- Sergey Rosedkin -
		About d about with t about e in with to about m
	Main | News | Cut-away | fotobio | Prose | About Dostoevsky | J. Roberts | Humour | Non-fikshn | Criticism | Teen Porn
P. 2	The Hero-writer in Dostoevsky's world (Continuation) 4 Dostoevsky's very many heroes act either authors of confessions or story-tellers «for the author». Let's consider degree of participation of these heroes in action development, in what measure they are spokesmen of ideas of Dostoevsky and what their relation to literary creativity. It is considered to be a confession that product in which the narration is conducted on behalf of the protagonist, and in the attention centre is — disclosing of its secret corners internal "I" on a frankness limit. The Author-hero of a confession dared, and sometimes and cynically as though turns out before the reader all soul. Clearly, that such products, as "White nights" and even «netochka nezvanova» (in that incomplete kind in what exists) cannot be carried to a confession genre, it simply vospominatelnye stories. The first and most considerable confession in Dostoevsky's creativity are «Notes from an underground». It is impossible to present this product differently, as in ispovedalnoj to the form. Be conducted a narration from the third party and it would turn out, undoubtedly, scandalous, cynical thing with the description of causeless nasty things with what many readers and critics reproached Dostoevsky. But just because Dostoevsky has entrusted the Underground person most to depict itself, and there was possible such art self-exposure of the hero. Dostoevsky in this case posesses a role of the editor: it is difficult to assume, that else the Underground person would tell, it if has not been invented"(Dostoevsky's statement would rush to what spheres of human nature and soul), that is is captured some kind of the frameworks which are not depending not so from its will. From recognitions of the author-hero of underground notes it is known, that bent for to literary creativity in him has arisen for a long time. In a youth, having faced in a billiard room with the officer and being offended by it, the person from an underground has conceived an original way of vengeance: «Time in the morning though I never and not literaturstvoval, me have suddenly come to describe thought this officer in ablichitelnom a kind, in a caricature, in the form of the story. I with pleasure wrote this story. I ablichil, even poklevetal; I so have forged a surname at first, that it was possible to learn immediately, but then, after a mature reasoning, have changed and have sent in ²otechestvennye notes ². But then yet was not ablicheny, and my story have not printed. To me it was very annoyingly …» It dreamt to become the well-known poet also. At last, has created here these "Notes" though as it was already spoken, the professional writer it is not. The authors similar underground, we we can quite estimate, as fruits of their creativity are before us. Apparently, it is not necessary to prove presence of art advantages of its "Notes". We will note only some circumstances which usually are not taken into consideration by researchers of this image, the circumstances which have allowed the Underground person to achieve of such phenomenal, shocking frankness. The first: he constantly assures the imagined reader-opponent, and the main thing — itself(himself), what writes "Notes" not for the press, but only for the sake of experiment (whether it is possible up to the end though with itself to be frank?) and in hope from recording to receive simplification, to kill melancholy of loneliness. The second: because of the of excessive suspiciousness and sensitivity he obviously exaggerates the negative qualities and admits it, referring on Russo's "Confession". The third: he for certain has exaggerated much and dopridumal because describes events in sixteen years after they have occurred. These sixteen years it also was generated completely in underground type and considers and reproduces those old events through a prism of these sixteen underground years, through the philosophy developed for these years. At all more affected, than the valid cynicism, it, in effect, unfortunate, deeply suffering and under such intolerable conditions, at comprehension the "lishnosti", punished also the creative beginning the person. And as the author, realising all singularity and unacceptability of "Notes" (as happens actually!), he with grief, eventually, notices: «Much to me is badly remembered now, but... Whether to terminate here« Notes »? It seems to me, I have made an error, having begun them to write. At least it was a shame to me, all time as I wrote this story: so, it any more the literature, and corrective punishment, <…> in the novel is necessary the hero, and all lines for the antihero …» here are purposely collected With boredom another is accepted to the notes ispovedalnyj author Dostoevsky — the young man who has written "Player". Events have already occurred and have passed, and now it «pulls again to a feather; yes sometimes also This author, Alexey Ivanovich absolutely nothing in the evenings …», too does not spare itself in the diary, achieving fuller frankness. The image is interesting especially to that Dostoevsky has passed it one of capital passions — passion to a roulette, and by means of literary talent of the Player has artly shown from within all attractive and heavy force of this sweet illness. It is necessary to remind, probably, that Dostoevsky gave during this period the most steadfast attention to a confession genre, considering, that only in such form, «another's voice», it is possible to display most full "windings" and "bends" of human soul. Chronologically between «one of draught variants of the"Crime and punishment ", developed in ispovedalnoj to a manner is Notes from an underground» and "Player". The largest and difficult confession on a plot is "Teenager". If «notes from an underground» wrote already developed, lost in much belief and the despaired person and thereof to the reader it is necessary through slovesa to its "superconfession", under an affected peel of self-slanders to guess true essence of the author-hero, the Teenager in the diary before us, as on a palm. Even in style (Dostoevsky long searched for "tone" of these notes, achieving that was literally audible young, still a fragile voice of person Arcady Dolgorukogo formed before our eyes) the age and character of the Teenager are shown. As well as Dostoevsky's many authors-heroes, it hotly renounces a rank of the writer because for it — not a ladder to glory and not profit means, no, such people on the most rich creative nature at least time in a life the feelings and thoughts in literary "autobiography" should splash out creativity, not to confess at least on a paper. According to the age the Teenager begins notes with a bright maximal aphorism: «It is necessary to be too meanly enamoured in itself to write without shame about itself …» Itself it justifies that writes to first and last