Author's modality. Author image

No matter how important is the study of speech organization of the text (identification of the main units of text, ways of presentation), this study cannot be complete and adequate if one ignores such a concept as author’s modality that holds all text units together into a single meaning and structural whole.

The modality at the level of a sentence-statement is studied sufficiently and is usually defined as a category expressing the speaker's attitude to the content of the statement (subjective modality) and the attitude of the latter to reality (objective modality). In the first case, the modality is created by specific modal words, particles, interjections ( fortunately, unfortunately, alas, and others); in the second case, the modality is created primarily by the inclination of the verbs and the words expressing the meaning of the statement, possibilities, wishes, orders, etc. The objective modality, in fact, reflects how the speaker (author) qualifies reality as real or unreal, possible, desired and etc. Thus, the modality is implemented at the lexical, grammatical and intonational level.

However, the category of modality can be moved beyond the bounds of the sentence-statement — into the text and the speech situation [1]. Then the pragmatics of this category significantly expands and the act of communication itself comes to the fore, i.e. relationship between author and reader.

The perception of the author's personality through the forms of its embodiment in the text is a bidirectional process. It is focused on the relationship between the author and the reader. The modality of the text is the expression in the text of the attitude of the author to the person being reported, his concept, point of view, position, his value orientations, formulated for the sake of communicating to the reader.

This author's assessment of the depicted is always associated with the search for adequate means of expression. The ways of expressing this attitude and assessments may be different, selective for each author and type of text, they are motivated and targeted. Thus, there is always some kind of non-speech task above the choice of these methods, the implementation of which creates its own modality of the text. The general modality as an expression of the attitude of the author to the communicated forces one to perceive the text not as the sum of separate units, but as a whole work. Such perception is not based on the consideration of the qualities of individual speech units, but on the establishment of their functions as part of the whole. In this case, the personal attitude of the author is perceived as “a concentrated embodiment of the essence of the work, uniting the entire system of speech structures ...” (V. Vinogradov).

Thus, the text cannot be understood narrowly, only as a formal organization of subject-rhematic sequences (combination of statements). The text really consists of these sequences, but it is something more: the text is the unity of the formal and meaningful elements, taking into account the author’s goal, the intention of the author, the conditions of communication and personal orientation of the author - scientific, intellectual, social, moral, aesthetic, etc.

The concept of the “image of the author”, a constructive feature of the text, is closely related to the category of modality. This concept has long been known philological science. Particular attention was paid to V.V. Vinogradov in the 30s of XX century. Many have turned to this concept, but so far there is no complete clarity.

The concept of “the image of the author” is highlighted when identifying and isolating other concepts, more specific and specific - the producer of speech, the subject of the story. The peak of this ascent is the image of the author. A speech producer is a subject of narration - an image of an author - such hierarchical dissection helps to comprehend the essence of the sought concept, i.e. image of the author. The first concept in this series - the producer of speech (the real producer of speech) - hardly causes different interpretations. This is obvious: every text, literary work is created, “created” by a specific person. Any article in the newspaper, essay, feuilleton; Any scientific work, as well as a work of art, is written by someone, sometimes in co-authorship (for example, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, etc.).

