Chernets. Introduction to literary criticism. The problem of the image of the reader in modern literary criticism

“162 E. K. Kovaleva THE READER’S PROBLEM: MAIN ASPECTS IN LITERARY STUDY beginning of the XXI century, the category “reader” is one of the most popular. And this is quite natural. Wide...”

E. K. Kovaleva

READER'S PROBLEM: KEY ASPECTS

most in demand. And this is quite natural. Wide

the spread of communicative models of text analysis introduces the reader to

field of view of researchers. The reader is understood as an equal participant

the complexity and elusiveness of the reader phenomenon gives rise to either a vagueness of approaches to it, or a certain abstractness of concepts that are of little methodological applicability. Experts note the disorder in the use of terminology. The term “reader” is replaced (often synonymously) by the addressee, recipient, or is modified by changing the semantic prefix to it: implicit, immanent, virtual, ideal, exemplary, etc. The category of reader is closely related to the problem of interpreting a work: some experts believe that a literary text offers a certain unified program of perception; according to others, countless interpretations are possible.

In foreign literature, the emergence of the reader theory dates back to the 1970s, and is associated with the declarations of structuralists about the death of the author and the need to replace him with the reader (R. Barth’s programmatic article “The Death of the Author” (1968). In Europe and the USA, the main more or less stable concepts of the reader in structuralism (M. Riffaterre), poststructuralism (W. Eco, J. Derrida, P. de Man, J. H. Miller), receptive aesthetics (V. Iser, H. R. Jauss, S. Fish ), narratology (J. Prince, J. Genette, S. Chatman, W. Schmid), Marxist criticism (T. Eagleton).

The developed theories were largely influenced by the provisions of Russian formalism (V. Propp, V. Shklovsky, B. Eikhenbaum), M. Bakhtin, Yu. Lotman, W. But. In domestic literary criticism, as well as in foreign ones, it was in the 1970s. a distinction has been made (at a theoretical level) between real and literary readers, as well as reader recognition active participant literary process (M. Bakhtin, B. Korman).

The complexity and multifaceted nature of the reader phenomenon, the lack of identification of many forms of reader presence in the text, uncertainty in terms of the internal structure of the reader, its components, development models - the combination of these factors actualizes the appeal to this problem. The purpose of this article is to consider the main conceptual provisions in the theories of the reader of the second half of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries, which put forward the term to designate the addressee work of art and theoretically substantiating its use.

The study of the concept of reader is associated with the reading process and forms of reading activity. Within the framework of structuralism, the problem of the reader is most fruitfully developed by M. Riffaterre. The main question - whether the reader's imagination is limited by the writer's architectural plan or whether each reader sees something of his own in the work - M. Riffaterre solves quite clearly. He believes that the work dictates a single perception to the reader, since the text is structured in such a way that the reader stops his attention at certain places and cannot ignore them, no matter how inattentive he may be.

The category of reader is conceived by M. Riffaterre as given, “programmed” by the structure of a work of art. Scientists have proposed the term “average reader,” which was later replaced by “archilecteur,” or superreader 1. An archreader is understood as a group of informants who react to certain places in the text, i.e. through the unity of their reactions, the existence of stylistic devices in the text is established. According to Riffaterre, reader as a general term for a group of readers with different competencies allows us to empirically reliably take into account both the semantic and pragmatic potentials contained in the text.

M. Riffaterra's concept reveals two main controversial aspects highlighted by specialists. First of all, this is a question about the level of reading competence. According to O. V. Soloukhina, the establishment of intertextual influences presupposes that it cannot be reduced to common denominator competence. Intertextuality is present only in the mind of the reader; reference to other texts occurs in the form of memories, perhaps not always clear. Therefore, intertextuality is a fickle concept; it either narrows to one text, or expands, tending to infinity, depending on the erudition of the reader.

The second debatable point of M. Riffaterra’s theory concerns the conceptual position of structuralism, refuted by modern literary scholars, - the exclusion of the category of author during the analysis of the text. In M. Riffaterre’s theory “il reste de l"auteur que le texte”, the “creator” does not exist; only the relationship between the text and the reader is considered, without taking into account the author’s intention and the level of its implementation. The text as interpreted by M.

Riffaterra is immersed in intertextual reality to such an extent that there is nothing unique or authorial left in him: he is a combination of already familiar, second-hand codes.

The thesis about the possibility of multiple interpretations of a text is defended by supporters of poststructuralism and deconstructionism. In the theoretical constructions of W. Eco and the Yale school of deconstructionists, different interpretations of a work of art are chosen as starting points. For W. Eco, this is the concept of an “open work”, where openness is understood as “fundamental ambiguity artistic message» .