time to lives. Having set for itself a creative problem — to bare completely the soul at the moment of its formation, Arcady brings under it the strong theoretical base: « I will make the foreword: the reader, maybe, will be terrified franknesses of my confession and will ingenuously wonder: how it the author did not redden? I will answer, I write not for the edition; the reader, possibly, I will have unless in ten years <…>. That is why, if I sometimes address in notes to the reader, it only reception. My reader — the person fantastic … »not to believe this statement it is impossible (as well as similar the Underground person), without such internal installation, certainly, never it would turn out and it could not turn out full frankness. The frankness principle in creativity was, as we remember, one of corner at Dostoevsky. And, at last, character of the Teenager-writer in its creative credo is brightly shown: «I write down only events, evading in every way from all stranger, and the main thing, from literary beauty, the writer writes thirty years and in the end at all does not know, for what he wrote so much years. I — not the writer, the writer to be I do not wish and to drag an interior of my soul and the beautiful description of feelings on their literary market pochyol impropriety and meanness …» In this quick-tempered statement the mention of thirty years is extremely significant. In an operating time over "Teenager" Dostoevsky behind shoulders had just these thirty years of creative activity. As is known under letters and «the Diary of the writer» that period, at it time and again sliped the thoughts expressing doubt in power of the literature, in the importance of all it made. By the way, it is necessary to note and Dostoevsky-artist's affinity to the authors of confessions. In general, though and without desire of the Teenager, «the soul interior» it has got on the literary market. Dostoevsky though and obviously wrote for the reader, for glory and for money (I do not speak now about the main stimulus of its creativity), force of the genius was able to put itself in position of the confessing person writing for one. In many respects thanks to it it also could reach that depth and completeness of the image of the most undercover ugolochkov human soul that was not afraid and was not ashamed to glance in own soul, to find in itself those hiding places which exist in each representative of a human race. For achievement of extreme limits of frankness authors-heroes of confessions also were necessary to it. And Arcady Dolgoruky, having splashed out on a paper, so to say, all, in summary has not restrained (age!) and more time has shown to "the future reader» language: «From much I renounce, especially tone of some phrases and pages, but I will not delete and I will not correct a uniform word …» A little independently among confessions there are Ippolita Terentyev's notes from "Idiot" and Sergey Stavrogina from "Demons". They are pull together by that both of them serve for their authors "pose" (especially at Stavrogina) and are written not because of creative requirement, and for other reasons. Ippolita pushes on "self-exposure" confidence of fast and inevitable death – if not by means of suicide so from a consumption, and also thought oppressing it, that he lived and dies absolutely not understood. It «the Necessary explanation» before death — last attempt to prove the importance to show the person, say, here you whom lose! Confession Stavrogina has reached such depths of cynical frankness, what even frappirovala Katkova and has not been printed-is passed in «Russian bulletin». If the underground person blackens itself in "Notes" Stavrogin, drawing the portrait, proves to be really such what it is, and this stunning frankness, this desire to show «a fico to all light», in general, anything to it did not cost, it was not a shame"to it, as to the Underground person when he wrote the story. With Pushkin's known statement about nesovmestnosti the genius and villainy it is difficult to argue. But it is interesting, that one of Dostoevsky's heroes (Stepan Trofimovich Verhovensky in"Demons") is convinced, that« the highest art talents can be awful bastards and that to one another does not stir ». Knowing Sergey Vsevolodovicha Stavrogina, with it too it is impossible to disagree. The most terrible and the farthest in the personal plan from Dostoevsky the confessing hero. The first storyteller «for the author» it is necessary to name the Unknown person from Dostoevsky's early stories. Its feather posesses «the Fair thief» and «the Fur-tree and wedding». While it is simply literary reception. Character, individuality of the author of notes (both stories have a subtitle «From notes of the unknown person») is not looked through almost through a narration fabric. Unless in «to a fur-tree and wedding» the material of the story, its tone, the image voluptuous JUliana Mastakovicha allow to judge nobleness and cleanliness of soul of the Unknown person. Already the image of the story-teller in "White nights" (one of subtitles — «From memoirs of the dreamer») more full reveals. In editorial notes the assumption is come out, that  A.N.Pleshcheev was one of prototypes of the protagonist  . We will add, that in the Dreamer the internal relationship first of all to Dostoevsky — to the main dreamer from all dreamers is guessed. About netochke nezvanovoj as about the creative person something is difficult to tell defined. In that part of memoirs which she «has had time to write», in focus there is Yefimov's nature. «The small hero» («From unknown memoirs») – some kind of the sketch to future "Teenager". This light story, by the way, written to the conclusion, it is psychologically thin draws from within experiences of the young hero who for the first time has broken in a whirlpool of adult feelings. Tone of memoirs, this skilful mask of the child-story-teller, as is known, have pushed Turgeneva on creation of "the First love». In «the Uncle's dream» («From mordasovskih annals») for the first time there is in Dostoevsky's creativity an image of not simply story-teller, and — the Reporter who is writing down events without delay. The Mordasovsky reporter still unsteady and not clear in comparison with "colleague" from "Demons" a figure. In general, it is only accurate and quick stenograf all occurring events, itself not participating in them. Sergey Aleksandrovich in «Village Stepanchikove and its inhabitants» («From notes of the unknown person») is already rather writing hero, the Uncle, representing it Fome Opiskinu, persistently repeats, that Sergey «too was engaged in the literature». It not only, so to say, the prose writer, but also the critic, and the parodist that has excellently proved analysis Fomy Fomichevyh of fictional opuses. But in Sergey along with doubtless literary talent and the critical beginning is present and slabinka at nature. Speaking language of the same criticism, severely condemning the validity and environment (atmosphere in house Rostanyovyh, tyranny Fomy) in words, it in practice nevertheless falls under influence same the environment and in the end almost lobyzaetsja with object of the satire. There were adherences to principles at this writer. In not finished "Crocodile" about the story-teller, Simeon Semyonyche, it is possible to tell only that in its creative beginning the humour and parody talent is evident, and in character a little thoughtless relation to concepts about friendship, honour etc. prevails . The following hero Dostoevsky concerning creativity, — the Reporter in "Demons". Some researchers, in particular,  V.A.Tunimanov and L.  