Forms of presenting authorship in artistic and non-artistic text

Different forms of text reveal different forms of representation of authorship. The choice of forms depends on the general characteristics of the text, purpose and function. These forms can be personal (when the subject of speech is designated directly, personified), impersonal, personal-impersonal.

Official business and instructional texts are usually guided by an impersonal representation of authorship. The author as the subject of speech is not indicated, and the verb forms, which call various actions, states, intentions or motives, have impersonal, indefinite-personal meanings, or these are forms that convey imperative-recommendative meaning. The main feature of the construction of such texts is that the subject of speech (the author of the text or, more often, the team of authors) does not connect his intentions with self-expression, these intentions are communicatively and pragmatically directed to the reader, to the need to enter into dialogue with him. It is this feature of the official business text, as in most scientific cases, that creates a special textual modality tone. This tonality is associated with the transfer of values ​​of necessity, possibility, impact on the reader. To transfer such meanings, there are a number of linguistic means, for example: indefinite-personal and impersonal sentences, passive constructions (short adjectives, short passive participles), passive constructions without indicating the performer of the action (with the semantic component of a permanent feature); future tense forms of the verb; verbs denoting processes without length in time, etc.

Accounting for just such a modal organization of the text makes it possible to identify the category “factor of the subject of speech” in the text [1]. The subject of speech in the business text is personified, however, being non-personified, seeks to actively influence the reader, in particular, expressing the meaning of necessity explicitly ( need, need, need, must, should be taken into account ). The expression of the meaning of necessity may be of varying degrees of categoricalness [2] (imperative requirement, indication, recommendation, wish, etc.).

The following phrases are typical in such texts: the volume of articles should not exceed 8 pages of text typed in 2 intervals; in order to avoid injuries at work it is necessary to follow safety regulations; Considering the specific conditions of each farm, it is necessary to choose rational forms of work organization.

Infinitive forms of verbs are clearly projected onto the reader as a potential performer of actions. Here is a typical form of recipe: Put the processed herring on the herring tray, put a side dish of finely chopped vegetables and herbs, and slices of boiled egg around. Before serving, pour over the herring salad or mustard dressing (Cooking. Herring with a side dish).

Such a clear focus on the reader’s active activity in itself makes the secondary issue of the specific authorship of the text secondary. Installing the text on the prescriptive modality practically removes the reader’s interest in specific authorship: after all, it doesn’t matter who exactly created the text of the law, statute, order, or recipe; It is important that this law, the decree is adopted, it must be implemented.

The question of the forms of expression of authorship in a scientific text appears somewhat differently, although in many respects it is possible to find similarities with business and instructional documents.

In the scientific text the author is personified. However, he himself seems to be trying to distance himself from his text in order to give more weight to the message, to objectify it, therefore personal pronouns are not in use here (in some cases modest “we” are used), phrases are often impersonal, indications of the active actor are eliminated. , eg:

It seems important to us to note ...; Summing up, you should specify ...; It is necessary to return to the question of ...; etc.

It is interesting to note the difference in the use of standard speech formulas such as "should be noted", "must be taken into account" and similar in the scientific text and business. Their meaning is determined by a different communicative orientation: in a business text it is directed towards the reader, the executor of recommendations and instructions; In a scientific text, such clichés are directed at the author himself, they are designed to soften the author’s categorical judgments (instead of “I affirm” - “it seems to us”, etc.). Everything “necessary”, “it should be noted”, “it should be kept in mind” is addressed to the author himself.

Thus, the subject of speech (he is the author of the text) turns out to be not only unmarked textually, but also deliberately pushed aside, veiled. In a scientific text there may be deviations from this, often zero, form of representation of authorship.

In particular, reference to authorship in a scientific text may acquire a special character when the author writes about himself as a third person. This is also a special method of removal from your text. For example, in the article "Problems of the genre" Art. Thus, Gaida draws up the tasks of her scientific work: “Until now, questions about the essence of the genre and its relation to such key concepts as“ language ”,“ style ”,“ text ”remain controversial. In this article, the author does not set the task to solve all the problems of the genre (it is impossible), most likely, he intends to consider only some questions. The author fully shares the opinion that the new is contained in the old, although not in finished form; a new-oriented researcher is able to find in the old source of new concepts ”(Functional Stylistics: Theory of Styles and Their Language Realization: Intercollege. Coll. Scientific Works. Perm, 1986. P. 23).