However, the real author (producer of speech), starting to write, has a definite goal or task: either he sets himself this task, or receives it from outside (for example, a newspaper correspondent). From this point on, creativity begins: under the pressure of vital material (ideas, content that have already been formed in the mind, in the imagination), the author searches, gropes for the corresponding form, i.e. form of presentation of this material. How to write? Identifying his personal beginning or hiding it, moving away from what was written, as if it was not his author at all, a creation. For a journalist who writes a frontline, for example, there are few worries in this sense - he has to organize his writing in such a way as to create the impression that he did not write: this is a representation of the editorial board’s opinion (appropriate speech forms of detachment from his text are chosen). The author of a scientific essay often hides behind a modest “we” ( we suppose; it seems to us , etc.), or avoids any indication at all of the connection with his personality, using the impersonal form of presentation of the material. So, from the point of view of the author, the creator of the text, the degree of objectivity of the stated opinion is enhanced. The third category of scientists does not hide their “I” and often, in this case, as if looking for an opponent to their own opinion. Even any official document has its immediate creator, however, in the sense of the presentation form, it is completely removed from its text. Thus, through the form of presentation, the subject of the narrative is created (the immediate “I”, the collective author, the detached person, etc.). And the immediate author (the subject on whose behalf the text is proposed) each time appears as the narrator, then as the author, the descriptor, as the author, the “explanator,” and others. “The form of authorship” is always the required category. Only in some cases, these searches result in a complex creative process, as, for example, in fiction, and in others, it is more predetermined by the genre and type of text, as, for example, in a scientific and especially official text.

The most difficult, painful are the search for a form of presentation of the subject of the narrative, of course, in a work of art. Here, the producer of speech, the real author (writer) literally finds himself in the grip: the vital material chosen according to his interest presses on him, the desire to find the most vivid and convincing form of his embodiment, his moral attitude to the event, the vision of the world, finally, he cannot free himself from their addictions.

Known, for example, flour F. Dostoevsky when determining the form of the subject of the story when creating the "Teenager": from the author or from the "I"? Almost half a year Dostoevsky was tormented by the question - how to write a novel. Yu. Karjakin, who investigated this question, counted about 50 statements by Dostoevsky on this subject. And this was by no means a search for "pure form." This was a deeply substantive question. It was the path to artistic and spiritual development [2]. “From me or from the author?” Dostoevsky reflects. “From me - more original and more love, and artistry is more required, and terribly bold, and shorter, and easier to arrange, and clearer the character of a teenager as the main person ... But won't this originality bother the reader? And most importantly, the basic thoughts of the novel - can the 20-year-old writer be naturally and fully expressed? ”And further:“ From I, from I, from I! ”Again the doubt:“ The rough and impudent tone of the teenager at the beginning of the notes should change in the last parts. It was not in vain that I sat down to write, I became brightened in spirit, and now I feel brighter and more faithful ... ”So all the same“ from I or not? ”And, finally, the decision:“ From I ”. Dostoevsky painfully, for a long time searched for this form, spent the thinnest work to uncover the feat of the Teenager, the feat of his confession-diary.

No less difficult (writes EA Ivanchikov [3]), the search for the embodiment of the narrative subject in another F. Dostoevsky's novel “The Idiot” was in progress. It combines two narrative layers, embodied in two subjects of the narrative - the conditional narrator and the undeclared author. Everything that is subject to external observation (action, scenes, appearance) is conducted on behalf of the narrator. In disclosing the inner world, the author himself enters the narration. The form of the narration with the two-subject author creates the effect of three-dimensionality of the image of the human world as the center of artistic reality. Sometimes the author's voice sounds directly (in the discourse on epilepsy, on the extreme degree of tension, on "strange dreams"). In disclosing the state of mind of Prince Myshkin, the author is as close as possible to his hero, he perceives what is around him with his eyes. In the author's story breaks the voice of this hero - in the form of improperly direct speech.

Both of these narrative forms often coexist within the same paragraph. Narration with such a forked, two-subject author is not always characterized by a distinct recording of transitions between the narration from the author and the narrator.

In Dostoevsky’s texts, not only the author himself usually narrates, but also his deputy, the fictitious narrator. In The Possessed, for example, this is an officially announced chronicler, he is also the actor. In other cases, it is the hidden second narrator.

Other writers choose other, consonant forms of narration. It is known, for example, that Flaubert avoided the use of the pronouns “I”, “me”. He says heroes. It is not like at all. He disappeared into his heroes, reincarnated in them, and what happens to the hero is painfully experienced by the author himself (an example is the writing of the poisoning scene of Madame Bovary, when Flaubert felt all the signs of this poisoning, and he had to resort to the help of a doctor).

