Flaubert named his first novel after the heroine - Emma Bovary. And this is natural, since the basis of the work is a description of the short and sad life of a young woman. But male images in the novel occupy an equally important place. After all, it was they, the men who surrounded Emma, \u200b\u200bwho determined her tragic fate. The heroes of the novel are men of different generations. First we see the parents of Emma and Charles Bovary. Charles's father, a retired company paramedic, was forced to leave the service, get married and take up agriculture, in which he did not understand anything. “When he got married, he lived for two or three years on his dowry — he dined well, got up late, smoked porcelain pipes, went to theaters every evening and often dropped in cafes.” When Charles was born, Monsieur Bovary, contrary to the desire of his wife and the desire of the child, tried to develop his son with a severe Spartan upbringing, without giving much importance to mental development. Not "in teaching happiness - he who is clever will always be a man," he liked to say. But soon the fate of his son completely ceased to interest him, as well as economic matters. He carelessly lived out his life without any interest in him, without work, without love. Emma's father, Father Rouault, also parted with his daughter without much regret when the groom, Charles Bovary, appeared. Emma, \u200b\u200bhe said, still did not understand anything about the economy, to which he himself did not have the least inclination. Just like Charles's father, Emma's father "did not bother himself, he did not spare money for his needs - food, warmth and sleep were in the first place." His relationship with his daughter's family was limited to the fact that once a year he sent them a turkey. Emma's husband Charles Bovary is in many ways similar to the representatives of the older generation. He also does what he does not like and does not know. Charles conscientiously travels on calls, trying not to harm his patients. Although one of them had to cut off his leg due to the stupidity and irresponsibility of Charles. Of the male characters in the novel, Charles differs in that he loves Emma. But his love gave nothing to Emma. "He did not learn anything, knew nothing, did not want anything." He was completely satisfied with himself and his life with Emma. And Emma, \u200b\u200bhaving married, "could not convince herself in any way that this quiet floodplain was the happiness she dreamed of." The search for real happiness, a beautiful life pushes Emma to other men. But the handsome Rodolphe is looking only for satisfaction and adventure. And for Leon, Emma is a way of self-affirmation. As soon as Emma needed help, her loved ones immediately abandoned her. Those for whom she destroyed her family, ruined a man, turned out to be no better than others. And Emma was on the edge of the abyss. The merchant Leray also rendered considerable assistance to this. He has amassed extraordinary capital for his machinations using Emma's position. Leray thought out his actions well and calmly, step by step, ruined Emma and Charles. The pharmacist Ome is one of the most negative characters in the novel. Stupid, pompous, ambitious, he exploits all the vulgarity and dullness of the town of Yonville. It was in Ome's pharmacy that Emma found arsenic and here she decided to commit suicide. And none of the men around her could neither understand Emma, \u200b\u200bnor help her. Even such a pure and young soul as Justine is involved in the death of Emma - it is he who illuminates her path to death: he holds a candle when Emma is looking for poison. At the end of the novel, another character appears near the bed of the dying Emma - the surgeon Lariviere, a master of his craft, sensitive and soulful. He is the only character in whom there is greatness, intelligence, professionalism. He could no longer help Emma and quickly left Yonville. And what is he to do here? He is a man of another life, which Emma had never seen, did not know. She only inexpressively felt that somewhere there was another, bright, beautiful life. But the men who surrounded her did not know how and did not want to live differently. The men in Flaubert's novel are the heroes on whom the new bourgeois order, hated by the writer, is held, when "vulgarity and stupidity brazenly celebrate their triumph everywhere." Emma turned out to be the only heroine in the novel who is unbearably bored and lonely in this world. And that makes her stand out in the gray, smug and uninteresting crowd of men.
In the system of images, male and female, in Hardy's novels and stories, it is necessary to attribute the ability of the writer to build his plot in such a way that a small number of characters are usually brought to the fore in one work - three, four, five. For example, the first part of the novel "Coming Home" is called "Three Women". Around the main persons, minor ones are grouped, and a rural "chorus" sounds - the voices of episodic heroes, representatives of the masses: peasants, farm laborers, lumberjacks, carters, maids, etc. The main characters, male and female, in Hardy's novels are grouped, as a rule, according to traditional in European literature, the compositional rules of pairs and triangles are a man and a woman in love, two rivals, or girlfriends (a binary group), or a woman and two men, etc.
At the same time, the relations of the heroes within such a "small group" always develop dynamically: "triangles" disintegrate, and sometimes are recreated, new ensembles appear, or some other combinations, groupings of characters are given. But nature, more precisely, Nature with a capital letter, as a great being, as the embodiment of the Eternal Feminine principle, remains always a constant background and in its own way also a participant in the action in the cycle.
The concept of a female character, the image of a Woman as a representative of the "fair half" of Humanity, developed in Thomas Hardy gradually in the course of the evolution of his work - from his first non-extant novel "The Poor Man and the Lady" and the book "The Hand of Ethelberta" to the last lyric poems in which the old master still lived with the raptures of love, sang, on behalf of his beloved heroine Tess, a sad song ("Country women"), recreated the image of the Virgin Mary, far from Christian orthodoxy ("Evening in Galilee").
Femininity, for Hardy, is, along with the masculine principle, one of those mysterious forces that, being inherently unknowable, spontaneous, determine the course of events in nature, history, in the everyday life of people.
The characters of Gardy are led to defeat and death by their characters and the influence of society, their desire to break out of the immutable boundaries of being. But one cannot exaggerate the role of this craving of his characters for self-sufficiency.
The only difference between men and women of Hardy in this general plan is only that the images of the latter, as already noted, are more mythologized. This is reflected in the large number of assimilation of his heroines to ancient and Celtic-Scandinavian goddesses, in how the writer's figures of women are associated with images of witches, fairies from the "local" pantheon, in the romantic "demonization" of some representatives of the high society. For Hardy, a woman is nevertheless closer to nature, to Mother Nature, than a man, for a woman is connected with her, and spiritually (earth, water, vegetation, especially flowers - all this has long been associated with the feminine principle in mythology, in folklore).
For example, she feels good on the farm and in the field, Tess dreams of breaking out of London to her native village. Sophie, the heroine of the story "The Prohibition of the Son". Marty South, as the author of the novel "In the Edge of the Woods" writes about her, was one of those women who "really approached the subtlest ideal understanding of nature."
Marty South, the secondary heroine of the novel, who understood nature as deeply as her beloved forester Winterbourne, is honored with an apotheosis at the end of the book: the name of a higher purpose of man - love for everything living under the sun. " Alas, this is a tragic apotheosis, for her love for Winterbourne remained unrequited, the hero died, and she grieves over his grave.
Love for all living things remains, despite all the tragic obstacles, is the best and most expressive character trait for most of the writer's heroines.
The richest material can be found in the works of Hardy about women's love and its various shades, about the ways and stages of its development and extinction. And the writer himself could, following the example of Stendhal, create a book that would represent another version of the treatise On Love. The English novelist tells dozens and hundreds of stories about love that flares up suddenly or slowly arises, stormy, passionate, or, conversely, is almost imperceptible to others, as if barely smoldering. About the struggle of motives in the souls and minds of lovers, the struggle that is elementary simple, then complicated, taking bizarre forms, the struggle between everyday considerations (selfish and vain calculations, taking into account the opinions of "Mrs. Grundy") and spiritual, higher ones, about compromises in personal relationships, so characteristic of the moral climate of England, or about tragedies and disasters.