However, the author's "I" can be actively and directly presented, especially inherent in polemical arguments, where the author sharply expresses his involvement in the reported. Direct authoring "I" is often found in philosophical writings. For example, D.L. Andreev, telling about the history of the creation of his book “The Rose of the World” (metaphilosophy of history), directly refers to the personal “I”:

I started it in prison, which bore the name of a political isolator. I wrote it in secret. I hid the manuscript, and good forces - people and not people sheltered it during searches. And every day I expected that the manuscript would be selected and destroyed, as my previous work was destroyed, which took ten years of my life and brought me to a political jail. [...]

I finish the manuscript of "The Rose of the World" in freedom, in the golden autumn garden. [...]

But I belong to those who are mortally wounded by two great disasters: world wars and single tyranny [3].

And then, starting from the “conversation on the topic” in the “Being and Consciousness” section, the author again uses the personal pronoun “I”:

What I have said so far brings us to a new angle of view on the centuries-old debate about the primacy of consciousness or being [4].

Let's pay attention to the way D. Andreev imperceptibly moves away from the “I” and goes on to a more detached “us”. And then “we”, “us” appear: When we mean the world of images that are equally ideologically saturated and also, perhaps, connected, although not so closely, with ideas of a religious and moral order, but not formed into a coherent system and reflecting a number of common moral, transphysical, metahistorical or ecumenical truths in connection with this nature and the obligation of this culture — we have before us common myths of supernational people [5]. Such "we" is to some extent generalized. The author as if includes him and the reader, counting on like-mindedness.

But further the pronoun “we” is already personified. This is clearly an unequivocal “I”: We will not use the word myth in any other phenomena in the history of culture [6].

Such a transition to the presentation of speech from "we" is then quite often interrupted by arguments from the "I": It seems to me that the concept of myths of national-religious is perceived without difficulty [7]. And the book III is again, already quite consistently, written from the "I".

The personal "I" dominates in the philosophical arguments of N.A. Berdyaev, for example in the book "Self-knowledge". In general, it must be said that the past Russian philosophical literature is more personal than the modern one.

The presentation of the scientific material in the work of A.V. Smirnova "The logic of meaning. Theory and its application to the analysis of classical Arabic philosophy and culture "(M., 2001). Basically, the author chooses the form of the narrative from the first person, from the "I". Forms are vaguely personal and impersonal less characteristic. However, a very specific, definite and confident “I” immediately, often within the same sentence, gives way to a less categorical and definite “we” ( ours, us ). There is a constant slip from the “I” to the “we” and vice versa. In general, this is a personal presentation of authorship, and it is in harmony with the general tone of the story: the author often argues with other authors, argues along the way, argues and denies, asks questions - and gives an assessment to himself and the imaginary opponent of any absolutism, from a formal point of view, this is a bad definition, a good illustration, the overall character of this scheme is remarkable, a cozy presentation , etc.). Here is an excerpt from this book:

“The fact is that I want to fix not the content of the value, but only the ability to build this value, and I assert that this ability can be expressed logically. The question of the relationship between the mode of expressing this ability and expressions of a fixed value will interest us in the future.

I also note that by refusing the thesis about the possibility of fixing the unity of the universal method of meaningful expression in the final and concrete-content texts <...> in favor of ideas about the logic of meaning, we thus do not deprive ourselves of the opportunity to explain the named phenomena of learning, understanding and translation . On the contrary, this explanation becomes much more satisfactory. If we accept that these phenomena are explained by the general human capacity for language, then in order to reconcile this point with the obvious diversity of languages, we will have to admit that this “language ability” does not depend on any particular language, and therefore is an ability to language in general. <...>

Instead, I propose the following. Shouldn't we instead say: “A person has an innate ability to language, which is realized only as a specific language (Russian, English, Arabic, etc.)”, - say: “A person has an innate ability to X which is realized - in particular - as knowledge of a specific language (Russian, English, Arabic, etc.)? ” By X, I mean the “ability to make sense”, which can be identified in the closest way by us as the ability to different procedures of sense-setting. That these procedures, although they determine, apparently, a specific language, have no less extra-specifically-linguistic nature, was clearly demonstrated. Avoiding the mention of “language-in general”, we will only increase the explanatory power of Chomsky’s hypothesis, but at the same time change it quite significantly, by proposing instead of “deep structures” essentially individual for all of humanity, consider meaningful procedures, the ability for which is one, but implementation may be different "(p. 100-101).