So, the narrative is chosen, but already being chosen, found, constructed by means of speech that can embody it, create it (from the first person — the author’s “I” or character’s character; from a fictional person; detached; impersonal, etc.). C. Dickens, O. Balzac were constantly present in their works. F. Dostoevsky, N. Gogol resort to a kind of digressions in order to directly, directly convey their thoughts. In another case, it is important that the author does not overshadow, does not replace with himself the “subject”, so that he speaks clearly to the “reader” [4]. For L. Tolstoy, in particular, it is important that the author “only stood slightly outside the subject” in order to constantly doubt whether this is subjective or objective.

Such a difference in the representation of the subject of the narration, in the choice of the form (speech, of course, first of all) of this representation and lays the foundation for building the image of the author . This is the highest form of individualization of authorship in the “producer of speech - subject of narration - the image of the author” gradation. Such differentiation will help avoid confusion and displacement of these related concepts.

To understand the image of the author, it is necessary to clarify some specifics of this object. And it, in particular, is directly related to the disclosure of the essence of the concept of accuracy. Accuracy is a prerequisite for scientific definitions and explanations. However, the accuracy itself is different in different sciences. Thus, accuracy in literary studies should be understood separately; We are interested in literary criticism to the extent that the concept of the image of the author originated in the depths of philology, and narrowly in literary criticism. And initially it was applied only in relation to fiction (Academician VV Vinogradov). Here the requirement of accuracy is not absolute, in any case, it raises the question of the degree of permissible accuracy.

The fact is that the concept of the image of the author, being inaccurate from the point of view of the exact sciences, turns out to be sufficiently accurate for literary criticism if we accept the idea of ​​the special nature of accuracy in artistic creation. The image of the author, naturally, is created in a literary work by means of speech, since without a verbal form there is no work itself, but this image is created by the reader. He is in the field of perception, perception, of course, given by the author, and not always given by the author’s will. It is precisely because the image of the author is more related to the sphere of perception, and not to material expression, difficulties arise in the accuracy of the definition of this concept. Although, of course, the image of the author is going on based on the structure of the text. By the way, there are a lot of such concepts that are difficult to be detected and defined, although there are undoubtedly existing ones, in science, for example, to take the same subtext.

V.B. Kataev in the article “On the formulation of the problem of the image of the author” made an important remark: “To see the possibility of only a linguistic description of the image of the author would be incorrect. The human essence of the author is reflected in the elements, which, being expressed through language, are not linguistic ”[5].

This remark was quite important. Of course, the image of the author should be sought “in the principles and laws of the verbal-artistic construction” (according to VV Vinogradov), but the image of the author, like the deeper meaning of the work, is more perceived, guessed, reproduced than read in the materially presented verbal signs ( Wed different reading of the artwork - by different people, in different eras). By the way, V.V. Vinogradov, although he argues with VB Kataev, subtly analyzing the artistic fabric of the works, revealing this “human essence of the author” through artistic speech, sculpted it, i.e. co-created, co-authored.

So, the human essence of the author, the identity of the author. How does it manifest itself in the work, through what structural and substantial indicators is the reader perceived?

To reinforce this idea of ​​the human nature of the author, we present several excerpts, statements regarding the manifestation of the author’s personality in his work, his relationship to what is depicted in the work.

“The Creator is always depicted in creation and often against his will” (NM Karamzin).

“Each writer, to a certain extent, depicts himself in his writings, often against his will” (V. Goethe).

“Every work of art is always the true mirror of its creator, and no one can disguise its nature in it” (V. V. Stasov).

“In any work of art, great or small, down to the smallest, everything comes down to a concept” (V. Goethe).

“The most original writers of modern times are original not because they present something new to us, but because they know how to speak about things as if it was never said before” (V. Goethe).

“The creativity of the most talented author necessarily reflects his personality, because the artistic creativity lies in the fact that the external objective material is processed, quite individually, by the artist’s psyche” (V. Borovsky).