Representatives of the Yale school (J. Derrida, P. de Man, J. H. Miller) rely on an intertextual understanding of the nature of artistic 1 Riffaterre R. Essays de stylistique structurale. – P., 1971. – 364 p.; Riffaterre R. Semiotics of poetry. – Bloomington; L., 1978. – X, 213.

works: in their opinion, the final interpretation depends on the level of competence of the reader, on his ability to establish connections readable text with other texts written earlier.

The concept of an open work was developed by U. Eco in his work with same name(“Open Work” (1962)). The term “model reader” (lettore modello) and the model of interaction between the text and the reader were proposed by scientists in the works “The Role of the Reader” (1979) and “The Notorious Reader” (1979)1. A model reader is defined by W. Eco as “a set of favorable conditions that must be met in order for this text fully actualized its potential content." The theory of U. Eco is based on the division of the content of the text into four levels: discursive, narrative, actant and ideological structures. As each level is updated, reading activity takes on new forms. The reader reconstructs the actual circumstances of the statement ( historical period, ethnic or cultural profile of the author, etc.), bridges the gap between the world of fictional characters and the world of one's own experience. The interpretive freedom of the reader, according to W. Eco, is realized, firstly, by his decision on how to activate one or another text level, and, secondly, by the choice of the code used. At the same time, U. Eco believes that interpretations of any work can be numerous, but not limitless. “Along with readings that do not raise objections, ... there may be readings that are decisively incorrect and are not confirmed by a careful analysis of all elements of the text.”

A. R. Usmanova points out the undoubted theoretical relevance of the concept of the “model reader” for the 70s, when “the unacceptability of the structuralist approach to the text, as well as the “classical”

hermeneutic became obvious to everyone and the need for a new paradigm of interpretation was literally in the air.” At the same time, the researcher sees in U. Eco’s concept aestheticization and formality, the separation of the “model reader” from the empirically existing reader.

"His only connection with the world is cultural tradition, and the only vital function is the function of interpretation."

In the programmatic work of the Yale School of Deconstructivism 2, the concept of the reader is described by the opposition of the concepts of “naive reader” and “critical reader.” The naive reader, according to the Yaleites, strives to discover in a work of art a single and objective meaning. However, reading a work, according to J. H. Miller, entails its active interpretation on the part of the reader. Each reader takes possession of the work and imposes on it a certain scheme of “meaning.” “The existence of countless interpretations of any text. In Russian translation, conceptually important chapters of both books are published under common name"The Role of the Reader".

Deconstruction and criticism AND By Bloom M. et al. – N. Y., 1979. – IX. – 256 p.

indicates that reading is never an objective process of discovering meaning, but is an investment of it in a text that in itself has no meaning.” The critic-reader, according to scientists, must follow the free play of active interpretation, limited only by the conventions of general intertextuality, which opens up an “abyss” of possible meanings.

If for M.

Riffaterra's intertextual understanding of the nature of a work of art serves as the basis for affirming the general level of collective reading competence, and therefore the only interpretation of the text; poststructuralists “take into account the mistakes made”:

Focusing on the difference in levels of reading competence, they derive from intertextuality the idea of ​​​​the possibility of multiple interpretations of the text.

Receptive aesthetics 1 offers two justifications for the thesis about the ambiguity of text perception. One direction, associated with phenomenology, is distinguished by its interest in the individual reader and is represented by V. Iser.

According to V. Iser, “there are texts with the potential for different implementations, and no reading can ever fully exhaust their potential, because each reader fills in the gaps in his own way, thereby excluding other methods... Making his own decisions, the reader implicitly recognizes the inexhaustibility of the text." Another direction, represented by H. R. Jauss, emphasizes the collective aspect of reading. According to H. R. Jauss, society's understanding of a work depends on the historically changing context of its existence.

The concept of the “implicit reader” 2 describes the relationship between two aspects of the concept of “reader”: the reader as an element of the text structure with the empirical reader, as well as the reader and the text. The implicit reader is understood by scientists as a universal text structure that provides for many possible reactions of the real reader and involves the synthesis of disparate receptive attitudes and impressions of the reading process. In V. Iser’s concept, the implicit reader offers the real reader some model that allows him to piece together the meaning of the text. Guided by the implicit reader, the real reader is both active and passive. Thus, the reader is perceived both as a textual structure (implicit reader) and as a structuring act ( real reading) .