And then constantly in the text alternate phrases-motives such as "I mean", "Below we will say", "I tried to show", "We find", "I do not object to this data", "Summarize the data", " We will try to build a translation ”,“ I just put this question here ”,“ We ​​face a significant difficulty ”,“ I will challenge this thesis ”, etc. (pp. 101–107, etc.).

There is no doubt that this is a feature of the individual style of the author. Most often, the personal form of presentation is used in philosophical writings, where the argumentation system itself has a choice of more categorical and convincing forms, while in writings of the natural-science content the specificity and categorical conclusions are achieved by the material itself.

Interesting remark A.F. The horses on this score: “Our time is reproached, and not without reason, for shredding the personality and the domination of excessive specialization. Both of these phenomena are closely related to each other - and both are sadly reflected in the spiritual stock of social life. The personality is more and more degraded, effaced, from the conscious and moral-responsible "I" in order to hide under the impersonal "we." The will weakens, ideals grow dull, and so-called characters are less and less common ”[8].

The forms of representation of authorship in a fiction text are more diverse and more complex than in business and scientific texts, in terms of speech, to standardization.

The subject of speech in an artistic text can be the author himself, the narrator, to whom the author transfers his powers, finally, various characters.

Formally, the author's speech refers to those parts of a literary text where there is no direct speech of characters, literary quotations or works (in whole or in part) included in the text as borrowed from other texts (announcements, excerpts of manuscripts, protocol notes, cited documents, etc. ). However, the author's speech itself in this understanding is ambiguous. Not every "author's speech" is perceived as the author's speech [9].

The narration in the artistic text is often stylized - in the speech of the narrator, the narrator. This is a "fantastic speech".

The author of the text can transfer his role to the fictional storyteller, then he is forced (but that was his intention) to adapt to the speech of this storyteller, to reproduce the features and his style, his manner. Although such an imitation is not required. Especially if the narrator is so original that it is physically impossible to reproduce “his speech”. For example, in "Kholstomer" L.N. Tolstoy as a narrator is the “peggy gelding”, the speech of which in principle differs little from the speech of the author, approximately the same in A. Kashtanka. Chekhov and other works, where they "tell" animals, objects.

If the author himself is the subject of speech, then this is the author's own speech, if the subject of speech is a fictional storyteller, then this is not the author's own speech or the speech is fantastic.

The author's own speech is built in the first person, then the author himself becomes the actor; but it can be conducted without reference to the person, then the author is not called, as if he were dissolved in the text, is present as an outside observer, and the action is performed by itself.

In the case of an improperly authorial speech, the author reincarnates into a narrator. The stylization of such a speech follows the line of open subjective assessment, direct expressiveness. Differences between self-authoring and fantastic speech can be very large if the author chooses as a narrator a person who is very distant and does not resemble him in his speech characteristics (for example, fantastic speech in the works of P. Bazhov), but the differences may be less bright, as, for example, in M. Sholokhov’s story “The Fate of a Man”, where the transitions from the author’s speech to the story of Andrei Sokolov, from the author’s speech to the narrator’s speech, are hardly noticeable, barely perceptible.

In this work [10] we find a rather complex interweaving of the author’s own speech, the story of the narrator and the speech of the character Andrei Sokolov, who leads the story of his fate.

At first, the story is told in the first person, and therefore it seems that this is the author himself:

Soon I saw a man come out onto the road because of the farmsteads of the farm. He led by the hand of a little boy, judging by his height - about five or six years, not more. They walked wearily towards the crossing, but when they reached the car, they turned towards me. Further, the author’s closer relationship with the character, who acts as a story-teller, is becoming more and more apparent, and finally, another one — the main subject of speech — the character (Andrei Sokolov) appears. It turns out that the actual author and the author-narrator are not the same person. The speech itself-author and improper-author are so intertwined that it is difficult to capture transitions from one to another.

He put his big dark hands on his knees, hunched. I looked at him from the side, and I felt something uneasy ... Did you see your eyes, as if sprinkled with ashes, filled with such inescapable mortal longing that it is difficult to look at them? These are the eyes of my casual interlocutor.