"... Any selection - and the selection made by the television camera itself, and even before the selection, dictated by the plan of the future broadcast, not to mention the subsequent abbreviations, editing and commenting text - gives the result, no matter how hard, not accurate and correct cast from life itself, what it really is, but only a cast from your idea of ​​it - about what is important in it, worthy of attention and fixation on film, and what is secondary and insignificant. And if this is so, then the screen always carries with it the danger of giving out your idea of ​​the truth of life for the whole truth, for life itself, and at best it will be just a likeness of truth, no more ... ”(Julio Edlis. Entraction) [ 6].

As you can see, we are talking about the author's individuality, its manifestation in the work. Perhaps it comes closest to the concept of the image of the author. The image of the author is “an expression of the artist’s personality in his creation” (according to VV Vinogradov). Often this is called differently: subjectivization, i.e. the creative consciousness of the subject in his relation to objective reality.

The subject of speech may be the author himself, the narrator, the narrator, the publisher, various characters. However, all this is combined, highlighted by the author's attitude - ideological, moral, social, aesthetic. This personal relation to the subject of the image embodied in the speech structure of the text is the image of the author, the cement that unites all elements of the text into a single whole. L.N. Tolstoy wrote: “Cement, which binds every artistic work into one whole and therefore produces the illusion of life reflection, is not the unity of persons and positions, but the unity of the author’s original moral attitude to the subject” [7].

Concentrating this, in essence, thought, V.V. Vinogradov wrote: “The image of the author ... the center, the focus in which all stylistic techniques of the works of verbal art intersect and unite, are synthesized” [8]. The image of the author is not the subject of speech, often he is not even named in the structure of the work. Это «концентрированное воплощение сути произведения» (В.В. Виноградов) или «нравственное самобытное отношение автора к предмету изложения» (Л. Толстой) естественно в словесном произведении создается через словесные построения. Для А. Чехова, например, проблема образа автора трансформируется в «субъективность стиля». Л. Толстой писал: «Во всяком художественном произведении важнее, ценнее и всего убедительнее для читателя собственное отношение к жизни автора и все то в произведении, что написано на это отношение. Цельность художественного произведения заключается не в единстве замысла, не в обработке действующих лиц, а в ясности и определенности того отношения самого автора к жизни, которое пропитывает все произведение»[9].

It is possible to give such a definition: the personal attitude to the subject of the image, embodied in the speech structure of the text (work), is the image of the author.

Определение образа автора «как семантико-стилистического центра литературного произведения» оказывается научно перспективным и применительно к текстам иной функционально-стилевой ориентации, не только художественным, ибо организация речевых средств для передачи любого содержания (научного, эстетического) всегда осуществляется интерпретационно, авторски однонаправленно. Каждый авторский текст характеризуется общим, избираемым способом организации речи, избираемым часто неосознанно, так как этот способ присущ личности, именно он и выявляет личность. В одних случаях это открытый, оценочный, эмоциональный строй речи; в других – отстраненный, скрытый: объективность и субъективность, конкретность и обобщенность-отвлеченность, логичность и эмоциональность, сдержанная рассудочность и эмоциональная риторичность – вот качества, характеризующие способ организации речи. Через способ мы узнаем автора, отличаем, например, А. Чехова от Л. Толстого, А. Платонова от В. Тендрякова и т.д. Создается индивидуальный, неповторимый образ автора, или, точнее, image of his style, idiostil.

Especially actively subjective beginning of the author in poetry. Here is the image of the soul of the poet, living spontaneity, momentary movement of the soul. Hence the main genre of the poetic work - lyrical poems. The image of the lyrical hero obscures everything, the lyrical hero talks to himself. The conditional addressee is - nature, objects, humanity as a whole. But it is always a conversation for yourself, for self-expression. Lyrical poetry is the realm of subjectivity. In the epic literature it can be like this: as if the writer is not visible, the world develops by itself, it is the reality of being. V. Belinsky also emphasized this: the writer can be, as it were, a simple narrator of what happens by itself (the internal, as it were, does not coincide with the external); in poetry - complete identity.