1The development of the reader’s problem in receptive aesthetics has a solid theoretical basis. It is possible to trace a line of continuity and certain theoretical spin-offs lying on the periphery of the main tradition:

1 phenomenology of E. Husserl, taking its origins in the gestalt of psychology, 2) aesthetics of R. Ingarden, 3) gestalt theory of F. Perls, 4) hermeneutics of G. Gadamer and, as the final stage, receptive aesthetics of H. R. Jauss and V. Iser 2 To date, the works of W. Iser (Iser W. Der implizite Lezer. Communicationsfotmen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett - Muncben, 1972. - 420 S.; Iser W. Der Akt des Lesaa: Theorie asthetischer Wirkung. - Munchen, 1976 . – 357 S) remain basic research! in the Field of Receptive Aesthetics.

According to V. Iser, the function of the reader is to fill in the gaps of the text with the power of imagination and co-creation. By filling the next gap, “the reader enters into communication with the text.” The meaning of the message depends on the recipient's interactive preferences. The concept of “wandering point of view” is introduced

(Wandelnde Blickpunkt), which depends on the individual psychological and socio-historical characteristics of the recipient. “The reader is not completely free to choose a point of view, since its formation is also determined by the text.” The text should guide the reader and its guiding role in the reading process is reduced to “push the reader to communication, the successful implementation of which is evidenced by the affirmation of meaning.”

A. Kompanion considers the controversial point of the theory of V. Iser to be the lack of clarity of the question of how the implicit reader practically meets the empirical reader, whether the latter necessarily obeys the instructions of the text, and if he does not obey, then how to describe these violations.

H. R. Jauss proposed the concept of “horizon of reader expectations” 1, which he defined as a complex of aesthetic, socio-political, psychological and other ideas that determine the reader’s attitude towards a work. Genres play an important role in shaping the horizon of expectations. “A new text evokes in the reader (listener) a horizon of expectations and rules of the game known from past texts, which can then vary, be adjusted, replaced, or only reproduced.”

The reader’s specific predisposition to a certain genre, which the author takes into account in one way or another, can arise, according to H. R. Jauss, even without the presence of explicit signals from the work. This process occurs on the basis of three factors: 1) known norms or immanent poetics of the genre; 2) implicit connections with already known works that have entered the history of literature; 3) based on the contradiction between fiction and reality, the opportunity to compare and contrast is always available to the reflective reader. The last factor is due to the fact that the reader can perceive a new work both within the narrow horizon of his expectations and in the broad mainstream of his life experience.

In his concept, H.R. Jauss considers two sides of the relationship between the text and the reader: the impact of the text on society and its perception by society.

The reader's horizon of expectations interacts with the horizon of expectations encoded in the work. During the interaction of two horizons, the reception of the work and the formation of the aesthetic experience of the reader are carried out. The horizon of expectation of a work is stable, in contrast to the historically changing horizon of expectations of the recipient, capable of transformation.

The reader’s perception of the text, according to H. R. Jauss, is directly determined

1 Jauss N. R. Literaturgeschiche als Provocation. – Francfurt a M., 1970. – 250 S.

historical factor. Experts attribute the last thesis to controversial aspects of the scientist’s theory. If the reception of a work always depends on the historical context, then there cannot be anything permanent or stable in it. This means that not a single work can be considered a classic, the line between the template and the classic is blurred, and this, in the words of A. Kompanion, is “after all, sad.”

The American variety of receptive-aesthetic theories is known as the school of reader reactions (receptive criticism).

The plurality of interpretations of a work is derived by representatives of this direction from the understanding of the work as a process created in the process of perception through reading. A work receives its meaning as a result of the interaction of the printed text with the work of the reader’s consciousness that perceives it. The most fully conceptual views of the school of reader reactions are reflected by the activities of S. Fish, who proposed the term “informed reader” 1. Such a reader, according to the scientist, creates a text through his competence, his reactions follow one after another while reading. The meaning of the text is created in the process of changing reactions that arise in the reader's mind as a response to the text. To fully communicate with a text, an informed reader must have the following characteristics: 1) speak “competently” in the language through which the text was created; 2) fully possess semantic knowledge, which leads the recipient to understanding. This also includes knowledge of idioms, lexical structures, professional terms, etc.; 3) be competent in literary traditions. By critical comment A.

Companion, S. Fish, attributing all the meaning to the reader, thereby began to “demand for reading the right to complete subjectivity and randomness.” Such a radical position leads to the exclusion of the categories author and work from the analysis, and to the absolute autocracy of the reader2.