Among the heroes and heroines of Hardy there are no politicians, such as, for example, the radical Felix Holt from the novel of the same name by D. Eliot. None of his heroines think about the feminist movement, about the struggle for the social equality of women with men. They, as a rule, obey the authority of their fathers and parents, although, having become wives, they can show their character, dictate their line of behavior to their husbands and lovers. Their strength lies in their weakness, or, to put it another way, in their feminine charms (Anna Zegers has a collection of stories "The Strength of the Weak"). Although against the power of Destiny (Will, Unknown Reason), Hardy is powerless.
Not being a participant in social movements, the writer agreed in principle with those progressive people of England, like J. St. Mill and J. Eliot, who wanted to achieve greater freedom for women in society and advocated the expansion of women's education. No wonder many of Hardy's heroines try to engage in, as they say now, self-education, conduct intellectual conversations with men on equal terms, especially in this regard, the image of Susan Bridehead is expressive. At the same time, the novelist believed that women are often stronger than men in another area, in their intuitive comprehension of life. Here is how he writes about Mrs. Ibright, Climb's mother: “She was highly characterized by insight, a kind of penetration into life, all the more surprising because she herself did not participate in life. In practical life, women are most often distinguished by such giftedness; they can watch a world that has never been seen "(" Homecoming ", book H, chapter H).
Hardy emphasized in his heroines that natural spiritual endowment, which, as we have already noted, is associated with mythology, with "super natural" abilities.
The writer has no villains and notorious scoundrels, which were many in the work of Dickens, Thackeray, Wilkie Collins, Bulwer-Lytton. Or those closer to Hardy in time, R. Stevenson, Kipling, Bram Stoker, with his famous "Dracula", H. Wells. If his characters show cruelty, greed, vanity, and shortsightedness, then their personal guilt is still incommensurate with the great measure of evil that is brought into life through their actions. For example, former Sergeant Troy brings many disasters to his fellow countrymen, but he himself, in essence, is not a villain ("Far from the mad crowd"). Michael Henchard is rude by nature and may be fierce, but deep in his soul there is a certain feminine "anima" that does not allow him to go for murder, pushing for good deeds. ("Anima", according to CG Jung's hypothesis, is the "female" component of a man's subconscious). After the fight with Farfre, the hero sleeps curled up in a ball. "There was something femininely weak in this position, and what such a courageous and stern man accepted her made a tragic impression" (The Mayor of Casterbridge, Chapter 38). Such "femininity", that is, kindness and defenselessness in front of the gloomy face of Destiny, is noted for most of the male characters of Hardy.
The heroines of Hardy, whether they be noble ladies, duchesses, wealthy farmers like Batsheba Everdeen, be they maids, farm laborers, petty tradesmen, governesses, etc. - all of them, as a rule, are deceived by Fate, although they strove for happiness, somehow they achieved it ... But the irony of events is just a different name for the phenomenon that Gardy calls the Immanent Will, its "eternal arts", or "cunning mechanisms" acting for evil to people.
What has been said about the writer's male characters applies even more to his heroines. They are, as a rule, kind, they are by their nature intended for love, but the tragic paradox of their situation is that Fate is unfavorable social circumstances, the power of patriarchal customs, a coincidence of circumstances, or a subjective factor - illusions, delusions, prejudices of heroines - all leads them to defeat. And only comparatively rarely, fate smiles at his women - see the novel Under the Green Tree, Elizabeth Jane's happy marriage to Farfrae (The Mayor of Casterbridge), Thomasin's successful alliance with the guard Vennom from Homecoming. Although Hardy warned readers in a special note that this "happy ending" was on his part a concession to the Victorian censorship. You can also name happy endings in some of Hardy's short stories and novellas, but the general sad mood from his picture of life as a whole remains.
6 chose
It seems to me that it is even useful for schoolgirls to fall in love with literary heroes. It instills a love of reading and develops the imagination. Besides, everything is better than "drying up" on serial boys. The first chapter of the novel "Eugene Onegin" was published 189 years ago. However, I never understood the enthusiastic attitude towards this hero and did not see any reason to fall in love with him. So today is not about him. And about those literary characters in whom it is impossible not to fall in love.
Rhett Butler
I suspect many male writers have little idea of \u200b\u200bwhat a woman wants. Therefore, sometimes they depict unsympathetic characters, at whose feet, for some unknown reason, crowds of women fall. It is quite clear that Rhett Butler from "Gone with the Wind" was invented by a woman, and now not a single rating of "men of dreams" can do without him. This charming bully (and women so often love bully) has a lot of vices. He is cynical, despises social norms, uses illegal means of earning money, deals (and even makes friends!) With corrupt women. At the same time, he has a lot of advantages: a sharp mind, courage, honor (with its own principles, but at the same time strict and inviolable), charm. But most importantly, he, conquering many women, sincerely loves one and only one all his life.
Probably, many women would like to become that very one for such a man.
Martin Eden
The cute character is a lot like the author who created it - Jack London. They both came from the bottom, did not have a systemic education, were engaged in a variety of working professions, traveled the world as sailors. And both at a young age decided to change their lives, engaged in self-education and subsequently became famous writers.
Martin Eden during the course of the novel he has changed a lot, but he is cute from start to finish. And when he was a young, simple and naive guy who first got into high society and surprised works of art. And when he, barely making ends meet, desperately fought for recognition. He did not lose his charm, and when he became perplexed by the sudden fame and disappointed by her successful author.
This hero's only drawback is his suicide. (well, why are you so, dear Jack London?) Probably, there was no other way. But I always wanted to see another Eden who does not give up and fights to the end. Who can cope not only with any difficulties and hardships, but even with success.
Gatsby
Fitzgerald already in the title of the novel he defined his attitude to the main character, calling him "great." Of course, Gatsby has a lot of questions: a suspicious way to get rich, interference in someone else's family life and an attempt to destroy it. But all the same, he is great in his own way, especially in comparison with the small people who surrounded him. Directly Gulliver in the land of the midgets. Money was not an end in itself for him. He only needed them to try to reclaim his longtime love Daisy. For her sake, he was ready for anything. He took the blame for her act and eventually sacrificed his life.
However, it is precisely this high and sacrificial love that I cannot understand in any way. Why did such an intelligent and strong person squander his life, spiritual generosity and talents on love for a person who was not endowed with an outstanding mind or feelings? Of course, fidelity to your ideal commands respect, but the ideal was chosen by him, frankly, dubious.
Ostap Bender
However, for me personally, the man of dreams in literature is not romantic characters with high feelings, but a cheerful and cheerful swindler Ostap Bender. He is handsome, intelligent, witty, has indomitable energy and finds a way out of any situation. As cartoon Jessica Rabbit said about her husband Roger Rabbit: "It's fun with him!" On this I completely agree with her. This is a great reason to fall in love with a person, a rabbit or a literary character.