Но исследовать образ автора можно и в другом ракурсе. Ключ к этому понятию не только в творимом самим автором, но и в воспринимаемом читателем. Поскольку в восприятии всегда идет накопление каких-то впечатлений, которые в конце концов приводят к некоторым обобщениям, то и в данном случае можно прийти к выводу о возможности обобщенного восприятия на базе данного индивидуального, т.е. о возможности восприятия обобщенного образа автора. А если так, то этот образ может подвергаться деформации или разные образы могут поддаваться типизации, приобретая типологические характеристики. Например, образ автора подвергается деформации, когда на него наслаивается и в него проникает образ исполнителя (артиста, чтеца, декламатора, педагога) (частично об этом говорил В.В. Виноградов)[10].

Об иллюстрациях в художественной литературе, в частности, есть много мнений и рассуждений. Известно, например, что Г. Флобер, Р. Роллан не терпели иллюстрирования своих произведений.

Читатель должен творить образы, следуя своему воображению; иллюстрации могут образовать барьер между автором, его замыслом и читательским восприятием. Иллюстрации тоже ведь субъективно индивидуализированы, они могут вступить в противоречие с авторским отношением к ним и с читательскими ассоциациями.Зрительный образ может мешать кристаллизации читательской мысли своей конкретностью.

Идеально требуется, чтобы образ автора словесно-художественного произведения и образ его иллюстратора вступили в гармонические связи и отношения и почти слились...

V.A.Favorsky wrote: “Should the artist, intending to illustrate a literary work, limit his task only to the transfer of the plot? His task is much broader and deeper. He must convey the style of the book. ”

Этот разговор об иллюстраторах, т.е. о возможных интерпретациях сущности художественного произведения, проливает свет и на само понятие образа автора. Если один и тот же объект можно представить, осветить по-разному, значит, эта «разность» чем-то вызывается. Чем же? Сущностью самой личности автора (интерпретатора). Например, иллюстрации Врубеля к «Анне Карениной» и «Демону». Вещи несовместимые сами по себе, как несовместимы их авторы по своей сути, манере и т.д. Однако в интерпретации одного автора – Врубеля – они сходятся. Следовательно, в этих иллюстрациях в большей степени отразилась уже личность Врубеля, а не М. Лермонтова или Л. Толстого, при полном сохранении фактологической сущности – ситуации, положений, сюжетных моментов. Так и литературное произведение – это лишь иллюзия отражения жизни, на самом деле – это ее авторская интерпретация. И это, естественно, творится речевыми средствами (других просто нет!). «Разность» может проявляться и в творчестве одного автора, но эта разность будет именно этого автора, а не разных авторов.

Вот примеры.

Если бы неизвестно было, кто написал «Подъезжая под Ижоры...» и кто написал «Пророка», то невозможно было бы догадаться, что это произведения одного автора. Скорее всего, это не другой автор, а другое состояние души того же автора. Стало быть, следует рассматривать единый стиль этих двух, как и многих других, произведений. Это заставляет думать, что стиль как единство постигается не только на основании произведения или их совокупности, но и через автора, каким бы многообразным (или многостильным?) ни было его творчество.

«Как сложный механизм сочетает весьма разные детали, как в дереве совершенно отличный друг от друга характер имеют корни, кора, ветви, древесина, листья, цветы или плоды, так стиль поэта совмещает подчиненные ему стили.