So, the narrator glanced "from the side," and the author helped us, the readers, to see these eyes at close range. So a double meeting took place: the author with the reader and the narrator with Andrei Sokolov [11]. The whole story Sholokhov is a "story in the story." This is the story of the narrator and the story of Sokolov. And the author himself fastens these two lines. The author's own speech, the spontaneous author's speech (the narrator's speech) and the stylized fantastic speech of the hero, who is the second narrator, is the complex composition-speech structure of the story. The difficulty of isolating the author's own speech here lies in the fact that the first narrator (from the first person), the narrator, turned out to be the spokesman for the author's position, that is why his speech merges with the author.

Легко, непринужденно сменяется субъект повествования в «Евгении Онегине» А.С. Пушкина. Собственно-авторская речь, без указания на конкретного субъекта, смещается авторскими обобщениями типа «Мы все учились понемногу, Чему-нибудь и как-нибудь». И далее сам автор включается в разговор как действующее лицо: «Всего, что знал еще Евгений, Пересказать мне недосуг». Или: «Письмо Татьяны предо мною, Его я свято берегу». Так, Пушкин, выступающий в роли повествователя, вводит себя в качестве действующего лица; он постоянно выдает свое присутствие: иронизирует над романтиками, набрасывает план своего романа, рассуждает о технике стихосложения, постоянно открыто и прямо беседует с читателем. Собственно-авторская речь и несобственно-авторская тесно переплетены и составляют единое целое.

Интересное сочетание авторского голоса и голоса рассказчика находим в произведениях И.С. Тургенева.

В своих произведениях И.С. Тургенев часто использует в качестве субъекта повествования образ рассказчика, но такого, который «равен автору»[12]. У него нет стилизации «чужой индивидуальной и социальной манеры рассказывания»[13]. Это и рассказ Петра Петровича Б. (Пунин и Бабурин), и рассказ старика (Часы), и рассказ моего старого знакомого (Повесить его!) и др.

Такая ориентация создает впечатление единства автора и рассказчика, так как последний одновременно и носитель авторского замысла, его сознания, и носитель общекультурного сознания. Например, чисто авторское начало рассказа «Бежин луг» субьектно не определено. Эта неназванность авторского «Я» создает впечатление полной отстраненности автора от текста описания природы, и автор лишь ощущается как наблюдатель со стороны. Затем автор-рассказчик вводится в повествование как реальное лицо (начинаются «блуждания» заблудившегося охотника): «Меня тотчас охватила неприятная неподвижная сырость, точно я вошел в погреб»... Таким образом, рассказчик появляется тогда, когда намечается переход к сюжетному повествованию: блуждания охотника, встреча с мальчиками. Причем стилистически описания начальные и описания блужданий охотника ничем не отличаются. После того, как произошла встреча героя-рассказчика с мальчиками, он меняет свою роль: уже не рассказывает, а наблюдает и слушает.

Независимо от того, каков субъект повествования в художественном тексте – сам автор или другое лицо, которому автор поручил эту роль, – рассказ ведется от 1-го, 2-го или 3-го лица. Но это только форма. Субъект же, вложенный в эту форму, может быть самым разнообразным.

Реже всего используются формы 2-го лица, в которых совмещается рассказчик и адресат, как, например, в некоторых текстах И. Тургенева:

За четверть часа до захождения солнца, весной, вы входите в рощу, с ружьем, без собаки. Вы отыскиваете себе место где-нибудь подле опушки, оглядываетесь, осматриваете пистон, перемигиваетесь с товарищем. Четверть часа прошло. Солнце село, но в лесу еще светло (Ермолай и Мельничиха).

Вы проходите мимо дерева – оно не шелохнется: оно нежится. Сквозь тонкий пар, ровно разлитый в воздухе, чернеется перед вами длинная полоса. Вы принимаете ее за близкий лес; вы подходите – лес превращается в высокую грядку полыни на меже. Над вами, кругом вас – всюду туман <...>.

Но вот вы собрались в отъезжее поле, в степь <...>.

Далее, далее! Пошли степные места. Глянешь с горы – какой вид! (Лес и степь).