In "12 Chairs" the only "novel" by Ostap Bender is a fleeting marriage with the caricatured widow Gritsatsuyeva. But in "The Golden Calf" he experiences the most sincere feelings for Zosia Sinitskaya, who rejects him. According to the original plan of the authors, this love story was to find a happy ending and end with the wedding of Bender and Zosia, for which he even gave up his million. But in the end, the romance ended differently, and Ostap Bender remained a cheerful bachelor. To the delight of his devoted fans.
Dmitry Razumikhin
I do not pretend to be objective, but, in my opinion, in Russian classical literature it is not so easy to find men worthy of the love of readers. Eugene Onegin is a whiner, he does not know what he wants, and unconsciously spoils life for himself and those around him. Pechorin is even worse. He also does not know what he wants, unconsciously spoils life for himself and, quite consciously, for those around him. And no mystical charm can save him. Chatsky is not too smart - he stubbornly does not notice the obvious and teaches the life of those who are not at all interested in it. I generally keep quiet about Raskolnikov. Our writers were not interested in bringing ideal characters to the fore, so their characters are contradictory and evoke the most contradictory feelings. At the same time, the "ideal" can modestly hide in second or even third roles.
For me, one of such modest ideals is a friend of Rodion Raskolnikov Dmitry Razumikhin from "Crime and Punishment". He is the complete opposite of his comrade. The same poor, but strong, healthy, active, he finds ways out of a difficult situation and even manages to help his strange friend. " Razumikhin was also so remarkable that no setbacks ever embarrassed him and no bad circumstances, it seemed, could crush him, "- writes about him Dostoevsky... He does not invent strange theories for himself, but simply acts to make his life and the lives of those around him a little better.
I remembered such literary heroes. Who do you remember?
Have you ever fallen in love with literary characters? Which ones?
The novel "Oblomov" is one of the brightest works of Russian literature of the 19th century, which even today worries readers with the acuteness of the questions raised by the author. The book is interesting, first of all, because the problematic of the novel is revealed through the method of antithesis. The opposition of the protagonists in Oblomov makes it possible to emphasize the conflict between different worldviews and characters, and also to better reveal the inner world of each character.
The action of the work unfolds around the fate of the four main characters of the book: Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, Olga Ilyinskaya and Agafya Pshenitsyna (some researchers supplement this list with Zakhar, but in terms of significance in the narrative, he still belongs to the secondary characters). Through male and female characters in the novel, the author analyzes various aspects of a person's social and personal life, reveals many “eternal” themes.
Characteristics of male characters
Ilya Oblomov and Andrey Stolts – the main characters of "Oblomov" Goncharova. According to the plot of the novel, the men met during their school years and, having become friends, continued to support each other even decades later. Oblomov and Stolz are an example of a really strong, reliable and fruitful friendship for both men. Ilya Ilyich saw in Andrei Ivanovich a person who is always ready and, most importantly, knows how to solve his problems with those around him, with the expenses and income of the estate. For Stolz, Oblomov was a pleasant interlocutor, whose company acted pacifying on Andrei Ivanovich and helped to return to peace of mind, which he often lost in pursuit of new achievements.
In "Oblomov" the characters are presented as antipodes - completely different and practically not similar heroes. This can be clearly seen in the depiction of the fate of Oblomov and Stolz. Ilya Ilyich grew up as a "hothouse", "room" child, who from an early age was taught to the lordly way of life, laziness and the attitude to new knowledge as something optional and unnecessary. After graduating from school and university "for show", Ilya Ilyich enters the service, where one of the first disappointments in life awaits him - at work you need to fight for your place, constantly work and be better than others. However, the most unpleasant thing for Ilya Ilyich is that his colleagues remain unfamiliar people, and do not become a new family for a man. Not accustomed to disappointments and blows, Oblomov, after the first failure at work, gives up and closes himself off from society, creating his own special world of illusory Oblomovka.
Against the background of an active, striving forward Stolz, Ilya Ilyich looks like a lazy, apathetic lump who simply does not want to do anything himself. The childhood and youth of Andrei Ivanovich were filled with new impressions. Without suffering from excessive parental care, Stolz could leave home for several days, he chose his own way forward, read a lot and was interested in almost everything. Andrei Ivanovich learned his love of knowledge from his mother, while a practical approach to everything, perseverance and the ability to work - from his German father. At the end of the university, Stolz leaves his home estate, independently building his own destiny, earning material wealth and meeting the right people.
Interdependence of male images
The male characters in the novel Oblomov are two ways of realizing a person in society, two leading principles that do not find a harmonious connection in any of the characters. On the other hand, Stolz and Oblomov perfectly complement each other, help each other in finding the most important things to achieve true, not illusory happiness. After all, Oblomov in his dreams of rebuilding Oblomovka appeared to be a person no less active and sociable than his friend, while Stolz throughout the novel continues to reach for the peace of mind that he found in Oblomov. As a result, unconsciously for himself, Andrei Ivanovich creates a kind of Oblomovka in his own estate after his marriage to Olga, gradually turning into a person tied to his home and appreciating the monotonous, calm flow of time.
Despite the fact that the characterization of the heroes of "Oblomov" is built on an antithesis, neither Oblomov nor Stolz are Goncharov's ideals, but rather are presented as an extreme manifestation of "Oblomov" and "progressive" features in man. The author showed that without the harmony of these two principles, a person will not feel full and happy, will not be able to realize himself both socially and spiritually.
Characteristics of female images
The protagonists of the Oblomov novel are also opposed to each other. Olga Ilyinskaya is a young lady from a wealthy family, from childhood she studied literacy, sciences and the art of singing, an active and purposeful girl who likes to choose her own destiny on her own, without adjusting to her husband or loved ones. Olga is not at all like the meek, homely Agafya, ready to do anything for the sake of a loved one, capable of adapting to any lifestyle, if only Oblomov was happy. Ilyinskaya was not ready to follow the wishes of Ilya Ilyich, to become his ideal “Oblomov” woman, whose main field of activity would be the household - that is, the framework prescribed by “Domostroi”.
Unlike the uneducated, simple, quiet - the true prototype of the Russian woman - Agafya, Olga is an absolutely new type of emancipated woman for Russian society, who does not agree to limit herself to four walls and cooking, but sees her mission in continuous development, self-education and striving forward ... However, the tragedy of Ilyinskaya’s fate lies in the fact that even after marrying an active, active Stolz, the girl still takes on the role of wife and mother, which is classical for Russian society, which is not much different from the role described in Domostroy. The discrepancy between desires and the real future leads to Olga's constant sadness, the feeling that she has not lived the life she dreamed of.
Conclusion
The main characters of the novel "Oblomov" are interesting, attractive personalities, whose stories and destinies make it possible to better understand the ideological meaning of the work. Using the example of male characters, the author analyzes the themes of human development, becoming in society, the ability to set goals and achieve them, and through the example of female characters, he reveals the theme of love, devotion, the ability to accept a person as he is.
Oblomov and Stolz are not only opposed characters, but also complementary, as, indeed, Olga and Agafya. By adopting or developing the traits and qualities of the antipode image, the heroes could become absolutely happy and harmonious, because it is precisely in the misunderstanding of the path to true happiness that lies the tragedy of the characters of "Oblomov". That is why their characteristics in Goncharov's novel do not have an exclusively negative or positive connotation - the author does not lead the reader to ready-made conclusions, suggesting that he choose the right path himself.