Тот факт, что весьма легкая шутливость первого из только что названных стихотворений и самая крайняя серьезность второго – достояния одного и того же поэта, уже обнаруживает диапазон, динамику и внутреннее многообразие его стиля. Стиль лирики А. Пушкина – это, в своем разнообразии и даже противоречивости, цельная совокупность весьма разных стилей. Лирическое стихотворение Пушкина отнюдь не обязательно сосредоточено на самом поэте, его предметная обращенность захватывает широкую сферу жизни и русской и международной, современной и исторической. Предметная обращенность имеет для стиля решающее значение. И все же личная интонация всегда остается отчетливой и сильной»[11].

Можно продлить это сравнение с деревом: корни, листья и т.д. отличаются друг от друга как субстанции, но это корни и листья дуба, или березы, или липы; эти корни и листья принадлежат одному дереву.

В чем единство лирики Пушкина, при широте диапазона стилистического многообразия? В особенной неотчужденности автора, который «одинаково присутствует в жизни осеннего леса, в споре античных мудрецов, в политических катастрофах современной ему Европы, в бурном смятении человеческого духа, в том, что мог испытывать кто-то, кто когда-то положил в книгу давно засохший цветок»[12]. Возвращаясь к таким разным произведениям Пушкина, можно сказать, что перед нами не разные образы автора, а отражение разного состояния души одного и того же автора.

So manifests unity in diversity. And this unity is embodied in speech means and generalized and abstractly perceived, perhaps more accurately perceived and reproducible — the image of the author. This means that the image of the author can be deformed (if another individual is superimposed), transformed (within the limits of one individuality).

Finally, the image of the author, as has already been said, can be typified. I would like to dwell on the latter.

The perception of the same objects, phenomena may be different from different authors. For Saltykov-Shchedrin (Poshekhonskaya antiquity), for example, fog is “the harmful effect of swamp fumes”. And for Blok ... "Breathing in spirits and mists, she sits by the window" ...

"One cobblestone sees under their feet, the other - a star fallen from heaven." Doing the same thing, one amuses the stones, the other builds a palace. It is this human essence that is laid down in the image of the author when the personality begins to create. Even Chichikovs, as you know, for a few minutes in life, become poets ... Representatives of Poshekhonya don't even have this: “Loose, with an old-fashioned face, devoid of lively colors, with a soft, fleshy nose, like a crumpled shoe” (as Saltykov says - Shchedrin about the narrator's sister). Behind every word here stands the author who knows and terrible, the author who has suffered the pain of a humiliated and evil person. This is the image of a stern and suffering author. Power, the earthiness of his style - from the pain suffered. But this is no longer just Saltykov-Shchedrin, it is his image, the image of his style. At the same time it is a generalized artistic image. Typification begins where generalization is possible, elevation over the individual-specific. Take F. Tyutchev. Only one of his stylistic features is his forked epithet. Even through this detail, we perceive the generalized image of the poet-philosopher, the poet-sage. His forked epithet is a movement of life, feelings, thoughts. In it - transitional, unstable, unsteady; in it is the whole philosophy of life - and the philosophy of “it is Tyutchev”: the joyful is merged with the mournful, the light and the darkness are mixed (the blissful fateful day, the prophetic-blind instinct, proudly timid, blissfully indifferent, darkly shy ). The idea of ​​transience, the movement is hidden here, it goes inside, the philosophical essence is only comprehended, but not imposed. The image of the poet Tyutchev is born through his speech, is born in the relationship "man and the universe." Wed: openness, nakedness of social and political ideas from Nekrasov ( You can not be a poet, but you must be a citizen ). This is how typing arises: poet-philosopher (Tyutchev), poet-citizen (Nekrasov), poet-tribune (Mayakovsky), poet-contemplator (Fet), etc.

Another example. I. Bunin avoided direct expression of his feelings, author's thoughts, rhetorical edification. But the light of the author, namely Buninsky relations painted all his works. The style is restrained, but not impassive, internally tense, “ringing” with every word. And in prose, Bunin is a poet, a thinker. In his nostalgia piercing, cosmic cold:

Ice night, Mistral

(He is not yet verse).

I see in the window shine and distance

The mountains, the hills naked.