То же в стихотворении в прозе «Камень» с прямым обращением к читателю: Видали ли вы старый, серый камень на морском прибрежье, когда на него, в час прилива, в солнечный весенний день, со всех сторон бьют живые волны – бьют и играют, и ластятся к нему – и обливают его мшистую голову рассыпчатым жемчугом блестящей пены?

Более распространено повествование от 3-го лица, когда автор в какой-то мере отстранен и создается впечатление, что повествование ведется само собой:

Однажды весною, в час небывало жаркого заката, в Москве, на Патриарших прудах, появились два гражданина. Первый из них, одетый в летнюю серенькую пару, был маленького роста, упитан, лыс, свою приличную шляпу пирожком нес в руке, а на хорошо выбритом лице его помещались сверхъестественных размеров очки в черной роговой оправе. Второй – плечистый, рыжеватый, вихрастый молодой человек в заломленной на затылок клетчатой кепке – был в ковбойке, жеваных белых брюках и в черных тапочках.

Первый был не кто иной, как Михаил Александрович Берлиоз, председатель правления одной из крупнейших московских литературных ассоциаций, сокращенно именуемой МАССОЛИТ, и редактор толстого художественного журнала, а молодой спутник его – поэт Иван Николаевич Понырев, пишущий под псевдонимом Бездомный.

Попав в тень чуть зеленеющих лип, писатели первым долгом бросились к пестро раскрашенной будочке с надписью «Пиво и воды» (М. Булгаков. Мастер и Маргарита).

Рассказ от третьего лица создает впечатление повествования нейтрального, объективного, не связанного с конкретным лицом, субъективно воспринимающим описываемые события. При такой форме нет и вовлечения читателя в события, как, например, при использовании формы 2-го лица.

Но особой сложностью обладает многоликая форма 1-го лица. Первое лицо может быть избрано для субъекта речи – и собственно автора, и персонажа, т.е. от первого лица может говорить «разное» лицо, любое лицо.

Субъект повествования от 1-го лица может иметь разную меру конкретности и условности[14].

Это может быть и собственно автор, тождественный писателю, как, например, А. Пушкин в «Путешествии в Арзрум», И. Гончаров в «Фрегате Паллада» или Б. Пастернак в «Охранной грамоте».

А вот в «Записках из подполья» Ф.М. Достоевского автор, ведущий повествование от 1-го лица, – лицо вымышленное, сам Достоевский говорит об этом, характеризуя автора как принадлежащего к лицам, которые «должны существовать в нашем обществе». Начало главы первой: Я человек больной... Я злой человек. Непривлекательный я человек. Я думаю, что у меня болит печень. Впрочем, я ни шиша не смыслю в моей болезни и не знаю наверно, что у меня болит. Я не лечусь и никогда не лечился, хотя медицину и докторов уважаю.

И далее непосредственное обращение к адресату-читателю: Мне теперь хочется рассказать вам, господа, желается иль не желается вам это слышать, почему я даже насекомым не сумел сделаться. Скажу вам торжественно, что я много раз хотел сделаться насекомым. Но даже и этого не удостоился.

Другое лицо, лицо рассказчика, скрывается в повествовании от «я» и во многих рассказах И. Тургенева, когда рассказчик точно обозначен и даже охарактеризован, как, например, в рассказе «Стук...Стук...Стук!».

Вот начало рассказа: Мы все собрались в кружок – и Александр Васильевич Ридель – наш хороший знакомый (фамилия у него была немецкая – но он был коренной русак) – Александр Васильевич начал так:

– Я расскажу вам, господа, историю, случившуюся со мной в тридцатых годах...

Такое четкое обозначение субъекта повествования при подаче текста от первого лица – лишь один из возможных случаев конкретизации «я» рассказчика. В более сложных случаях представления субъекта повествования 1-е лицо может оказаться в высшей степени неопределенным и, более того, может быть воплощением нескольких лиц. Это, например, свойственно прозе В. Набокова.

Роман В.В. Набокова «Соглядатай» представляет собой сочетание ряда новелл, в которых в воображении героя взаимоотождествляются разные персонажи. А сам повествователь словно дробится, облик его размывается.

In the "Vigilant" it is the author of "I", then it is the outsider seen in the mirror, then I saw it myself from panels, I was touched and I like it .