Product test
© Vorobyova S.Yu., 2013
UDC 821.161.1.091 "1992 / ..." BBK 83.3 (2ROS \u003d RUS) 6V-75
WOMEN'S AND MEN'S IMAGES IN L. STREETSKAYA'S NOVEL "MEDEA AND HER CHILDREN" (GENDER ASPECT)
S.Yu. Vorobyova
The article analyzes the methods of representing the author's gender consciousness on the basis of images of male and female characters in L. Ulitskaya's novel “Medea and Her Children”, demonstrates the method of identifying and systematizing them. Based on the analysis of various types of aesthetic integrity formed in the text of the novel, an attempt is made to reconstruct the gender-oriented ethical concept of the author's being.
Key words: gender, gender self-identification, interpretive competence, feminine and masculine paradigm, feminine writing, integrity.
Aesthetic analysis of an artistic image consists of identifying the principles and methods of organizing the nature of its integrity, which is a discursive representation of the author's subjectivity, which includes, among others, its gender self-identification, reflected or not reflected by the author and perceived by the reader at the level of aesthetic impression.
The verbal image is created in a literary work through a variety of techniques, which can be conditionally divided into two groups, quite traditional and correlated with the process of perception: the external manifestations of the person being portrayed (portrait, act, speech, interior, chronotope) and the manifestations of his inner world (all forms of psychologism ). Aimed at the formation of the aesthetic integrity of the subject of the image (the personality of the hero), they are at the same time a representation of the integrity of the author's creative personality, and, most importantly, a compelling reason for the reader (reader) to acquire their own integrity and gender identity through the process of perception, which determines the value
tans and behavioral strategy of his (her) personality. In the process of this aesthetic communication, the gender component undoubtedly performs its important role, which is the task of the gender poetics of the image.
The figurative system of a literary work is the level of the most striking readers' associations, since a work of fiction (we are talking primarily about prose, but applicable to other genres) for the majority of readers whose interpretive competence (Rustier) for the most part does not reach the level of professional philological analytics, - these are, first of all, heroes, their actions, their characters, their ego-representation, that is, the level of those integral impressions that the perceiving subject correlates with himself, his subjective personal content, his inner and outer “I”. Whereas the value perception of other levels of perception of the text (speech and architectonic) requires either a special target setting (for example, analytical, research), or is not actively reflected and remains, as a rule, that vague impression that is omitted when retelling as insignificant in cognitive terms or unrecorded by consciousness in the function of an instance that generates meaning.
Nevertheless, it is the figurative level of a work of art that is most often
one hundred becomes the subject of research attention in the aspect of gender. “The most interesting thing in women's literature is that there is only in it and nowhere else: the image of a woman, the feminine principle, seen, comprehended and recreated by the woman herself. When such an approach to women's prose is chosen, it becomes possible not only to place the works of writers who are dissimilar in their genre and style preferences in one row, but also to consider translated prose along with domestic prose ”, - this statement of I. Savkina formulates the methodological perspective of gender studies in the field of literary criticism and art history, again narrowing the circle of the most representative texts in relation to the “feminine” principle: not only written by a woman with a feminine-labeled consciousness, but also artistically exploring the image of a woman, placing it in the center of the artistic world she creates.
The female author is indeed much more likely to turn to the creation of female images than male ones, although their statistical ratio, in particular, serves, in our opinion, a quite indicative example of the author's subjective orientation towards “writing no worse than a man”. We observe such, conditionally speaking, "equilibrium" in the works of L. Ulitskaya, which have long been in the center of attention of both critics and academic science, creating a clear precedent for research "leadership".
When we say "author-woman", we mean by this only the biological correlation of the author's personality with the female sex, which is realized in the overwhelming majority of cases by the subject from birth, but when we say "women's literature" or "women's prose" we add to the initially understandable sexual correlation of the author also her correlation with a certain type of letter, which she owns - "female"; in order to avoid tautology, following J. Derrida, it may still be called “feminine”. Therefore, when the debate concerns the legitimacy of the status of "female" literature or "female" prose, the horizon of reader and research expectations is always associated with this supposed unity: the female experience
Revealing the “culture of gender” on the basis of a literary text seems to be quite promising, as it concerns those non-reflective phenomena of a discursive nature, due to which the artistic image in the process of artistic communication between the author and the reader is formed as an aesthetic object. M. Bakhtin's concept of aesthetic analysis is perfect for this, being focused on the phenomenology of a literary text. According to her, understanding an aesthetic object "in its purely artistic originality" means understanding its architectonics. For this, the scientist believes, it is necessary “to turn to the work in its primary, purely cognitive given and to understand its structure completely independently of the aesthetic object”, for which “an esthetician must become a geometer, physicist, anatomist, physiologist, linguist - as it is necessary to do this before to a certain degree and an artist.
Let us consider how gender manifests itself in the process of creating a verbal artistic image by a woman author. For example, let us dwell on the material of L. Ulitskaya's novels, in particular, in the novel Medea and Her Children. The writer's works are attractive material from the point of view of gender, since they are marked by such a feature as a large population: in her novels there are representatives of both sexes of different ages involved in different nationalities, cultural traditions, showing different levels of assimilation of these traditions. At the same time, they are almost always shown through the prism of the family, private, intimate life, in a space outlined as a "personal circle".
The portrait of the main character of the novel, Medea Sinopli, precedes the plot action, gradually interwoven into it. It is assembled from a variety of visual, always evaluative impressions, features of the surrounding world: colors, graphic symbols, spatial and temporal coordinates, outlines of material objects, sounds and smells. The nature of their "cohesion" in the form of a certain architectonic structure reflects the es-
thetic and ethical (and within their framework, gender) intention of the author. It is perceived by the reader as a certain figurative code, the mastering of which is an important component of the process of gender-sensitive reading.
Thus, the portrait of Medea is important as a tribute to the order of obtaining an impression: the created visual image emotionally sets the horizon of the reader's expectation, dynamically determining not only the direction, but also the speed of the arising semantic connotations. Detailed and detailed, unhurried, not small, endowed with the dignity of rhythm, it very accurately, but unobtrusively, places the accents necessary for further narration:
Medea Mendes, née Sinopli, (4 percussion)
the last purebred Greek woman in the family, (4 drums)
settled in time immemorial
on the Tauride shores, related to Hellas (4-shock).
From the very beginning of the narrative, the aesthetic coordinates of her image are set: three emphatically rhythmized (each with 4 accents) complexes are designed to unite and update the initial and most important information about the heroine: her natural aristocracy, her loneliness and her spatial and temporal rootedness in tradition. They add up to the figure of a tricolone, which aesthetically sets the character of the integrity of the structural pattern of both the image of Medea and the chosen narrative strategy as a whole, symbolically conveying the semantics of a stable, endless life, densely woven from a variety of plots, motives, events and impressions, heterogeneous in their own way. content and significance, the level of which increases for each in the context of the rest. In other words, the following becomes an aesthetically significant “increment” of meaning for this type of discourse: only in the continuum of the whole there is nothing insignificant or accidental, singular. Conventionally, this symbolic image can be designated as a "lace pattern" (especially since this concept word is repeatedly found in the text of the novel), see
this "pattern" already means to understand it, to become a part of it.