The specificity of the reader in the system of narratological thinking is determined by the priority recognition of the communicative nature of literature. The reader acts as an independent text (narrative) structure, possessing all the properties and characteristics of a participant in a single “communication chain” 3. For the theory of the reader, narratology develops two important aspects: the introduction of the term “narrator” and, most importantly, the interpretation of the reader as a multi-level narrative authority. The concept of narrator, proposed by J.

Prince, is understood as a type of internal addressee, explicit or Fish S. Utterature in the reader: Affective stylistics // New lit. history. – Charlottesville, 1970. – Vol. 2. – No. 1. – P. 123 162.

In the book “Is There a Text in This Class?” (1980), which is a collection of articles from the previous decade, S. Fish radicalizes his theory in a different direction. He not only replaces the power of the author and the power of the text with the power of the reader, but also considers it necessary to reduce these three authorities to the power of “interpretive communities.” Interpretive communities, like Iser's repertoire or Jaussian horizon of expectation, are complexes of interpretive norms, both literary and extraliterary, that are shared by some group. But, unlike the repertoire or the horizon of expectation, the interpretative community no longer leaves the slightest autonomy to the reader, nor to the text resulting from this reading; along with the play of the norm and deviations from it, all subjectivity is abolished.

The communication chain consists of the sender of information, message (communication), i.e. the author of a literary work; the communication itself (in this case literary text); recipient of the message (reader). Ilyin I.P. Narratology // Western literary studies of the 20th century: Encyclopedia.

– M.:

Intrada, 2004. – P. 280–2S1.

the implied interlocutor to whom the speech of the narrator is addressed, the listener of the story addressed to him, the perceiver of the information conveyed by the narrator. The term “narrator” was developed in the works of J. Prince “Introduction to the Study of the Narrator” (1973), “Narratology - Forms and Functions of Narration” (1982), “Dictionary of Narratology” (1987), S. Chatman “Work and Discourse.

Narrative structure in fiction and cinema” (1978), J. Zhenetga “New Discourse” (1983), etc.

The narrator is considered as a variable and transforming quantity, capable of acquiring different forms and degrees of narrative activity, depending on the narration technique (from the first or third person, tale, dialogic, epistolary, etc.). There are several types of narrators. 1) An independent character, as in the case of the “frame” method of narration, when the narrator, acting as a character, tells a story to his listener-narrator, also embodied in actor. At the same time, he can be a passive listener, play an important role in events, or generally be deprived of character status. 2) Special view narrator arises when the narrator addresses himself, giving rise to a form often found in diary genres, dramatic monologues, “self-revelations”

internal monologue, etc. 3) Narrator “to the zero degree” (the concept of J.

Prince), who knows only the denotations, but not the connotations of the words of the narrator. A “failure reader” who does not fully understand the meaning of the story and does not share the author’s intentions.

The model of the reader as a multi-level narrative instance is developed by J. Prince, M. Bahl, J. Lintvelt 1. For the first time, a version of such a model, reflecting the main levels of the reader’s hierarchy and productive in terms of methodological practice, was proposed by W. Schmid in 1973. In the complex structure of the concept of reader, V. Schmid distinguishes three levels: 1) specific reader; 2) abstract reader2, consisting of two varieties - the intended addressee and the ideal recipient; 3) fictitious reader (narrator). A specific reader is understood as existing outside the work he is reading and independently of it. According to V. Schmid, this is not one reader, but an infinite number of all real people, which in any place and at any time have become or are becoming recipients of this work. The identification at the level of an abstract reader of two parallel existing quantities, according to V. Schmid, is due to the functions that the author gives to the reader. The intended addressee is interpreted as an addressee capable of understanding the ideological, value and aesthetic norms of the work. The ideal recipient is understood as the authority called upon "Prince G. Narratology: The form a functioning of narrative. - B. etc., 1982. - VII, 184 p.; Bal M. Narratalogie: Les instances du r&it. - P., 1977 . – 199 p.; Lintvelt J. Essai de typoiogie narrative: Le “point de vue”: Théope et analyse – 1981.–315 p.

In the interpretation of other arratologists (J. Genetga, J. Prince, W. Martin), the abstract reader is terminologically designated as an implicit reader.

ideally comprehend and accept the semantic position suggested by the work. According to W. Schmid, the behavior of an ideal reader, his attitude to the norms and values ​​of fictitious authorities are entirely predetermined by the text. V. Schmid emphasizes - “not by the will of a specific author, but by creative acts recorded in the work and hypostatized in the abstract author.” The difference between the indicated hypostases of an abstract reader is all the more important for a scientist, the more unique the ideology of the work, the more it appeals to the acceptance of non-generally accepted thinking. The fictitious reader, or narrator, is interpreted as a projection of the narrator, the authority to which the narrator addresses his story.