Further, an interesting detail: Smurov (the hero of the narration) remembers his story, how he escaped death ( This was in Yalta, - Smurov said, - after the whites left. I refused to evacuate with the rest ...). Next comes the story from the 1st person (Smurov), about two pages of text. After that, someone (author?) Enters the narrative: Next, Smurov told how he, under the cover of darkness, went towards the sea, as he spent the night in a port, among some barrels ...

And finally, the author's reasoning: The situation was becoming curious. I could already count three variants of Smurov, and the original remained unknown. It happens in the scientific systematics <...>.

That's how I decided to get to the bottom of Smurov's essence, already realizing that climatic conditions in various souls influence his image, that he is alone in a cold soul, and colored differently in a blooming soul ... I started to get involved in this game. I myself treated Smurov calmly. Some partiality, which was at the beginning, has already been replaced by curiosity. But I learned a new excitement for me. As to a scientist, it doesn’t matter whether the wing color is beautiful or not, whether the drawing on it is elegant or coarse, and only species are important, so I looked at Smurov without aesthetic shudder, but I found the most acute sensation in the systematization of the face-faces I had blithely has undertaken.

As already mentioned, the novel consists of a number of short stories. In the stories "Offense" and "Quinoa" is told from the 3rd person; in Terra incognita - from the 1st, in the stories "Meeting", "Busy person" - mainly from the 3rd person. "The case of life" - is given from the 1st person (from the woman's face).

The characters of the "Vigilant" are the narrator's own incarnations, engendered by his imagination. The identification of the characters deprives the narrator of a clear outline, and his “life after death” invented by the hero allows Nabokov to fancifully interweave the past and the future, real and imagined, detached.

Here is how this text is built (the scene in the car):

Our suitcase is carefully decorated with colored stickers - Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Cologne (and even the Lido, but this is a forgery); we have a dark, purple vein, face, black trimmed mustache, and hairy nostrils; we decide, sniffing, the cross of the cross. In the third class department we are alone, and therefore we are bored.

Late in the evening we will arrive in a small voluptuous city. The freedom of action! The aroma of commercial travel! Golden hair on the jacket sleeve! Ozhenshchina, your name is sweet ... So we call our mother, and then Katya. Psychoanalysis: we are all Oedipus <...>.

We do not know the famous Turkish general and cannot find either the father of the aircraft or the American rodent, and it’s not particularly funny to look out the window either. Field. Road. Tree sticks. House and garden. Settlement, nothing, young <...>.

Another five hours. They say that the railway has to do with it. Extremely located. After all, no matter how you twist it, and the main thing in life is a healthy romance. I can’t think about trading until I meet my romantic interests.

Going to the 3rd person: Raising the frame and turning around, he was pleasantly surprised to see that during his hypnotic exercises the department had time to fill up.

Then again, the 1st plural (referred to itself): Let us examine the articles ...

And again the 3rd: Let me offer you, - said Kostya, - mitigating circumstance.

He took out a rectangular, inflatable cushion trimmed with variegated satin, which he always put on during his hard, flat, hemorrhoidal journeys.

And the end of the scene in the car (the story "Grip"):

The train is chock full, hot. We somehow feel uneasy, we want not to eat, not to sleep. But when we fill up and sleep, life will get better again, and American instruments will play in the fun cafe, which Lange talked about. And then, in a few years, we will die.

So, Kostya says, but he is represented by the 1st person of the singular, the 1st person of the plural, the 3rd person. Kostya (“I”) is the author himself, he is “we” and further “he”.

In the story of V.V. Nabokov's “A Case from the Life” is narrated from the “I” (1st person), but this “I” is a woman, and the passage of the narration from the 3rd person (man) to the 1st person (woman) without any was authoring comment:

Behind the wall, Pavel Romanovich was laughing and telling how his wife left him.

I could not stand this terrible sound and, without asking for a mirror, in a crumpled dress, which was lying after dinner, and, probably, with a print of a pillow on my cheek, I jumped out there, that is, in the master dining room, where I find such a picture: my host, someone Prishvin (not a relative of the writer) listens encouragingly, constantly stuffing cigarettes, and Pavel Romanovich walks around the table with a horrible face, so pale that his clean-shaven head seems to have turned pale ...