Golden, motionless light

I went to bed.

There is no one in the sublunary,

Only I and God.

He knows only my

Dead sadness

The one that I am melting from everyone ...

Cold, shine, mistral.

(1952, shortly before death).

And what kind of non-flowery, flowering, inexplicable, but deeply human features painted the tender, to the nakedness of the heart world of A. Platonov. (“Tears and happiness,” he writes, were near her heart ”;“ At the human heart ”—that Platonov wanted to name one of his books).

This is the image of the author - a quiet companion, not a speaker, he is always "at the human heart, not above the heads." The artistic world of Platonov is infinitely restrained. The absence of beating, scathing assessments is found even in his satirical compositions, where he appears in the image of a lyrical satirist. This unusual image (lyricist and satirist) is molded with unusual combinations of words, in particular, by materializing the meaning of abstract concepts [13] ( Voshchev walked past people, feeling the growing power of a grieving mind and more and more secluded in the crampedness of his sorrow. - “Pit”). Voshchev is eliminated from production due to the growth of weakness and thoughtfulness among the general rate of labor.

“The administration says that you stood and thought among the production, ” said the factory committee. - What were you thinking, Comrade Voshchev?

- About the plan of life.

- The plant operates on a ready-made trust plan. And you could work out your personal life plan in a club or in a red corner.

- I was thinking about a common life plan. I’m not afraid of my life, it’s not a mystery to me.

- Well, what could you do?

- I could invent something like happiness, but from the spiritual meaning would improve performance.

- Happiness will occur from materialism, Comrade Voshchev, and not from the meaning ...

- To you, Voshchev, the state gave an extra hour to your thoughtfulness - it worked eight, now seven, you would live and be silent! If we all think right away, then who will act?

Platonic concretization of meaning (identification of abstract concepts and concrete real realities) is often unusual from the point of view of linguistic expression, but not from the point of view of the reality ( walk alone, chill in the gloom, lie in weakness and darkness, close eyes in patience, run in free air, wait for time ). Grief and torment are perceived by him as concrete substances capable of filling containers with him. Here, for example, A. Platonov interprets the state of indifference in the story "Sampo": The body of the Red Army soldier Kirei died in battle, was emaciated in anxiety and in campaigns, and his heart, seeing the death of Good Pozhva, was filled with grief before that measure, when it was more does not accept torment, because a person does not have time to overcome him with his heart. There is a transformation of the portable (abstract) meaning of the verb "filled", which is used in the literal sense, as a specific physical action. And then, in this context, grief and anguish are perceived as substances capable of filling containers with themselves (here - the heart).

The argument about indifference ends like this: ... And then the whole person becomes indifferent, he only breathes and is silent, and grief lives in him motionless, squeezing his soul, which has become rigid from his last patience; but grief is already powerless to bring a man to death. Indifference comes from an excess of grief. There is already one grief, but there is no human being, he is indifferent. The ability of sensation of the human soul as something almost tangible, as a living surface of the heart, modesty before pathos - this is how A. Platonov perceived the image.

The image of the author is constructed and perceived (mutual creation “author – reader”) and, by the way, is typified not only in fiction. One can cite examples from legal literature, oratorical speeches in which the personality of a judicial officer is clearly manifested [14].

So, the trinity of "the real producer of speech - the subject of the narration - the image of the author" is the scale of ascent from the concrete to the generalized, from reproduction to perception, from the objective to the subjective.

It can be concluded that the real producer of speech is in any work, of any kind and genre of literature. This authorship is embodied in different forms of the narrative: the impersonal form prevails in the works of official business, although here too the genre specificity fluctuates the general impersonality (autobiography, statement, complaint, etc.). In the scientific literature, the form of presentation of the narrative can be described as personal-impersonal (impersonal to the impersonal form - especially in technical literature). However, to a greater or lesser extent, the identity of the scientist is also felt in the scientific literature; here one can speak not only about the subject of the narration, but also about the image of the author, since even typification is possible: the image of a statistical scientist, a reservoir of facts; the image of a theorist; image of a polemicist and others.