An approach to the reader’s problem from the perspective of narratological methodology reveals two important aspects: 1) understanding of the reader’s role as a multi-level, complexly organized structure; 2) the need to analyze the category of the reader in an indispensable connection not only with the text, but also with the category of the author. Thus, in European and American literary criticism, the category of reader is developed consistently and fruitfully. In the discussions of supporters of structuralism, post-structuralism, receptive-aesthetic, narratological concepts, the idea of ​​the phenomenon of the reader crystallizes. Challenging each other, concepts are clarified, verified, and a model is sought that could most fully reflect the essence of the phenomenon being studied.

Domestic literary scholars also have their own views on the reader’s problem. In the Soviet period, these were primarily M. Bakhtin and B. Corman.

The works of B. Corman, who believes that the phenomenon of the reader is closely related to the phenomenon of the author, are distinguished by the integrity of their approach to the category of the reader.

corresponds to a certain meaning of the word “reader”. Special place in this structure, the “conceptualized” reader is occupied - the postulated addressee, the ideal perceptive principle, capable of adequately perceiving the attitude proposed by the work. As an element of aesthetic reality, the conceptual reader is “shaped by the work, created, composed by it.”

B. Korman offers his understanding of the relationship between the concepts of “author” and “reader” in the following scheme: biographical author – author as the bearer of the concept of the work – subjective and extra-subjective forms mediating it – reader combined with each of these forms – reader as a postulated addressee, ideal the perceiving principle is the reader as a really existing socio-historical and cultural-psychological type.

Essentially, B. Corman's development (dated 1977) turns out to be very close theoretical constructions European narratologists about narrative levels and representatives of receptive aesthetics about the reader. The beginning that unites these three approaches is the understanding of the reader as a hierarchically organized structure. Scientists use different methodological paths to reach conclusions that are similar in nature.

European experts rely on the scientific ideas of M. Bakhtin; the theory of the primary and secondary author has become especially important for them. B. Korman, using the developments of V. Vinogradov, takes the subjective system of the work as a basis.

“The otherness of such an author, the mediation, is the entire artistic phenomenon, which presupposes an ideal, given, conceptualized reader.” In the process of reading and perceiving a work, the real reader gives birth to the conceptual reader. The function of forming a conceptualized reader is performed by the forms of expression of the author's consciousness.

The reader is combined with the subject of consciousness in different points of view (evaluative, spatial, temporal, phraseological), which determine his aesthetic appearance. The reader's interpretation proposed by B. Corman has a clear theoretical and logical basis. Undeservedly “forgotten”

today, it seems that it could become a solid basis for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the reader by modern literary scholars.

M. Bakhtin does not put forward a clear definition of the category of the reader, however, his theoretical provisions about the reader, largely correlated with receptive-aesthetic concepts, remain relevant today. Category of the reader (besides aesthetic and philosophical aspects) is associated with the “productive matrix of Bakhtin’s thought” – dialogicity. The text is understood as an event where two consciousnesses meet – the author’s and the reader’s. “The life event of a text, that is, its true essence (M. Bakhtin’s italics), always develops at the boundary of two consciousnesses, two subjects.” The idea of ​​co-creation between the author and the reader unites M. Bakhtin with receptive and aesthetic views, with some differences in emphasis. In receptive aesthetics, the reader deciphers the meaning embedded by the author in the text, fills in the gaps, reacts to the author’s statements - that is, despite the possibility of many interpretations, it still depends on the author. In M. Bakhtin, on the contrary, the author is made dependent on the reader: the reader influences the style and genre of the text being created. The reader’s consciousness not only fills the work with content, but also indirectly shapes it by the author’s anticipation of the reader’s reaction. “To whom the statement is addressed, how the speaker (or writer) feels and imagines his addressees, what is the strength of their influence on the statement - the composition and, in particular, the style of the statement depend on this.” The influence of the addressee on the author determines the genre of the text: “When speaking, I always take into account the apperceptive background of the addressee’s perception of my speech. This consideration will also determine the choice of the genre of the statement.”