M.Rozenbljum, refuse to it in complexity of character, is more correct that this character has revealed in its notes. And this strange enough statement. The reporter is present literally on each page, at each episode of "Demons", representing full (and one of the main things!) a character which it is conditionally possible to name — the Inhabitant. At a question: how there could be such violence of "demons" in silent small town who has allowed, has admitted and promoted? — Before eyes at once there is Anton Lavrentevicha's G-va figure, the Reporter. And here in «Brothers Karamazovyh» the story-teller has really retired to the background so, that the reader forgets about him and perceives a narration directly as Dostoevsky's word. However, in notes to the novel a number of the interesting supervision destroying this illusion is resulted: « About the story-teller it is known a little — only that he, as well as other characters, lives in the city of Skotoprigonevske and writes about events trinadtsatiletnej to prescription. <…> the story-teller not ²vsevedushch ² and not ²nepogreshim ², its knowledge is not always authentic. <…> the story-teller of "Brothers Karamazovyh» — the researcher of human soul — at the same time the original philologist and the historian. It posesses the comment to Pushkin words ²otello is not jealous, it is trustful ², short history starchestva, comments to manuscript Alyoshi <…>, to judicial speeches of the public prosecutor and the defender, the foreword to a statement of events on court etc . Being the researcher of the human person, the historian, the philologist <…> the story-teller at the same time represents itself as the writer, the writer. Tone of the story-teller is unstable enough, he meaningly aspires to enter into sphere of a life of the hero, to start talking its language. <…> quite often the author-story-teller passes a word to heroes. <…> literary receptions of the author-story-teller play an essential role in formation of the general tone of a narration and genre features of the novel … »It is possible to add still, that to a feather of the author-story-teller belong not only the pages allocated with commentators of" Brothers Karamazovyh », but also in general all novel — a material choice, a composition etc . And, at last, about plug-in art things from «the Diary of the writer», told by Dostoevsky "another's" voice. The Hero-story-teller "Mild" declares at once categorically, that he not the writer and tells events how them understands. Dostoevsky a direct reference in the foreword on V.Gjugo's product «Last day sentenced to death» explains the unusual form "Mild". In this small story, as well as in «the Dream of the ridiculous person», it is possible to feel ispovedalnye notes, but position of storytellers on the second plan prevents to put these products abreast confessions. Heroes "Mild" and "Dream" also not for this purpose write, for what «all write» (on expression of the Teenager). The first by means of literary registration of a monologue tries to prepare the essence and by restoration and the analysis of events to understand, at last, character is unique the close and irrevocably lost person. The second the notes tries to inform to people the true opened by it. Their reference to creativity — natural and individual event in their life. At all that with the founder of the fantastic story "Bobok". It «one person» as it is represented to us, the prolific writer and the feuilletonist. Besides, it — spivshijsja the writer-loser. From the foreword of the editor (Dostoevsky) to its other product — to "Half-letter" — it is found out, that «one person» could fill up almost all editions of magazines by production of the creative itch. But, us interests "Bobok". What clears up about the author? He constantly drinks, is bilious and embittered on all literature and journalism, sells the talent on translations from French and announcements to merchants, goes to have a good time on funeral etc ., etc . In a word, it is bared and zagoljaetsja before us is not worse than heroes of the story. All biliousness in him from the restrained vanity, it as it is necessary to guess — not recognised genius, and it pulls together it with heroes who will be considered in the following chapter. That is interesting, Dostoevsky has made this cynic really defender before literary enemies (what it is mentioned in the foreword to "Half-letter") and has passed it many polemic reflexions about art, the literature and journalism. It has given the chance to Dostoevsky to point sharply the attacks against "enemies", to make these attacks extremely sarcastic. Plus to everything, it «one person» writes the products parody rublenym style «under  M.P.Pogodin», and the maintenance parodies novels Boborykina and other "strawberry" authors of that time whom Dostoevsky, as they say, on a scent hated. As a whole it – «the generalised image, type of the Petersburg feuilletonist, the writer-loser». Let's remind still, that story-tellers concern Ivan Petrovich («Humiliated and offended») and Gorjanchikov («Notes from the Dead house») about which speech already went. Dostoevsky almost in all products written from the first person, persistently underlines them oformlennost in the form of notes. It is so characteristic for it literary reception, that in "Mild" it even gives the foreword, explaining singularity of the form of product. Other writers used a narration rasskazovogo type without any explanations. Dostoevsky as though forced to write instead of itself the hero and it achieved limiting objectivity in a narration, frankness, possibility to express up to the end. Passing many similar authors-heroes the thoughts, aesthetic views, forcing them to polemize with the literary and ideological opponents, the writer had possibility, being arranged under characters of the heroes to state the belief in more pointed and giperbolizirovannoj to the form, more demonstratively. It, however, does not mean, that Dostoevsky's internal belief and its heroes-authors coincided completely. Frequently similar characters, so to say, polemized and with Dostoevsky that confirms their "independence". 