These categories are even more complicated in journalistic works, and the genre features of various journalistic works influence the specific forms of representation of the subject of the narrative and the construction of the image of the author. The essay is most personal in nature, an editorial in this respect is polar (differences are felt on the axis of subjectivity - objectivity). It is clear that the more a person manifests itself in the genre of journalism, the closer this genre is to fiction, where the entire structure of the text is highly personal, even subjectively personal. In fiction, this peculiarity is embodied in a sign of genuine art.

The image of the author is bi-directional: he is the result of co-creation (it is created, created by the author, even more precisely, it is revealed through the author's specifics and is perceived, recreated by the reader). And since the perception may be different and is not always clearly programmed by the author, then the outlines of this image may be unsteady, fluctuating. For example, some will see in Bulgakov “the idleness and mystery of his luminous word”, others - “a victorious irony that did not shun life, but was raised above it”. Probably, both will be correct. And these will be two images of Bulgakov. And at the same time, the image is uniform in different faces. Of course, writes V. Lakshin, each creates in the imagination of his Bulgakov: “I am amusedly amused, not worshiping anything, possessing divine freedom in the work that he, probably, lacked in life, a writer and a man” [15]. And further: "The core of his personality ... in the invariably ironic inclination of the mind and, like many great satirists, in the hidden lyricism of the soul" [16]. So it is directly said: on the one hand, the unique, individualized image of Bulgakov and, on the other hand, a typed image of a satirist with a lyrical soul. Both are through the prism of individual perception (subjectivity) and on the basis of specific speech works (objectivity).

We have seen that the image of the author is born through the perception of the author’s personality, as reflected in his writings. Textologists know that by analyzing the semantic-stylistic and structural organization of an essay, authorship can be established. What do researchers do in this case? They textually establish whether this writing is peculiar to a given author or not, whether the manner of writing corresponds to the prevailing notion of his image. For example, V.V. Vinogradov carefully analyzed the poem "Motherland", known from the manuscript collection of the mid-XIX century, signed by D.V. Venevitinov.

Thanks to the finest stylistic analysis, based on his presentation of the image of the poet Venevitinov, which he developed when studying his writings, V.V. Vinogradov proved that D.V. Venevitinov can not be the author of this poem. The main evidence - the text does not match the image of the author - the poet is thin and even refined. It is interesting in this story, and more: the poem "Motherland" forced researchers, literary historians who did not question the authorship, because of their dissimilarity to everything Venevitinov had created before, to draw a new face of the poet, a new image - a Protestant, a fighter against autocracy, i.e. to thicken in his portrait-image "revolutionary colors".

Another example, also from a series of studies by V.V. Vinogradov. A letter from I. Krylov was found in the literary archive. Literary critic DD Blagoy considered that this letter of the fabulist I.A. Krylova is a people lover and a patriot. Meanwhile, V.V. Vinogradov wrote: “The style of writing leads to the image of a casuist clerk. The image of a casuist-official embodied in this letter is far away from poetry, from poetry, and - even with a very great desire and diligence - can in no way be associated with the image of the famous fabulist I.A. Krylov, especially since archaeographic and historical evidence contradicts this. ”[17]

As we see, the notion of the author’s image, with all its seemingly vagueness and vagueness, serves as a tool for research that requires mathematically precise criteria. And this suggests the possibility of adjusting the very concept of the “image of the author”, which is primarily associated with the author’s style and therefore can be transformed into the concept-term “image of the author’s style”.

Concluding the above, it can be noted that understanding the essence of the notion of the author’s image or the image of the author’s style and revealing his attitude to the notions of the producer of speech and the subject of the narrative can help in understanding the essence of a literary work and prevent the possibility of destruction of the semantic-stylistic and structural integrity of print works.