Post-Soviet literary criticism actively continues to study the problem of the reader. In dissertations, monographs, articles, theoretical developments of predecessors are used, which are abundantly commented on, analyzed, and clarified. According to some researchers, the category of reader is so elusive and multifaceted that a specific work of art turns out to be richer than ready-made abstract theoretical constructions. “This is the nature of artistic creation - inexhaustibility and irreducibility to a set of rational formulations.” Other experts, noting the value of some theoretical provisions, state the search state modern theory reader, “not formalized in a particular school or teaching.” The need to develop clear characteristics of the category of reader is stated. One way or another, the reader’s problem remains one of the central ones for modern literary criticism. And its further theoretical understanding - the creation of new models, typologies or structures of the reader - is important and relevant. But whether it is possible to create a single “universal” and comprehensive concept of the reader is an open question.

Literature

1. Aksenov A.V. Externality and dialogue // Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope.

1999, no. 1. http://nevmenandr.net/dkx/?y=1999&n=l&abs=Aksenov

2. Bakhtin M. M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. – M., 1979.

3. Bakhtin M. M. The problem of speech genres // Bakhtin M. M. Collection. Op.: In 7 vols.

T.5. Works from the 1940s - early 1960s. – M.: Russian dictionaries, 1996. – S.

4. Bolotova M. A. Text and meaning: reading strategies // Criticism and semiotics.

Issue 7, 2004. – pp. 133-141.

5. Bolshakova A. Reader theories and literary-theoretical thought of the 20th century // Theoretical and literary results of the 20th century. Reader: problems of perception. – ML: Praxis, 2005. – P. 512-65.

6. Ibragimov M.I. “Reader” in comparative studies: problems and aspects of study // Russian and comparative philology. – Kazan; Kazan, state

univ., 2005, – 256 p.

7. Iser V. The problem of translatability: hermeneutics and modern humanitarian knowledge // http://www.independent–academv.net/science/librarv/iser.html

8. 16 Iser V. The reading process: a phenomenological approach // Modern literary theory. Anthology / Comp. I. V. Kabanova – M.: Flint:

Science, 2004. – P. 201-224.

9. Kaida L. G. Compositional poetics of the text: monograph. – M.: Flint:

Science, 2011. – 408 p.

10. Kovylkin A. N. The reader as a theoretical and literary problem:

dissertation... candidate of philological sciences: 10.01.08. – Moscow, 2007. – 125 p.

11. Companion A. Demon theory. Literature and common sense: Per. from fr. – M.: Publishing house named after. Sabashnikov, 2001. – 336 p.

O. Selected works. Theory of literature. – Izhevsk: Institute of Computer Research, 2006. – 552 p. See also: The problem of the integrity of a literary work and the methodology of its study in university and school teaching. – Donetsk: Donetsk state. University, 1977.

13. Korman B. O. On the integrity of a literary work // Korman B. O.

Selected works. Theory of literature. – Izhevsk: Institute of Computer Research, 2006. – 552 p. See also: Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, OLYA. 1977. Vol. 6.

14. Nesterov A. Yu. The problem of spatial modeling of the symbolic integrity of an aesthetic object // http://www.philosophv.rU/library/nesterov/space.html# ftnrefl 1

15. Pavlenko V.V. Artistic functions of the author and reader in the works of John Barth and Donald Barthelme of the 1950-1970s:

conventions "innovation". Dissertation for the scientific degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences: 01/10/04 - literature of foreign countries.

Dnepropetrovsk 2003.

16. Rebecchini D. Umberto Eco at the turn of the century: from theory to practice // UFO, 2006, No. 80. http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2006/80/re26.html

17. Soloukhina O. V. Concepts of the reader in modern Western literary criticism // Theories. Schools. Concepts (Critiques).

Artistic reception and hermeneutics / Borev Yu. B. – M., 1985.

18. Theoretical and literary results of the 20th century. Reader: problems of perception. – M.: Praxis, 2005.

19. Usmanova A. R. Umberto Eco: paradoxes of interpretation. - Mn.:

"Propylaea", 2000. – 200 p.

20. Schmid V. Narratology. – M.: Languages Slavic culture, 2003. – 312 p.

21. Eco U. Open work. – St. Petersburg, 2004.

22. Eco U. The role of the reader. Research on text semiotics. – St. Petersburg: Symposium; M.: RSUH, 2005. – 502 p.

23. Jauss H. R. History of literature as a provocation of literary criticism // NLO, 1995, No. 12. – P. 39-84.

24. Miller J. N. Tradition and difference, rev. of M. H. Abrams "Natural supematuralisme // Diacritics. - (N. Y) Baltimore. 1972. Vol. 2. No. 2, p. 9-12 // Western literary criticism of the 20th century: Encyclopedia. - M., 2004.