Drawing the internal and external appearance of Medea, L. Ulitskaya avoids completing it with a direct author's assessment, attracting the reader to active co-creation. As a result, the appearance of the heroine, as well as her character, are simultaneously set immediately as a kind of strategy and appear gradually, more and more supplemented by new details that are not perceived as completely new, unexpected, but always as a natural addition, the development of what was originally set. They all add up to their own "pattern", each fragment of which is an attractor of the initially given motive. Thus, the "insatiable fiery greed" of the old Har-lampius, Medea's grandfather, is objectified in the exuberant variety of red hair of his descendants. Following this, accentuating the special, complex hair color of her younger sister Sandrochka - "mahogany, even with flame", L. Ulitskaya already sets the future round of "lace" - several love triangles marked with passion with fire: Medea - Samuel - Sandrochka; Masha - Nika - Butonov; Nika is a Georgian actor - his wife, Sandrochka's numerous "stories". Moreover, not all of them receive a detailed plot implementation, remaining potentially given. As a result, the reader has a stable idea not only about the infinity of living space, its rhizomatic all-embracing, but also about its conceptual unity, comprehended through the unity of the aesthetic order.
Undoubtedly, at this level of semiosis, the technique of secondary reflection when recreating a portrait of a heroine, whose appearance is presented mainly as a reflection of some outside observer, an image reflected by his consciousness, seems significant at this level of semiosis:
When she sat in the painted frame of the registration window of the village hospital in a white surgical gown with a clasp at the back, she looked like some unknown portrait of Goya.
For the locals, Medea Mendes has long been a part of the landscape [ibid.].
Only once, already elderly, widowed Medea for many years will appreciate her reflection in
mirror, but her self-esteem will be built as the impression of an outsider - the Other:
A beautiful old woman formed out of me, ”Medea sneered and shook her head: why was it so much to be so worried in her youth?
She got a good face, and good growth, and strength, and beauty of the body - this is Samuel, her dear husband Samuel inspired her ....
The beauty of a woman, therefore, in the coordinates of the world, given by L. Ulitskaya, is not an abstract concept or “thing-in-itself”, it is revealed to the woman herself and to those around her only through a loving gaze - all other criteria are false. The woman-author seeks to question, deconstruct the patriarchal myth of Eternal femininity and beauty, whose images are designed to inspire a Man to exploits and love: in her novel plot, the Man himself generates this beauty and femininity, thus being included in the circle of life-creation. For an author with feminine subjectivity, fixing the external features of a woman's appearance would directly mean completing it aesthetically, giving them a certain semantic significance within a certain hierarchy based on a single principle of increase / decrease of a feature that has unconditional value in the author's axiology. Therefore, the external beauty of a woman, accented by patriarchal art, is conceived within the framework of the feminine paradigm as an attribute of the male world, as a synonym for sexual attractiveness, which forms the basis of male arbitrariness and violence. Due to this, the aesthetic interest in a Woman without youth and external beauty, these traditional components of her sexuality, is caused by an interest in her authenticity, equality to herself, and not "the signifier in the patri-arhat discourse."
It is this authenticity that becomes the main subject of the depiction of the feminine-oriented author's subjectivity. It manifests itself in the ability to create a gender-alternative reality, where a Woman is included in the reality of life not as an object, object, means, but as a subject of creative activity, that is, as a fundamentally incomplete personality, requiring
continuation of their subjectivity in the space of the World.
An indirect, mediated characterization of the appearance, indirect speech, pronounced as if through closed lips, are supplemented by several more important techniques that form additional semantic fields that are collected through a single structural principle into a single whole image. Medea L. Ulitskaya makes peculiar, "lace" movements in the surrounding space: she walks around the near and far districts, which she knows "like the contents of her own buffet." Medea is laying a similar trajectory in time. Not being superstitious, blindly believing in the predetermined fate, she not only knows about the hidden, but obvious connections of events distant from each other, but also diligently traces these connections, recreating the fabric of life in all the originality of its "lace" pattern, each time amazed its endless variety and inexhaustible creativity. As a result, a huge family scattered in space and time, consisting of close and distant relatives, from "grafted twigs" of adopted children, from representatives of different nationalities, their friends, relatives and acquaintances, appears as a single whole, existing as a kind of hypertext in hyperspace, which is recreated in Medea's memory:
Medea did not believe in chance, although her life was full of meaningful encounters, strange coincidences and precisely tailored surprises. Once, a man he met after many years returned to turn fate, the threads stretched, joined, made loops and formed a pattern that became clearer over the years.
Medea's biological childlessness does not negate her maternal, feminine essence, which can be conventionally called “creative reproduction of natural integrity”. In other words, according to this essence, the World surrounding a person - a man, a woman, a child, an old man, appears in the image of a self-organizing, harmonious, naturally functioning system that ensures safety and maximum comfort, first of all, weakly
mu - growing, aging or suffering from disease. Understanding this law not with the mind, but rather with the heart, with the whole natural essence of her body, which determines the structure of her soul, a woman (again, we will clarify: endowed with a feminine consciousness) will always side with the weak, in need of her support and will do it without heroic pathos selflessness, quietly and naturally, as a continuation, in fact, of Life itself. In L. Ulitskaya's novel, such episodes appear regularly, testifying to the ethical consolidation of the author and her heroines.
Medea's creativity, which is also endowed with other women of her family, thus turns out to be a special creativity of the feminine kind, the original, pre-experienced, assimilated by the Woman from the natural nature ("lace") of life. The specific intention that gave rise to this image of feminine creativity inevitably ignores the imperious, hierarchical structures of a logocentric order, at the base of which a certain abstract construct is always guessed (pyramid, vertical, binarity, antithesis). This creativity appears in the image of the order given by the deep, initial rhythm of the Earth, the Cosmos, which urgently requires not only rational, but also intuitive comprehension, that is, the need to be included in it, not resist it and not grumble at it. To be included in this order means to perform a kind of translation of these natural laws into the laws of morality.
This motive of inclusion in another primordial is one of the main ones in the “signifying” complex of female images by L. Ulitskaya. So, for Medea, it is given at the very beginning of the narrative, when she secretly gets involved in the work of returning to the Crimea his original inhabitants - the Tatars, under whom he was a beautiful, blooming, well-groomed land. Bequeathing her house not to her numerous relatives, but to the unknown Ravil Yusupov, who once visited her and told her about the sufferings of her people exiled to a foreign land, she restores the natural status quo, canceling external destructive forces in a separate area subject to her. Politics is alien to Medea, but only as long as the Power does not encroach on the natural course of life, in that case
opposition to her becomes for the heroine L. Ulitskaya a personal matter.