The question of the form of the representation of authorship in modern works, designed to create the effect of full reality, "really happened" deserves a special conversation. This is a memoir or “half memoir” genre literature in which the author completely merges with the hero, when they cease to differ, forming an indissoluble unity. For example, in the philological novel VI. Novikov "Roman with language" the philologist himself becomes a hero, and his profession is the main plot. The author and the hero are also inseparable from A. Genis, in particular in the work “Dovlatov and environs”. The interest in this form of narration has been particularly relevant since the 1960s and manifested itself in such diverse works as the anecdote by Venedikt Erofeev “Moscow - Petushki” and the experience of A. Solzhenitsyn’s artistic research “The GULAG Archipelago” [15].

As you can see, the narrative subject in an artistic text can be presented in different ways: and quite concretely (as the direct author is the creator of the work or a very specific designated narrator), and very arbitrarily and indefinitely, the complete unification of the author and the hero is also possible (the illusion of ). The degree of conditionality of the author's incarnations and reincarnations is amplified in the texts of psychologically saturated, supplied with reflections of the heroes. And certainly these qualities of the text are connected with the individuality of the author's letter.

In addition to the author's speech, the artistic text, as a rule, contains direct speech. It can also take different forms.

The direct speech of characters in a work of art depicts the direct communication of people, it is dialogical, it is an exchange of remarks. Along with such an external form of direct speech, in the artistic text the author often refers to the internal speech of the characters: this is either a “conversation” with himself, or with an imaginary interlocutor.

The character's internal and external speech can be given not only in the form of a direct, but also in an indirect form. Wed: Behind Tikhonov stood tall gray-haired sailor and carefully looked at him.

“I’m from Nikanor Ilyich, ” said Tikhonov. - He is sick. He asked to convey that the cover from the piano is ready. You can come after her (K. Paustovsky. Northern Tale). - Behind Tikhonov stood a tall gray-haired sailor and looked at him closely. Tikhonov said that he was from Nikanor Ilyich, that he was sick and asked to convey that the cover from the piano was ready.

The strange man at the table even turned purple from the tension and said indistinctly again that there was no secretary either ... when he came, it was not known and ... that the secretary was sick ... (M. Bulgakov. Master and Margarita).

The character's speech can also take the form of an improperly direct: such literally preserved direct speech is not formally distinguished as part of the author’s, synthesized with the author’s text:

He wanted to hear women's footsteps in the rooms, but nothing could be heard except for the sound of clocks and distant car hooters. Where is she? We must wait for it to end this terrible ignorance (K. Paustovsky. Northern Tale).

An improperly direct speech on the general background of the author's speech is felt as introduced from the outside, as the inclusion of the speech (external or internal) of another person:

In the cabin closely: one, two, three - four people, wow! Very smell of sheepskin. Timokhin smokes. Sergey coughs. He sits, wedged between Timokhin and his mother, the hat slid over one eye, the scarf puts pressure on his neck, and nothing is visible except the window, behind which the snow is lit, lit by headlights. Great inconvenient, but we do not care for it: we are going. We are going all together, in our car, our Timokhin is carrying us, and outside, above us, Korostelev is driving, he loves us, he is responsible for us ... God, my God, we are going to Kholmogory, what a blessing! What is there is unknown, but probably fine, since we are going there!   - The Timokhina siren is dreadfully buzzing, and the sparkling snow rushes through the window directly to Seryozha (V. Panova. Seryozha).

The narration from the author in this passage is interrupted by the story-reflection of Serezha, conveying his sensations and observations ( wow !; great uncomfortable; what happiness !; we are going; our Timokhin is lucky; we are going there ).

Incorrectly direct speech can be intricately intertwined with the author's text:

Talking with me, she lay on the stove, face down, without a pillow, head to the door, and I was standing below. She did not show joy to get a lodger, complained about a black illness, from which she left the attack now: the illness flew at her not every month, but having flown, - ... holds two days, three days, so neither get up, nor file I won't let you. And it would not be a pity to the hut, live (A. Solzhenitsyn. Matrenin Yard).

As we see, the author's speech in all its varieties, and the more so direct speech as belonging to an artistic text, is always a personal speech, it is conducted on behalf of someone: from the first person; from the author, narrator or character. The subject of speech may not be named, dissolved as a kind of narrator, as if he perceives everything from the side. Or, on the contrary, the narrator is brought to the fore, but he is always present and has the forms of his expression.