5 Polemic loading is born also by satirical portraits of the writers deduced on pages of products of Dostoevsky, It held up to shame literally, exposed in comical illumination of writers, which podvizalis in a literary field with the dirty intentions, all these grabbers, liars, capitalists from the literature, podlovatyh the lacks of talent, profaning one presence a sacred temple for Dostoevsky — the Literature. Here is how, for example, the Reporter in "Demons" (in this case, undoubtedly, expressing Dostoevsky's to thought) characterises all «literary to drag this»: «It (Barbarian Petrovna Stavrogina. — N. N) has called writers, and in it them have immediately resulted in set. <…> never before it not vidyvala such writers. They were vain to impossibility, but is absolutely opened, as though that executing a duty. Others (though and it is far not all) were even drunk <…>. All of them were proud of something to strangeness. On all persons it has been written, that they now only have opened any extremely important secret. They quarrelled, making themselves it in honour. It was difficult enough to learn, what exactly they have written; but here there were critics, novelists, playwrights, satirists, exposers. <…> two-three former literary celebrities <…> Were also, but to surprise its these valid and already doubtless celebrities were meek and mild, and other of them simply clung to all this new crowd and is shameful at it fawned...» The gallery of separate portraits is opened by a figure of prolific mister Ratazjaeva from the first product of the writer. Ratazjaev, in general, does not participate in operation the novel, and appears in obrisovke naive Makara Alekseevicha Devushkina so parody paints especially brightly shine in this portrait. «ratazjaev smekaet, — dock; itself writes, uh as writes! A feather such brisk and to a syllable a precipice <…>. Objadenie, instead of the literature!.» That ingenuous certificates Devushkina also are precious, that between these from heart going dithyrambs slip the data drawing cherished secrets Ratazjaeva. It, having finished Makara Alekseevicha to delight, to the full maintains it as the copyist. Already in this first panegyric material interest on which "creativity" Ratazjaeva is based absolutely clears up. Moreover, as soon as the theme of money has been mentioned, and has slipped at Makara Alekseevicha a precious mot about Ratazjaeve: «Evasive, the right, such!.» Well and, at last, really phenomenal imagination, and simply speaking — talent for lies, reveals here. After all it is necessary to imagine, as it faced Devushkinym and, not having blinked an eye, declared, that for a writing-book of rhymes «five thousand give to it, yes it does not take...» To size up creative person Ratazjaeva and about its "talent" we will recollect only small otryvochek from it «the Italian passions":"Vladimir has shuddered, and passions without restraint zaklokotali in him, and blood has boiled... – The countess, — he has exclaimed, — the countess! Whether you how this passion how this madness is boundless is awful know? No, my dreams did not deceive me! I like, I like enthusiastically, without restraint, madly! All blood of your husband will not fill in mad, bubbling delight of my soul! Insignificant obstacles will not stop the blowing up, infernal fire ploughing my exhausted breast. 0 Zynaida, Zynaida!. — Vladimir!. — the countess out of itself has whispered, tending to it on a shoulder... — Zynaida! — has exclaimed enthusiastic Smelsky. From its breast the sigh has evaporated. The fire has flashed a bright flame on an altar of love and vzborozdil a breast of unfortunate sufferers. — Vladimir!. — the countess whispered in ecstasy. Its breast rose, its cheeks flushed, eyes burnt... New awful marriage has been made!. » Delight Makara Alekseevicha on it has not cooled down. Further in perfect admiration it writes out also a decent piece from historical opus Ratazjaeva «Ermak and Zjulejka», whether also a fragment from "ridiculous" product «you Know Ivan Prokofevicha Zheltopuza?» In production Ratazjaeva the most characteristic line similar strochkogonov — pantophagy, absence of own theme and individual handwriting, an imitation, etc. is shown . Here sparodirovany authors of pseudo-historical novels like Bulgarin, representatives of romanticism of first half XIX century and other creative directions alien to Dostoevsky. Besides, Ratazjaev has absolutely soared over the earth and the God writes knows about what, only not about the current validity, and Dostoevsky constantly underlines this line at similar authors. Following and one of the most majestic in the scantiness type — Foma Fomich Opiskin. The first stroke gives representation about its literary shape: «Said still, that once he was engaged in Moscow literaturoju. Sophisticated is not present; dirty ignorance Fomy of Fomich, of course, could not serve pomehoju to its literary career. But that was possible nothing to it …» is authentically known only In obrisovke Fomy already there is not enough irony place, its place was occupied with sarcasm and consequently, naturally, the reader cannot have a dual relation to Fome. If Ratazjaev in something it is harmless and only it is ridiculous, Opiskin it is terrible and disgusting, as a spider, in the claims not relevancy and in vindictiveness for the restrained vanity of not recognised genius. «It was once to writers and has been afflicted and is not recognised; and the literature is capable to ruin and not one Fomu Fomich — certainly, not recognised. <…> I consulted subsequently and likely I know, that Foma have really created once in Moscow romanchik, rather similar to what were cooked there in the thirtieth years annually by tens <…> It was, of course, for a long time; but the snake of literary vanity stings sometimes deeply and incurably, especially people insignificant and silly. <…> since same time, I think, and this ugly boastfulness, this thirst of praises and differences, pokloneny and udivleny …» has developed in him We only have recollected literary physiognomy Fomy which and is comprehensively disassembled and investigated for a long time in literary criticism, first of all —  J.N.Tynyanov in job «Dostoevsky and Gogol (To the parody theory)». We will notice only still, that right after "Village Stepanchikova" publications dispute has risen in the critic — whether is object of a parody in this story Gogol or only the separate moments of its creativity. It was already mentioned insincerity with which Dostoevsky Gogol reproached. It is not excluded, that it did not like also Gogol's other character traits as person and the writer, despite all respect for «the father of natural school». After all could in Dostoevsky's note writing-books appear record: «Gogol — the genius giant, but after all it and tup, as the genius», – speaking very much about much. But, certainly, between Fomoj and Gogol — the vastest precipice. First of all, Opiskin — the generalised and picturesque portrait of those not recognised geniuses, a name which — a legion. One of similar grafomanov — Andrey Antonovich background Lembke, the governor of those places where events of "Demons" are developed. At school, in the latest year «it began to scribble Russian rhymes». Then "Lembka", having directed the basic efforts to an ascension on an office ladder, has not thrown, however, secret