25. Riffaterre R. Essays de stylistique structural. – P., 1971. – 364 p.

Abstract Kovaleva E. K. The reader's problem: main aspects.

Are being considered theoretical models understanding the category of the reader.

Attention is focused on the concepts that put forward the term to designate the addressee of a work of art and theoretically substantiate its use.

Key words: reader, reception, interpretation.

Abstract Kovalova O.K. The problem of the reader: the main aspects.

Theoretical models for understanding the category of reader are examined. Respect is focused on the concepts that defined the term for the intended recipient of an artistic work and theoretically grounded its experience.

B.V. Mezhuev Postcolonial transition and “transnationalization” of citizenship Electronic resource URL: http://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Mejuev_2004_5.pdf POSTCOLONIAL TRANSITION AND TRANSNATIONALIZATION OF CITIZENSHIP* B.V. Mezhuev TRANSNATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AS A POLITICAL PROBLEM..."

"YU. I. Yurgens Trade unionism and domestic trade unions Electronic resource URL: http://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Yurgens_1991_6.pdf TRADE UNIONISM AND DOMESTIC TRADE UNIONS I. Yu. Yurgens ABOUT FREEDOM N I E from dogmas is a process that is perhaps the most characteristic of our days. Etc..."

“Problems of vocational education and training of personnel in the penal system of the Kyrgyz Republic: status and development prospects Analytical review Project of the European Union and UN...”

“The process of promoting innovative products to the market: essence, features of the organization V.I. Chernyavskaya, E.S. Dyan, N.M. Pluzhnikova, students of the TU department Scientific supervisor Lebedeva A.E., senior lecturer teacher of the department THAT The main reason low competitive..."

“APPROVED by the Board of JSC AKB Primorye on 20.02. 2014 minutes No. 7 Chairman of the Board _ S.A. Bogdan Standard Agreement for a correspondent account (sub-account) in foreign currency Russian Federation No. Vladivostok “ _ ”_ 20 Joint-stock commercial bank "Primorye" (open joint-stock company..."

“PROJECT Ministry of Energy and Housing and Communal Services of the Samara Region Department of Tariff Regulation Tariff Campaign 2017 Municipal Infrastructure and Gas Supply Samara 2016 Ministry of Energy and Housing and Communal Services of the Samara Region...”

“Contents of the XXV session of the Russian Acoustical Society, Session of the Scientific Council on Acoustics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Acoustoelectronics UDC 621.396:534 S.G. Suchkov, V.A. Nikolaevtsev, D.S. Suchkov, S.A. Nikitov NEAR-SURFACE ACOUSTIC WAVE IN THE ALN/AG STRUCTURE FSBEI HPE "Saratov State University..."
The materials on this site are posted for informational purposes only, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.

In perceiving activity it is legitimate to distinguish two sides. When mastering a literary work, what is essential is, first of all, a lively and artless, non-analytical, holistic response to it. At the same time, the reader strives to be aware of the impressions he received, to think about what he read, and to understand the reasons for the emotions he experienced. This is a secondary, but also very important facet of the perception of a work of art.

The immediate impulses and mind of the reader correlate with the creative will of the author of the work in a very difficult way. Here there is both the dependence of the perceiving subject on the artist-creator, and the independence of the former in relation to the latter. When discussing the “reader-author” problem, scientists express multidirectional, sometimes even polar, judgments. They either absolutize the reader’s initiative (Potebnya), or, on the contrary, talk about the reader’s obedience to the author as some kind of indisputable norm for the perception of literature (A.P. Skaftymov).

Both of these extremes are overcome by hermeneutically oriented literary criticism, which understands the reader’s relationship with the author as a dialogue, interview, meeting. Literary work for the reader it is both a “container” of a certain range of feelings and thoughts that belong to the author and expressed by him, and a “stimulator” (stimulator) of his own spiritual initiative and energy. Firstly, in very many cases, the reader’s perception turns out to be predominantly subjective, or even completely arbitrary: incomprehensible, bypassing the creative intentions of the author, his view of the world and artistic concept. And, secondly (and this is the main thing), it is optimal for the reader synthesis deep understanding of the author’s personality, his creative will and his own (reader’s) spiritual initiative.

For dialogue-meetings that enrich the reader to take place, he needs aesthetic taste, a keen interest in the writer and his works, and the ability to directly perceive their artistic merits. At the same time, reading is “work and creativity.