The same pathos of restoring and maintaining natural order is imbued with other actions of Medea. Perhaps, on a historical scale, they are incomparable with the process of repatriation of the Crimean Tatars, but the feminine order sets its own criteria, its own value orientations and levels. What is important here is not the external scale (size, weight, volume, financial or other "cost") and not internal (the moment of satisfaction from the perfect, from the achieved goal) - all these are criteria of the patriarchal system, the very fact of work to establish this order is important here. nature, involvement in the process of regeneration, revival of Life. Therefore, the eviction of the Tatars is regarded by both the author and Medea not so much as a political crime, but as a crime against natural natural processes that determine the only correct course of things.
Heroes who are able to understand him are included together with Medea in her work: Georgiou fulfills her will despite the indignant opinion of those around him; Ivan Isaevich helps Sandrochka to keep the peace and quiet of the family; Alik the Big, suppressing jealousy and possessive feelings, tries to support Masha in her terrible, exhausting tossing between family and passion for Butonov; Medea herself every year does the invisible work of gathering a large family in her Crimean home. The structure of Medea's image thus acquires a rhizomatic, “complex subordinate” character: Medea's “children” are those who continue her work, support the natural course of things, without trying to find an alternative or even rational explanation for the norm.
The unconscious, unreflected awareness of a Woman's actions structurally continues the motive of the special, specific rationality of Nature as a whole, which also has a feminine status, since it manifests itself not in spite of, not thanks to anything, but completely independently, organizing the space of the Universe so that everything starts to go its own way. successively, without active intervention
tions without requiring overcoming, subjugation or reform.
By recreating this different coordinate system, the writer allows one to look beyond the framework of traditional opposition and see a different picture of life, which does not oppose the antagonistically traditional one, but shows a different angle of view, at which the usual binary oppositions change, become different, different. So, the Logos in its feminine interpretation is the awareness of the connection of Everything with Everything, the unity of Spirit and Matter, Light and Darkness, Man and Woman, Life and Death. It strengthens the one who spends all his strength not on overcoming or conquering, but on striving for the ideal, inclusion in the common work that ensures this order, rhythm, unity initially set by nature or God, without going into the details of its mechanics, who "weaves in" into the lace pattern of life, enjoying the movement itself, its ornamentation, its peculiar poetry.
The female images of L. Ulitskaya for the most part demonstrate this unity as originally set for themselves, according to which they weave the "lace" of their lives.
Male images are no exception in this regard, but their representation has a slightly different character. To understand it, let us return to the opposition of Medea-Buton images, which we initially designated as key and text-forming in the novel Medea and Her Children.
Creating the image of Butonov, L. Ulitskaya chooses a different strategy for representing the personality, which symbolically expresses itself through the idea of \u200b\u200bachieving and conquering a goal that is external to her. In other words, if the idea of \u200b\u200bfemininity manifests itself as an image structurally similar to the surrounding natural world order, and the process of life-building is understood within its framework as inclusion in this initially set order of things, then the idea of \u200b\u200bmasculinity in the context of the feminine paradigm consistently built by the author-woman manifests itself a structure alternative to an unknown and hostile world order, which, in turn, acquires the status of an external
goal, that is, the subject of the application of the masculine energy of the conqueror. Because of this, the relationship of a man with the world is a subject-object relationship, a relationship between a woman and the world is partnership, parity, subject-subject. Medea observes the world, restores the destroyed, supports the weak, Butonov sets out a goal, subjugates, uses, throws aside, looks for something new.
L. Ulitskaya, aesthetically completing the image of Butonov, resorts to several discursive tactics of his presentation. So, his portrait is formed as a complex of information messages of an omniscient author who does not hide his slight irony generated by this omniscience:
By the age of fourteen he was a remarkably built young man, with a regular face, short, sporty, cropped, disciplined and ambitious. He was a member of the youth team, trained according to the master's program and aimed to take first place at the upcoming all-Union competitions.
By the end of the second year of study, Butonov had greatly excelled in knowledge, skills and beauty. He was getting closer and closer to the collective image of the builder of communism, known for the red and white posters drawn in straight lines, straightforward, horizontal and vertical, with a deep transverse fossa on the chin [ibid., P. 84].
The semantics of completeness accompanies the image of a man at all levels of his structure: if Medea manifests her essence through being embedded in the infinite space of life, then Butonov and other men are portrayed by L. Ulitskaya as isolated, self-contained “images-things” (in the terminology of M.M. Bakhtin), whose signifying complex is projected onto a specific signifier, which, as a rule, does not tolerate discrepancies. This unambiguity entails the need for a rather "rigid" typology, setting the revealed subjectivity in a certain already given series:
Valera, like most of his peers, spent all his long childhood hanging on flimsy fences or driving a trophy penknife, the main jewel of life, into the worn out suburban soil.
He [Alik] belonged to that breed of Jewish boys who learn to read from the air and amaze their parents with fluent reading just at the time when they are thinking about showing the child the letters [ibid., P. 1S9].
He [Ivan Isaevich] was one of the Old Believers [ibid., P. 107].
L. Ulitskaya in this principle - to apply an "interpretive" discourse on a "male" theme - again consolidates with her heroine, for whom representatives of the opposite sex are always part of a certain typological series:
No, I just really like Alik. He resembles Samuel, not in facial features, but in liveliness, quickness of dark eyes, and the same harmless wit ... I, apparently, have a penchant for the Jews, as there is a tendency to colds or constipation. Especially to this type of grasshoppers, thin, mobile ... [ibid, p. iSS].
In this striving for typology and externalization of male images, in our opinion, a certain aesthetic tendency is reflected, the essence of which is directly related to the problem of gender attribution of the speaking or writing instance, although the very fact of its presence in the text may indicate ambiguous circumstances. So, for example, on the one hand, this tendency may indicate the inconsistency of the manifestation of the feminine paradigm itself in the idiostyle of the author-woman, its confusion with the usual patriarchal discourse. But in this case, as the material shows, masculine and feminine principles of representation will not be closely related to the gender attribution of the aestheticized object. In other words, the images of all characters, regardless of their masculinity or femininity, will be selectively or totally interpreted to the utmost. This is typical, for example, for the prose of T. Tolstoy, M. Arbatova, E. Vilmont and others.
On the other hand, as we see it in the case of L. Ulitskaya's texts, this tendency manifests itself as a consistent manifestation of feminine "bilingualism", that is, the unification of various types of gender representation of subjectivity, namely, on the one hand, the need to mimic patriarchal discourse, if speech it is about masculine themes and imagery, on the other - the active use of feminine techniques in relation to women and associated imagery.
So, the image of Butonov, in addition to descriptive completeness, acquires a symbolic completeness. At the very beginning of the development of his storyline (Chapter 2), the aesthetic dominant of his image is set by the image of a knife, precisely sent to the target, the semantics of which will subsequently be interpreted by the author as a behavioral norm correlated with the hero's system of values:
He spent many hours in the courtyard of his house, planting a small knife into the pale thorn of a sawn down lower branch of a huge old pear, while retreating further and further from the target. During these long hours, he comprehended the instant of the throw, knew it by heart with both brush and eye, and experienced pleasure from the fiery instant of this correlation of the hand with the knife and the desired point, which ended with the shaking of the handle in the core of the target.
Everything he did, he measured with the throw of the knife, with the moment of truth familiar to him from childhood - the trembling of the knife handle in the core of the target ... [ibid., P. 85].