employment by writing and already being sanovitym the official «on the quiet from the heads has sent there was a story in edition of one magazine, but it was printed». Not having despaired, persistent background Lembke has sat down for the thick novel about which maintenance it is possible to make full representation on Peter Verhovenskogo's critical response. It is necessary to remind, probably, that the criticism expresses directly in eyes far not bleshchushchemu mind to the author, and besides Peter Stepanovichu during this moment it is necessary to cajole the governor by all means: «— Two nights in succession did not sleep on your favour. <…> and how much to humour at you napihano, laughed loudly. <…> well, there in the ninth, the tenth, it is all about love, not my business; effectively, however <…> Well, and for the end simply would beat you. After all you that spend? After all same former obogotvorenie family happiness, augmentation of children, capitals, began to live-be yes is kind to acquire, pardon! The reader will fascinate, because even I could not come off, yes after all the more nasty. The reader is silly still, followed to its clever people part forcibly, and you...» In effect, under Peter Verhovenskogo's sneer Dostoevsky's serious thought disappears. As well as in a life this background Lembke is far from the validity, at all does not understand occurring events, and in the fictional opuses he composes a life, apparently, on templates for a long time the left romanticism and sentimentalism. Stepan Trofimovich Verhovensky was the romanticist in due time also. The reporter on the first pages gives out it with a head — it appears, that in a youth has composed a poem, moreover and with "direction". From parody retelling of a poem by the Reporter it becomes clear, that here Dostoevsky has derided the whole direction in romanticism (products Pecherina, Granovsky, Rastopchinoj, Tikhomirov …). Stepan Trofimovich sincerely considers itself as the revolutionary poet — still, after all a poem have found «then opasnoju» though it, under the witty remark of the Reporter, only went «on hands, in lists, between two fans and at one student». Anton Lavrentevich (Reporter) has suggested it to print now «for sovershennoju it, presently, by innocence», but Stepan Trofimovicha even was offended by similar opinion on its child. The tendentiousness, filling "Demons", Dostoevsky did not deny. Here and in image of vain Stepan Trofimovicha it karikaturno has represented those liberals (not only poets) which, in its understanding, have made for the best future of Russia on a penny, and the award on rouble (for such people, as the senior Verhovensky, and persecutions from the government – the original award, a recognition of their importance) expect; those poets who considered, that the main thing in their creativity "direction", and it, say, it is more important than literary advantages. For completeness of the characteristic Verhovensky-senior and understanding of the ironical relation to it from Dostoevsky it is impossible to forget, that Stepan Trofimovich — "Westerner" of 40th years, the representative of ideological opponents of the writer - "pochvennika". Even more malicious Dostoevsky also has caustically derided similar type of figures in an image of other hero of the novel — Karmazinova. Taking for a basis person Turgeneva (we will underline — as saw and Dostoevsky represented him) and it is extreme sharzhirovav it, the author of "Demons" has drawn a portrait of the writer unscrupulous, vain and become outdated in the creative plan. By the way, the first pamphlet hint on Turgeneva can be seen in the story «Uncle's dream», in an image of the old prince which all tears «to write down one new thought», itself for a long time and hopelessly having lagged behind from a life. Understands nothing in occurring round catastrophic events and Karmazinov though considers itself as the advanced figure and the artist. «The great writer» him calls, for example, Liputin, and Barbarian Petrovna Stavrogina a minute of an angry condition of spirit, on the contrary, calls «nadutoj a creature». But we will address better to rather quiet and objective judgements of the Reporter. And, having begun about Karmazinove, Anton Lavrentevich states further a terrible estimation in general to representatives of the similar category of writers: «Karmazinova I read since the childhood. Its stories and stories are known to all past and even to present generation; I revelled in them, they were pleasure of my adolescence and my youth. Then I have a little grown cold to its feather, to lead with a direction which he all wrote recently, to me any more so have liked, as the first <…> Generally speaking if I will dare to express and my opinion in such ticklish business, all these our misters talents of an average hand accepted, as usual, during lifetime of them almost for geniuses, — not only disappear nearly completely and somehow suddenly from memory of people when die, but happens, what even during lifetime of them, hardly the new generation replacing at what they operated only will grow up, — are forgotten and neglected all incomprehensibly soon. <…> about, here at all that with Pushkinymi, Gogols, Molieres, Volterami, with all these figures, coming to tell the new word! The truth and that, as these misters talents of an average hand, on a slope of the respectable years, ordinary at us are used up by the most pity image, absolutely even not noticing that … » And more one most characteristic detail will appear in the place: «the Great writer painfully trembled before novejsheju revoljutsionnoju youth …» It is interesting to note in this connection rapprochement by Dostoevsky in literary plan Karmazinova both background Lembke. And the used up writer and not taken place — both search a reader's recognition at a front line, in their opinion, youth in person Peter Verhovenskogo. Also what? Over both respectable (on age) writers this "demon" makes the same joke: ostensibly loses their precious manuscripts. Then, having taken pleasure in their equally painful fright, Petrusha to one (governor) in eyes derides its cooking, to another answers with scornful hushing up that is still incomparable obidnee. Masterpieces Karmazinova in parody transposition of the Reporter are known enough and consequently we will recollect only, that such qualities of "the great writer», as here are again derided: life misunderstanding, peacockery, insincerity, the pomposity, the exaggerated vanity, self-conceit and vanity. Essentially and that Karmazinov does not like Russia, it is indifferent to the people: «For my century of Europe will suffice …», — here its platform, absolutely unacceptable to Dostoevskys. And more one charge is shown Karmazinovu which, probably, anybody, except as Dostoevsky, could not state: «I Declare in advance: I admire greatness of the genius; but to what these misters our geniuses in the end of the nice years arrive sometimes absolutely as little boys? Well what it Karmazinov also left with