The Thunderstorm,” “we cannot understand the heroine’s face and can easily distort the meaning of the entire play...”.
The freedom of a realist playwright in constructing a system of characters is especially obvious against the backdrop of the classicist rule unity of action- guidelines for the selection of persons [thus, Corneille was condemned for introducing the Infanta into the Cid, “for this character in no way contributes or hinders the conclusion of the said marriage...” (Rodrigo and Jimena)].
However, freedom is not arbitrariness. And in the post-classical era there was a critical filter that detected “superfluous” characters. “...The play would have won,” advises E.P. Chekhov. Goslavsky, - if you eliminated some of the characters altogether, for example, Nadya, who for some unknown reason is 18 years old and for some unknown reason she is a poetess. And her fiance is superfluous. And Sophie is superfluous. To save money, the teacher and Kachedykin (professor) could be merged into one person. The tighter, the more compact, the more expressive and brighter.” Saltykov-Shchedrin vehemently reviews F. Ustryalov’s comedy “Word and Deed”: “The second act in the Martov house. This family consists of the old woman Martova, daughter Nadenka and Mrs. Repina, who was introduced by the author into the play solely to show that aunts can exist in nature.”
At the same time, the principle of “economy” in building a character system is perfectly combined, if the content requires it, with the use doubles(two characters, but one type: Rosencrantz and Guildestern in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”; Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky in “The Government Inspector” by N.V. Gogol; Chibisov and Ibisov, Shatala and Kachala in “The Death of Tarelkin” by A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin) , collective images and corresponding " crowd scenes”, in general, with the multi-heroic nature of the works. While working on “Three Sisters,” Chekhov ironized himself: “I’m not writing a play, but some kind of confusion. There are a lot of characters - it’s possible that I’ll get lost and give up writing.” And upon completion of the play he recalled: “It was terribly difficult to write Three Sisters.” After all, there are three heroines, each should be like their own model, and all three are the general’s daughters!” The crowdedness of Chekhov's drama of the 1900s emphasizes the general, stable conflict situation, “hidden dramas and tragedies in each figure of the play." Authors of epics, morally descriptive panoramas and other genres that assume a wide scope of reality naturally gravitate towards multi-characterism. In Tolstoy's "War and Peace", according to AA. Saburov, the character system includes four categories (main, secondary, episodic, introductory persons), while “the significance of the lower categories is incomparably greater than in the novel.”
Collective images are a feature of the style of many works of early Soviet literature(“Iron Stream” by A. Serafimovich, “Mystery-bouffe” by Mayakovsky, etc.). Often this technique was also a tribute to fashion, the fulfillment of a social order, in connection with a kind of “sacralization” of the theme of the people. Extras on stage are the target of Bulgakov’s satire in “The Crimson Island,” where “red natives and natives (positive and countless hordes)” are introduced into the play of “Citizen Jules Verne,” as well as I. Ilf and Evg. Petrova: in their story “How Robinson was Created,” the editor advises the craftsman novelist writing about the “Soviet Robinson” to show “broad layers of working people.” In the parodies of satirists, thanks to comic hyperbole, iconicity techniques characteristic of normative genres in general.
But, unlike the clichés of opportunistic crafts, the “language” of the genre canons of the literature of the past evokes the joy of recognition, of meeting with the childhood of culture. This “language” includes a stable ensemble of characters bearing traditional (often “talking”) names. Already the list of characters gives rise to very specific expectations, ideas about the type of work, its conflict and characters, the denouement. For example, such heroes of the play as the braggart Helicopter, his uncle Prostodum, the rich noblewoman Chvankina and her daughter Milena, the adviser from the viceroy Cheston and his son Zamir, clearly promise a classic comedy (this is “The Braggart” by Ya.B. Knyazhnin).
Studying character systems in aspect historical poetics, their symbolism, very bright in some genres (commedia dell'arte, mystery, morality play, chivalric, pastoral, gothic novels, hagiography, etc.), prepares for a deeper perception modern literature, making sophisticated and extensive use of the wealth accumulated by culture.