If we consider the structure of this image in more detail, it turns out that the process of its symbolization is also extremely external and speech, rather, it would be possible to talk about an allegory, and not about a symbol: "a knife sent to the target" performs the function of a signifier for the signified " Butonov ”, their direct and rather rigid correlation in the space of the text allows us to speak of the uniqueness of this figurative nomination. Moreover, the strong support of this correlation is carried out at the level of narration: Valery Butonov's three career throws - sports, circus, medicine - hit right on target, since the hero reaches the heights of mastery in everyone.
Against the background of Medea's unhurried and outwardly routine, having no apparent purpose within the framework of the patriarchal culture of Medea's life, Butonov's tactics in life are seen as a chain of energetic throws aimed at mastering new worlds, which always had a positive connotation in the cultural tradition. Within the framework of the feminine paradigm, this is assessed differently: goals that are attractive from the outside lose their attractiveness when the hero achieves what he wants, and turn into emptiness, leaving, like the knife forgotten in the attic and targets riddled in childhood, only memorable “nicks”.
Thus, at the level of symbolization, we also observe a kind of discursive "bilingualism": the extremely "externalized" masculinized image-symbol of a knife flying at the target is repeated as a semantic attractor at the plot level. Outwardly, these repetitions resemble the same feminine ornamental strategy of "lace", but acting already in the process of symbolic reproduction of a man's life. We see a significant difference between them in the following: a woman makes her “repetitions” completely voluntarily and, which is especially important, without a definite meaningful purpose, that is, not teleologically, thus demonstrating his a priori involvement in a given world order, and a man performs them when he dries up. the energy of his purposefulness and there is a need for a new goal.
This difference is remarkably visible, in our opinion, in the comparison of the descriptively presented by L. Ulitskaya two tactics of attitude to the transcendental:
Only many years later, being her husband, he [Ivan Isaevich] realized that the whole point was in the amazing simplicity with which she [Sandrochka] solved the problem that had tormented him all his life. For him, the concept of the right God and the wrong life did not fit together in any way, while in Sandroch-ka everything was combined in beautiful simplicity: she painted her lips, and dressed up, and was happy with all her heart, but at her hour she sighed and prayed, generously suddenly to someone she helped, cried ....
The obvious difference between male and female images in a given artistic space, in our opinion, lies in the nature of the relationship within the repetitive
semantic complexes of the signifying and the signified image at different levels of the text: if in the case of female images these complexes diverge with each other, generating semantic lacunas, oxymorically combining value orientations and concepts that are opposite from the point of view of the usual dichotomy, which significantly dialogizes the image, complicates it, leads away from direct attribution and evaluation, then in the case of men, there is a consistent "closure" of the signifier and the signified, leading to the unambiguity of their interpretation, aesthetic primitivization and subordinate status.
This is also a deep basis for the formation of such an image of an ironic mode in the field: the woman author, creating an image of masculinity within the framework of the feminine paradigm, is not inclined to view it as a complexly organized, aesthetically incomplete whole, on the contrary, his goal is to conquer and the subordination of the order of life gives rise to aesthetic predictability and monologue of the image of masculinity in feminine writing.
It is tempting to interpret this process as a kind of “symmetric” response from a female author to a male author to the fact that a long history of patriarchy domination in culture has transformed a woman from a subject into an object of aesthetic influence, into a signified discourse ideologized by masculine stereotypes. Botsman writes about this peculiarity of his representation in the female “mass” novel, not without some irony, according to which “the man of the female novel is realized through the archetype of Ivanushka the Fool, Simple Simon ^”. Obviously, the researcher believes that “next to the Immaculate Virgin, the cult figure of Hermetic symbolism, no other image is conceivable, since in relation to the Immaculate All-Wise, every Shakespeare“ sticks out in the crack ”, just like any trillion billion in comparison with plus infinity - the value is small ".
The noted difference again points to the fundamental difference in the presentation of material between feminine and traditional types of writing, which is due to gender differences in the nature of the creative
the authors' intentions: male images are centrifugal, expansive, structurally primitive, require the application of circumstances external to themselves that provoke the immanent energy of the throw. Within the framework of the traditional patriarchal paradigm, this strategy of representation acquires a certain positive or negative assessment and is quite easily attributed within the framework of artistic modes:
Heroic - if external circumstances threaten his usual world, and he is ready to confront them (the villain in these circumstances acts as a variant of the hero aimed at protecting the opposite world, that is, being structurally similar, they are inscribed in different ethical coordinates);
Tragic - if circumstances threaten its internal integrity (read, primitiveness) and give rise to reflection, forcing one to think about the imperfection of the world or about one's place in it;
Satirical - if he is not able to objectively assess the circumstances and either primitivizes the world for himself, or cowards in front of its uncontrollable complexity.
Within the framework of the feminine paradigm, the same situation is assessed differently: the energy of a personality, which requires external circumstances for its manifestation, will be regarded, firstly, as entropic in its essence, until it turns to its own substance as a source of life-creating energy; secondly, as ignoring the complexity and self-sufficiency of the surrounding world, not trusting it, and therefore, unambiguously destructive in relation to the world and ultimately to oneself.
The involvement of the male images of the novel “Medea and Her Children” precisely in the feminine axiology is inherent in their sign structure. So, at the heart of almost each of them, a concept is guessed, symbolically represented by the image of a knife thrown at a target, expressing authentic masculinity within the artistic space created by L. Ulitskaya, that is, masculinity that is adequate to its image in the patriarchal tradition and is not highly appreciated within the framework of the feminine paradigm centered on the writer
she puts her Medea down. To a greater extent, this applies to the two central images, but in the structure of the secondary ones one can guess the once committed “throws”, which entailed destructive moments that violated the natural order. The most obvious one is Alik-Bolshoi's emigration project. The opportunity he raised to a humanly significant opportunity to realize oneself in big science (a moment that clearly demonstrates the indivisibility, more precisely, the constant substitution of the patriarchal universal in the mind of a man) is completely justified from the point of view of masculine logic. Aesthetically (that is, in this case, from the feminine point of view of the author-woman), she turns out to be closely connected in the space of the text with two events: Masha's suicide and the departure of Alik the Younger to Judaism after graduating from Harvard. These events not only significantly reduce the ethical value of this act of throwing, but also reduce its meaning to a purely selfish desire to receive compensation for numerous psychological complexes (childhood grievances, small stature, Machines of treason, lack of recognition in the fatherland). The guilt of Alik the Bolshoi is not spoken by the author either directly or through indirect accusations from the lips of other characters, but it is set discursively and is quite obvious precisely within the framework of the feminine paradigm, requiring a gender-sensitive reading.
As for such characters as Georgy, Ivan Isaevich, Gvidas, they, like Butonov, eventually turn out to be naturally “embedded” into the world, the semantic “pattern” of which is given by a woman (feminine ornamental attractors). So, George, finally submitting to that irrational inner strength that attracted him to happiness, moves to the Crimea, thus fulfilling Medea's secret dream (so that Sinopli again live on this land), builds a house here, joins his fate with Nora and helps Ravil Yusupov inherit the house according to Medea's will:
Georgy told us on the way back how unpleasantly surprised Medea's nephews were when, after her death, a will was discovered, according to which the house went to the unknown Ravil Yusupov.