osankoju five chamberlains? Unless it is possible to keep on one article such public, how ours, the whole hour? In general I have rebuked, that be razgeny, but in public easy literary reading it is impossible to occupy with myself public more than twenty minutes with impunity …» to Dostoevsky, as is known, on readings not only it was possible «to occupy with impunity with myself public», but also siloju the true genius of the writer and the preacher to bewitch public though on an hour, though on three... The exhibit following on turn of this original kunstkamery concerns a clan of poets and too "lives" in "Demons". This novel as it is visible, is really extremely densely occupied by prose writers and poets, is direct — the creativity House to Peredelkino. It is a question of captain Lebjadkine, the homebrew poet. Its creativity on novel pages is presented extraordinary widely, more any hero-poet Dostoevsky has not received similar honour. Main line Lebjadkina is that, that poezy it condenses the from alcohol steams and as it is drunk there is for 24 hours a day, and neudivitelna its such excessive fruitfulness. It strews verses literally. Not having possibility to result its creativity in full volume (and how much in Dostoevsky's draught writing-books remains!), we will recollect only its one "fable" with own lebjadkinskim the comment: «Veins on light a cockroach, Cockroach from the childhood, Also has then got to a glass, Full muhoedstva... The place was occupied with a cockroach, Flies vozroptali. ²polon very much our glass ², – To Jupiter have cried. But while they had a shout, Has approached Nikifor, Bla-go-rodnejshy the old man... Here at me it is not finished yet, but all the same, words! – the captain cracked. — Nikifor takes a glass and, despite shout, splashes out in a wash-tub all comedy, and flies and a cockroach, that for a long time it was necessary to make. But notice, notice, the madam, a cockroach does not grumble! <…> as to to Nikifora it represents the nature, — it has added a tongue twister and is self-satisfied came on a room … » All intolerableness of the Lebjadkina-poet consists that he not simply is engaged rhymed slovobludiem, but also thirsts to be heard, terrorises public "talent" up to scandals as there was it on literary evening in favour of governesses. Dostoevsky in the image of this poet as if has predicted the whole invasion similar lebjadkinyh on Russian literature in the XX-th century beginning when scandalousness has become a signboard of various avant-gardists from poetry. Dostoevsky thanks to gift of the seer has managed to see and show this, then just arising type of the poet. There live in Dostoevsky's world some more professional and homebrew poets who are united just by that they have no right to be ranked as poets. In "Idiot", for example, it is by the way mentioned one poetics on which and it would be not necessary to stop attention as he does not play any role in action development, but, representing it, Dostoevsky in brackets results the passing judgement drawing still on the one hand type of writers, especially intolerant it: «Here (at Epanchinyh. — N. N) There was, at last, even one writer-poet, from Germans, but Russian poet, and, moreover, absolutely decent so it was possible without fear to enter it in a good society. It was a happy exterior, though for some reason a little disgusting <…>. Once it has translated any important composition of any important German poet from German, in verses was able to devote the transfer, was able to brag of friendship with one well-known, but died Russian poet (there is a whole layer of the writers, extremely liking to be attributed pechatno in friendship to great, but to the died writers) … » Later, in «the Diary of the writer», Dostoevsky will write about it extremely extended and today custom in a literary world. The image of the homebrew poet from "Village Stepanchikova" — footman Vidopljasova is rather picturesque. Its poetic gift is characterised in the story by enthusiastic colonel Rostanyov. As he said, at Vidopljasova «the present verses», that it «immediately any subject verses will describe», what is it «the present talent», that at it in verses «muses fly» and that, at last, «it before all domestics after verses has lifted up before a nose, what and to speak with them does not want». He under the protection of Fomy Opiskina quite seriously intends to publish the book under the name... «Cries Vidopljasova», but the ambitious author is afraid of sneers at a surname and demands respectfully that «in compliance with talent, and the surname was improved». But to "poet" does not carry: for short term it becomes serially Oleandrovym, Tjulpanovym, Correct, Ulanovym, Tantsevym and even Essbuketovym, but the domestics despised by it persistently selects completely not noble rhymes to the next "improved" surname... You will involuntarily think, that it is possible to carry ordinary enough surname Pushkin and to be the genius, and it is possible to be Essbuketovym, «to rhyme any subject», but to remain the footman both in a life, and in the literature. Such poets derided by Dostoevsky, worry about everything, only not about that is whether there is at them a talent? Only that the enormous image Fomy Opiskina has shaded Vidopljasova, and it is possible to explain, apparently, that paradox, that the name of this footman-poet did not become nominal. In a comical kind Dostoevsky in «the Nasty joke» has exposed separate so-called poets-exposers of that time. Meaning by "Brand"  N.A.Stepanova and  V.S.Kurochkin's satirical magazine    "Spark", the writer deduces in a scene of wedding at Pseldonimova the employee of this edition who arrogantly looks and independently sniffs, and then, having got drunk, threatens all in "Brand" tomorrow okarikaturit. Dostoevsky, undoubtedly, has exaggerated, representing this employee of "Brand" and an error will think, that he means, for example, Kurochkin. No, Dostoevsky has drawn a caricature on figures sticking to "direction" who, anything for "direction" not having made, only vulgarised it. It is impossible to forget, that Dostoevsky, polemizing with opponents from other ideological camp, never refused to them in respect if felt their sincerity and conviction. It severely derided unscrupulous "prishlyopnikov", using "direction" as a signboard and self-advertisement. In some sharzhirovannoj ("Idiot") Dostoevsky has shown to a figure of general Ivolgina the representative of numerous group of memoirists — authors of "Memoirs" and "Notes" in whom without effort it is possible to notice substitution of the historical truth by fiction of the author presented with imagination. Believe, do not believe, and I saw it own eyes, therefore I write — here the base of similar authors. Naive prince Myshkin, having listened to all long and "sensitive" story Ivolgina about it ostensibly to a meeting with Napoleon, sincerely exclaims, what is it costs uvekovechivanija on a paper. In the answer of the general, in two phrases, Dostoevsky opens all its essence: «— My notes, — he