The reader can be present in the work directly, being concretized and localized in its text. Authors sometimes think about their readers and also have conversations with them, reproducing their thoughts and words. In this regard, it is legitimate to talk about reader's image as one of the facets of artistic “objectivity”. Outside of the live communication of the narrator with the reader, the stories of L. Stern, Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin”, and the prose of N.V. are unimaginable. Gogol, M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, I.S. Turgenev.

Another, even more significant, universal form of artistic refraction of the perceiving subject is the latent presence in the integrity of the work of his imaginary reader, more precisely, the “concept of the addressee.” The reader-addressee can be a specific person (Pushkin’s friendly messages), or the public contemporary to the author (numerous judgments of A.N. Ostrovsky about the democratic viewer), and some distant “providential” reader, about whom O.E. spoke. Mandelstam in the article “About the interlocutor”.

The reader-addressee is carefully considered by West German scientists who formed the school of receptive aesthetics. Artistic experience has two sides: productive (creative, creative) and receptive (sphere of perception). Accordingly, there are two types of aesthetic theories: traditional theories of creativity (manifested primarily in art) - and a new theory of perception created by them, which puts at the center not the author, but his addressee. The last one was called implicit reader, latently present in the work and to it immanent. The author (in the light of this theory) is primarily characterized by the energy of influencing the reader, and it is this that is given decisive importance. The other side of artistic activity (the generation and imprinting of values ​​and meanings) is relegated to the background (although not rejected) by supporters of receptive aesthetics. In the composition of verbal and artistic works, the program of influence on the reader embedded in them is emphasized. impact potential, so the text structure is considered as appeal(address to the reader, message sent to him). Representatives of receptive aesthetics argue that the impact potential invested in a work determines its perception by a real reader.

The reader is the main participant in the literary process. Reading as a type of human activity is present at all stages of the creation of literature. The author, when creating a work, reads the texts of other writers, predecessors and contemporaries, and his heroes, of course, are also readers. Thanks to the reader, there is a continuous connection between the cultures and civilizations of mankind.

The concept of “reader” should be considered broader than “person reading”. Any literary work, written or oral, is addressed to a person. Man’s need to understand the world around him, and himself, was and remains a motivating force initially. creative activity. Therefore, even in ancient times, a person, perceiving an oral text, was already a “reader”. At the same time, the reader, in the full scope of the meaning of this word, is not at all a passive addressee of a literary text, but an active subject creative process. The word “reader” should also not be understood only as an individual; a reader is also, and first of all, a human collective that changes over time and influences the development of literature. Thus, in Antiquity, life required epic heroes; in the time of Shakespeare, man, realizing himself as an individual, predetermined the appearance of Hamlet and Don Quixote in literature; the heroes of Russian literature of the 19th century reflected the man of modern times in all their depth and complexity; modern literature is learning to meet the expectations of the reader in the era of the Internet and information society.

Literary studies of the 20th century discovered deep relationships between the literary text and the reader. Russian scientist M.M. Bakhtin introduced the concept of “dialogical text” into the science of literature, the essence of which is that the text does not “freeze” at the moment of creation, but remains alive and moving thanks to the perception of readers. Each new reading of a text is subjective, and the text itself appears different in our minds, as if it is a living interlocutor with the reader. Dialogue, according to Bakhtin’s concept, acts as a way of understanding the world, as a condition for the development of life. At the same time, there are two types of reading of a literary text: close reading, when people read a modern work and find in it a reflection of their current feelings and views, and distant reading, in which readers of a later time see what was previously hidden to contemporaries. For example, contemporary I.A. Turgeneva, reading the story “Asya,” notes its artistic merits, appreciates the depth and subtlety in the depiction of the love story. However, he still cannot understand its significance as a work about the essence of love, a work that stands on a par with “Romeo and Juliet” by W. Shakespeare, “Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin, “House with a Mezzanine” by A.P. Chekhov.

Finally, each of us is a reader. The ability to read and understand a literary work corresponds to our age, interests, spiritual needs, education, culture, and level of development. So, in the 5th grade we would not be able to fully perceive the story by F.M. Dostoevsky “Poor People”, and in the 8th grade a story by V.P. Astafiev’s “Vasyutkino Lake” would seem too childish to us. Therefore, we influence literary process waiting from fiction answers to our questions, but literature also teaches, shapes our personality and awakens a sense of beauty. After all, anyone who can truly read and understand Pushkin’s poem “I loved you...” will change forever and will remember that love is “the awakening of the soul.”