For almost two years there was a ridiculous lawsuit to re-register the house. And this happened in the end solely thanks to the insistence of George, who reached the republican authorities, so that Medeino's will was recognized as valid. Since then, all the townships began to consider him crazy.
Now he is sixty, but he is still strong and strong.
Gvidas, guessing the dream unspoken by his wife Aldona, builds a house convenient for her gardening activities and for her sick son Vitalis, also intuitively restoring the once disturbed order and bringing the family as close as possible to happiness:
Gvidas put all his passion into the construction, the house turned out to be beautiful, and life in it became easier - Vitalis rose to his feet in this house. It cannot be said that he learned to walk. Rather, he learned to move around and get up from a sitting position. Changes for the better also occurred after life at sea, and after the construction of the house, Gvidas and Aldona did not cancel the annual pilgrimage to the Crimea, although it was difficult to leave the house for the sake of a stupid business - rest ... [ibid.].
The conflict between Medea and Butonov, which is constructively significant for the architectonics of the novel, which, as was shown above, is more discursive than eventful, is resolved in a similar way: a man is involved in the process of life-building, that is, he is subject to the rules of a higher order, overcoming its violations, having changed, in principle, his behavioral tactics, aimed not at throwing, but at recreating his own section of the universe:
Butonov adhered to the Rastorguevsky house, transported there, after much persuasion, his wife and daughter and gave birth to a son, with whom he is infinitely in love. He has not been involved in sports medicine for a long time, changed his direction and works with spinal patients, which are continuously supplied to him either from Afghanistan or from Chechnya [ibid, p. 236].
Thus, feminine writing manifests itself in the novel Medea and Her Children as a discursive strategy for the aesthetic completion of gender-marked images, which demonstrates the author's idea of \u200b\u200bthe norm of life, its violations and methods of its restoration. Within the framework of her discursively reconstructed picture of the world, the absolute
a certain “order” of the surrounding world initially assigned to a person has value. Putting this word in quotation marks, we only want to emphasize the conventionality of this name, since the nature of this "order" contradicts its usual semantics and metaphysical essence: it is an order devoid of hierarchy, binarity, unique and no alternative truth, a single axis of symmetry. But this is by no means the "order of Chaos", the opposite of the "order of Order", marked by the dominance of chances, amorphous and unstructured. M.S. writes about him. Galina, conjugating with it a certain topos of the "lower world", where, in her opinion, the ontology and axiology of the feminine is located: "And in the" new literature "opposing the dominant myth (" aggressive "," militaristic "," masculine "), it is natural the feminine principle must prevail. The rational here will be opposed by the irrational, reality will be a dream, light will be darkness, solidity will be abysmal, because if the first components of these oppositions in the traditional European consciousness are labeled as “strong”, “male”, then the second - as “weak”, “female” " ... In defining this "ordinal" alternative, it is still important not to be captured by the same binary and to reduce the process of deconstruction to a simple conceptual inversion.
The order, conventionally called here "feminine", is a certain strategy of life, which a person must, apparently, learn from the natural Logos, having learned to work on its maintenance and development, but not contradict it and in no case violate the given by his selfish intervention. which is almost always fraught with disaster. Best of all, according to L. Ulitskaya, this is understood by those who are on the threshold of life (children), who say goodbye to her and women.
Concentrating on the image of a woman in Medea and Her Children, L. Ulitskaya builds it as a discursive extrapolation of a certain philosophy of life, developing a character of writing adequate to its essential structure, a special feminine discourse, which demonstrates as its “independence from sociocultural standards and prohibitions, and limitless creativity
potential in relation to the phenomenon of meaning-generation ", primarily due to the fact that it acts as an alternative, but not antagonistic to traditional (masculine) discourse instance.
This is manifested in the strategy of voluntarily subordinating a man's life priorities to a female model of behavior not as antagonistic and aggressively suppressive in relation to the masculine, but as more consistent with the ideal of a universal human and even, possibly, universal scale.
Demonstrating the possibility of producing both "interpretive", final, and openly dialogical types of discourse, combining them, in addition, with the representation of the categories of masculinity and femininity, L. Ulitskaya thus asserts the priority of feminine writing, which is able not only to adequately express the idea of \u200b\u200bfemininity, but and appreciate masculinity from the perspective of the Other.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Algunova, Yu. V. Small prose T. Tolstoy: Problems and poetics: dis. ... Cand. philol. Sciences: 10.01.01 / Algunova Yu.V. - Tver, 2006 .-- 214 p.
2. Bakhtin, M. M. Problems of material, content and form in verbal artistic creativity / M. M. Bakhtin // Questions of literature and es-
ants. Research over the years. - M.: Artist. lit., 1975 .-- S. 6-71.
3. Boatswain, J. Two images of transcendence in a female Russian-language novel / J. Boatsman // Gender studies / KhCGI. - 1998. -№91. -WITH. 262-267.
4. Vorobieva, S. Yu. Speech representation of the external and internal world of a modern woman / S. Yu. Vorobieva // Bulletin of VolSU Ser. 2, Linguistics. - 2012. - No.\u003e 1 (15). - S. 31-39.
5. Galina, M. S. Destructive principles in women's prose / M. S. Galina // Social sciences and the present. - 2001. - No. 9 5. - S. 173-181.
6. Gorbunova, NI Artistic structure of images of female characters in modern German female prose: dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences / Gorbunova N.I. - SPb., 2010 .-- 242 p .: ill.
7. Larieva, E. V. The concept of nepotism and the means of its artistic embodiment in L. Ulitskaya's prose: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. Sciences / Larieva E.V. - Petrozavodsk, 2009.
8. Mozheiko, M. A. Discursiveness / M. A. Mozheiko. - Electron. text data. - Access mode: http: //www.textfighter.oig/teology/Philos/ PostModem / hyubris_diskursa_m.php. - Title from the screen.
9. Rustier, F. Interpreting semantics / F. Rustier. - N. Novgorod: DECOM, 2001 .-- 368 p.
10. Savkina, I. L. “Yes, the female soul should shine in the shadows” / I. L. Savkina // The wife who could fly: prose rus. and fin. writers / ed. -comp. and ed. entered. G. G. Skvortsova. - Petrozavodsk: INKA, 1993 .-- S. 389-404.
11. Ulitskaya, L. Ye. Medea and her children / L. E. Ulitskaya // Tsiu-yurikh: novel, stories. - M.: Eksmo-Press, 2002 .-- 368 p.
FEMALE AND MALE FIGURES IN THE NOVEL L. ULITSKAYA “MEDEA AND HER CHILDREN” (GENDER PERSPECTIVE)
S. Yu. Vorobyeva
The paper analyzes the methods of representation of gender consciousness of the author on the material images of male and female characters in the novel L. Ulitskoj “Medea and Her Children”, shows the method of their identification and systematization. Based on the analysis of different types formed in the text of the novel aesthetic integrity tries to reconstruct a gender-oriented ethical concept of being the author.
Key words: gender, gender identity, interpretive competence, feminine and masculine paradigm, feminine letter integrity.