has said with the doubled pride, — to write my notes? Has not tempted me it, the prince! If want, my notes are already written, but... Lay at me in a lectern. Let, when eyes the earth will fill up to me, let then will appear and, undoubtedly, will be translated and to other languages, not on their literary advantage, no, but on importance of the vastest facts which I was the obvious witness though also the child …» Confidence of that literary talent business the tenth, and the main thing the facts, and expectation of "monuments" at least after death — are that ivolginy. Writers always was and is, maybe, more than them it is required in a life, and in the last century the name it was also – a legion. In Dostoevsky's products the insignificant characters who are engaged in the literature more often flash, or is informed on that and volume, that it subsists on writing. For example, about Stepan Mihajloviche Bagautove («the Eternal husband») it is told only, that it «had resolute propensity to the literature, even one in magazine has sent the passionate story». Here only on an ironical epithet it is possible to guess art advantages of this "story". Some people are convinced, that there is nothing easier, than to be the writer — took a paper, a feather and, please, compose. Here and Alyosha Valkovsky in «Humiliated and offended» fondly admits to Ivan Petrovichu: «... I wish to write stories and to sell in magazines, as well as you. <…> I counted on you and yesterday all night long considered one novel so, for test, and whether know: there could be a very nice bagatelle. A plot I took from one comedy Skriba...» Have noticed? As well as Dostoevsky's many similar heroes, future "writer" not from a current life intends to scoop plots, and at once from the literature. However, to honour Alyoshi, it had enough mind to think suddenly: «And however, you, apparently, also are right: I after all know nothing in the valid life <…> what I there will be a writer?.» Gold words! Among sharp Dostoevsky's villains there is a group of representatives of the press of that time. The active publicist, the editor, the critic, Dostoevsky well saw all defects of then roughly developing journalism. The big role in obrisovke was played these images also by the polemic purposes which Dostoevsky achieved. Here, for example, certain Bezmygin from «Humiliated and offended». It the main ideologist of circle Lyovenki and Borenki. If to agree with commentators of 3rd volume, that in this circle looks through similarity (certainly, in comical refraction) with a circle of "Contemporary" of the beginning of 1860th years in Bezmygine it is possible to see a hint on Dobrolyubov. In choking retelling Alyoshi Valkovsky speeches and sayings Bezmygina, «an ingenious head», sound a parody to articles of the leading critic of "Contemporary". «On further as yesterday he has told to conversation: the fool who has confessed, that it the fool, is any more the fool! Such sayings at it constantly. It strews trues …» And further Alyosha with delight tells, that under the influence of Bezmygina they have decided to be engaged «in studying of separately, and all together to interpret each other each other... — That for nonsense! », — the prince Valkovsky screams, having listened, and this exclamation expresses Dostoevsky's opinion on some ideas in Dobrolyubov's articles. It is similar "golovyoshkintsu" from «the Nasty joke» the hero-journalist from a "Crime and punishment" is necessary. It was described to the original languages by the proprietress of the public house Louise (Laviza) Ivanovna. Already on a known saying, more correctly, contrary to it, the place where this character operates in the novel, eloquently paints it. Having got drunk in a brothel (it is interesting to notice in passing, that almost all negative heroes-writers at Dostoevsky most of, as is known, not taking out wine, are drunkards), it not only that has started to get up to nasty things and obscenities up to that «in a window as a small pig vizzhal», but as the respectable lady has told, besides and to threaten the beginnings: «I, govoril, on you big satires gedrjukt will be, therefore I in all newspapers can about you all sochinil …» Will add to this generalised portrait of "scum" of journalism of the last century pair of unattractive details even two images from late novels of the writer. In "Idiot" to retinue Rogozhina it was beat on the Neva prospectus «any dissolute starichishka, in due time were to editors any zabuldyzhnoj an accusatory newspaper and about which there was a joke, that it has put in pawn and has spent on drink the plug-in teeth on gold». Again "accusatory" also "has again spent on drink"! And in "teenager" near to Arcady on a roulette «was located all time gnilenky, frantik, I think, from zhidkov; he, however, somewhere participates, something even writes and prints». But the written most out figures among journalists are — Keller from "Idiot" and Rakitin from «Brothers Karamazovyh». Already first our meeting with Keller recommends it enough: rogozhinskaja the company has picked up it as «dissolute starichishku», in the street, where it «stopped passers-by and a syllable Marlinsky asked vspomozhenija». We also become know, that it the boxer, to these and it is interesting, and in publicism operates with boxing methods — the main thing to beat and beat. And it beats. In "comic" article «Proletarians and offsprings, an episode from day and vsednevnyh robberies!», which is resulted in the novel in detailed retelling, it so "beats" prince Myshkin «lie cobble-stones» that be on a place of the prince other person would not sustain — was hung up. This opus has turned out such, precisely, by well-aimed definition of general Ivolgina, «fifty footmen together were going to to compose and have composed». Still opredelyonnee Ippolit Terentyev characterises Keller and its product: «... Has written indecently, it agree, he has written with gross spelling mistakes and a syllable to which write same, as well as, retired. It is silly and, moreover, the industrialist …» And much adds to own creative portrait the author, confirming loudly the principles: «As to to some discrepancies, so to say, hyperboles agree and that first of all the initiative is important, first of all the purpose and intention <…> and, at last, here a syllable, here, so to say, a comic problem, and, at last, — all so write, agree! Ha-ha!.» In effect, Keller can be understood somehow and involuntarily to justify: it is silly, it the industrialist ( i.e. The handicraftsman), and it is sincerely assured, that all so write. So to say, a typical child entering then owing to selling bourgeois journalism. In a life it even the person not absolutely bad, observing, though and is false understood, association rules. By the way, it unique of all rogozhinskogo crowd has stood up for Ippolita after its unsuccessful attempt of suicide and protected it from sneers. In comparison with Keller it is necessary to recognise as original Goliath its "colleague" Rakitina. This mister is incomparably more enormous as a predator. First, it has what any a mind and even a certain sort talantishko, that presumes to reach to it corresponding and considerable heights in journalism, that is to become «the master of thoughts» considerable quantity of readers. Secondly, its basic efforts are directed not on hapanie money by means of a feather (though also it, as they say, takes place), and on career making, that is, besides, on achievement of heights and the authorities. And, thirdly, he more strongly Keller is convinced, that the purpose justifies any means and more consistently uses this gold rule of Jesuits. Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov has got to the core at once Rakitina, and that, retelling Alyoshe this characteristic, in general, does not challenge it: «... By all means I will leave to Petersburg and I will adjoin thick magazine, it is indispensable to criticism branch, I will write years of tens, and, eventually, I will translate magazine to myself. Then again it I will publish and it is indispensable in a liberal and atheistic direction, with a socialist shade <…>, but, being on the alert, that is, in effect, holding our and your and taking away eyes to fools …» Yes, Rakitin even considers for superfluous to hide, that it konjunkturshchik and selling double-faced rubbish. However, he slightly trusovat, is afraid of opinion of "society" and consequently when on court suddenly prinarodno it was found out, what it has published broshjurku «Life in boze pochivshego the aged man of father Zosimy» (by the way, whether plagiarism is Alexey Karamazov's notes?!), moreover and with pious dedication preosvjashchennomu (and it «the advanced young man»!) Rakitin, despite all impudence, has been taken aback"and it has started to be justified« almost with shame »Here this word"almost"very much about much speaks. About style and creative method Rakitina gives representation a characteristic phrase which do not understand Alyosha, Dmitry and which has shaken the last just by "thoughtful senselessness»: «to resolve this question, it is necessary to put first of all the person in a cut with svoeju the validity …» That interestingly, Rakitin it ogovarivaetsja-is justified exactly on-kellerovski: «All <…> so now write, because such environment …» But also it yet all. Rakitin "is so great", that except Keller has incorporated also captain Lebjadkina with all its poetic giblets. Dmitry tells: «Verses are written too by the rascal <…> ²a all the same, speaks, it is better than your Pushkin has written, because and in shutovskoj the rhyme has managed civil grief vsuchit ². <…> yes after all was proud stishonkami as! Vanity at them, vanity! ²na recover of a sick leg of my subject ² is it such title has thought up — the quick person! What it is a leg, Leg, swollen a little bit! Doctors to it go, treat, Both bandage, and will cripple... »(15, 29) It is not necessary to result this creation completely as on the first stanza it is possible to judge him as a whole and even to assume (knowing nature Rakitina), that this "masterpiece" is simply stolen at any skotoprigonevskogo Lebjadkina. In completion of essence Rakitina we will recollect, that its article in the newspaper "Hearings" (it is resulted in retelling of the storyteller) from the beginning and is up to the end written by the ink dissolved on frank lie and peredyorgivanii of the facts, and, plus to everything, it is capable of frank treachery — sells Alyoshu Karamazov Grushenke for twenty five srebrenikov. As about it it is told in the novel: «... There was it the person serious and without the purpose favourable to undertook nothing …» On it the portrait gallery of literary monsters in Dostoevsky's products comes to an end. 6 In January release of "the Diary of the writer» for 1877 Dostoevsky wrote: «All our critics (and I watch the literature nearly forty years), both died, and present, in a word, which I only will remember all, hardly only began, now or happened, any report on current Russian literature, slightly more solemnly (before, for example, there were in magazines annual January reports for all expired year), — that always used, more or less, but with great love, all the same phrase: ²v our time, when the literature in such decline ², ²v our time, when Russian literature in such stagnation ², ²v our literary bezvremenie ², ²stranstvuja in deserts of Russian literature ², etc ., etc . On one thousand frets the same thought. And, in effect, these forty years Pushkin's last products were, Gogol has begun and has come to an end, there was Lermontov, ten were Ostrovsky, Turgenev, Goncharov and more the person, at least, pretalantlivyh fiction writers …» At once we will notice, that Dostoevsky from clear modesty has not switched on in this nice list of and for some reason L.Tolstoy, however, and without this critic of criticism beats, as they say, the cap fits. But, at first sight, Dostoevsky can return its own reproach. It creating numerous images of "grey" writers and a parody to their creativity, too in this case it is possible to consider as the original critic. Also there is a thought, that he also saw in Russian literature, in general, "desert" on which any insects like Opiskina potter about, Ratazjaeva, Rakitina... But it not so. Will tell more correctly, that Dostoevsky paid attention first of all to the negative phenomena in the literature. He struggled for Russian literature, specified in its illnesses, thus recognising (especially in publicism) all that great and talented, that appeared in it. In this question the passionate, polemic orientation of creativity of Dostoevsky which all creative life conducted continuous struggle against literary opponents has huge value also. Essentially and that Dostoevsky's heroes-writers are allocated first of all by universal negative lines. Having branded in them vanity, a worship for money, a servility, negligibility, excessive vanity, nonsense, dirty ignorance, unscrupulousness, peacockery, isolation from the validity, impudence, lie, drunkenness etc . Etc ., Dostoevsky has not without reason made their writers is has even more brightly shaded those qualities which were hated to Dostoevsky in any person. We will recollect its characteristic judgement; «to Imagine, what would be, if Lev Tolstoi, Goncharov would appear disgraceful? What temptation, what cynicism and as many would be tempted. Will tell: ²esli these... And t. d.² …» Dostoevsky was proud of a rank of Russian writer, constantly thought of own reputation, about honour observance in the creativity. In autoportrait and close to on spirit heroes it has embodied the representations about the true writer, and anything is not present surprising that as model for these images its own creative person has served. As a whole, all heroes-writers, their images, give the chance to present its sights at Russian literature, its aesthetic views, help to understand Dostoevsky-artist's essence more deeply. 1982    <<<(P. 1)
çç ● èè
© Rosedkin Sergey Nikolaevich, 2001
E-mail: emp-reports@fustercluck.com