Drama of the 20th and 21st centuries. Modern Russian writers and their works. Topics for independent study

Modern dramaturgy is one of the most controversial phenomena in literature and theater of the late 20th century - beginning of the XXI century. Relatively for a long time, almost the entire 1980s and 1990s, many critics, actors, directors argued that it simply did not exist, and this was at the time when it appeared a whole series new playwrights, laboratories and festivals were organized. As critic M. Davydova notes, the Russian theater of the late 20th century became surprisingly irrelevant and outdated, ceased to be interested in social problems, “closed itself, as if in a shell, in its traditions”1, and did not even try to aesthetically master the changing reality2. The reason for this state of affairs, not without reason, is considered to be the theater’s wary attitude towards contemporary dramaturgy, which at all times ensured the interaction of the theater with reality, “real empathy.” The conviction that there were no new plays was also provoked by its absence in print4.

Currently, the situation has changed fundamentally. Plays are published by thick magazines and book publishing houses5. And if a few years ago critics lamented the lack of plays, now they complain about the excessively large number of dramatic texts.

Among the numerous dramatic phenomena, critics highlight the “Ural school” of N. Kolyada (among his students are V. Sigarev, O. Bogaev, Z. Demina, A. Arkhipov, Y. Pulinovich, P. Kazantsev and many others), the movement “ New Drama", which includes a variety of playwrights, the project

1 Davydova M. The end of the theatrical era. - M.: OGI, 2005. - P. 12,24, 26, 39.

2 The epithet “dead” is often used in relation to Russian theatre, especially its repertoire and enterprise forms. M. Davydova in her book refers to the director Peter Brook, who divided dramatic art not into conservative and innovative, but into living and dead. Decree. Co4.-C.20.

J Literary Theory: Tutorial: In 2 volumes/ Ed. II.D. Tamarchenko. -T.1: N.D. Tamprchenko, V.I. "Popa, S.N. Broitman. Theory of artistic discourse. Theoretical poetics. - M.: Academy, 2004. - P. 308.

4 In the textbook M.I. Gromova even has a special paragraph “The problem of accessibility of texts” modern plays for the researcher." - Gromova M.I. Russian dramaturgy of the late 20th - early 21st centuries: Textbook. - M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2007. - P.230-237.

5 Magazines: “Modern Drama” (for a long time it was practically the only source of new texts), “Theater”, “The Art of Cinema”, “October”, “ New world"and others. Publishers: EKSMO, KOROVAKKNIGI, K.OLONNA Publications, "Three Squares", "Seance", "Amphora", etc.

Documentary Theatre”, uniting a group of authors working with the verbatim6 technique on the stage of “Theatre.yoos”, “Togliatti workshop”, etc. At the same time, against this background, the voices of individual playwrights sound brightly - Vasily Sigarev, the Presnyakov brothers, Maxim Kurochkin, Vyacheslav Durnenkova, Ivan Vyrypaev. Evgeny Grishkovets was most popular as a playwright and “theater man”.

It is possible that in history those names and texts that now seem key will “remain behind the scenes.” However, at present, to clarify the features of poetics modern dramaturgy What is required is not so much critical reviews of published plays, but rather theoretical reflections and well-founded typological sections of dramatic phenomena, which are impossible without a thorough analysis of individual works.

The modern genre situation, as well as the general theory of genres, remain controversial areas of study. The most common concepts for dramatic works of the late 20th - early 21st centuries were

7 8 play" and "text". The author’s “genre” definitions are also interesting: “a miracle of an overcoat in one act” (“Bashmachkin” by O. Bogaev), “dramatic poem in a documentary style” (“Apples of the Earth” by E. Narshi), ““touch”, materials for the play "("Sober PR-1" by O. Darfi), "the story of true events" ("Pitchfork" by S. Kaluzhanov), "flash comedy (flashcom)" ("Children's surprise. Verbatim" by A. Dobrovolskaya, V. Zabaluev, A. Zenzinov), “notes of a provincial doctor”, “ school essay in two actions. Verbatim" (“Doc.Top” and “About my mother and about me” by E. Isaeva). The list can be continued not only with new names of playwrights, but also with original “genre” definitions of their plays.

6 Verbatim (from Latin verbatim - “literally”) - a technique for creating text by editing verbatim recorded speech.

7 Definition dramatic work as “plays” - in general, a feature of 20th-century dramaturgy. In particular, V. Gudkova writes about this, speaking about Soviet drama of the 1920s, in the book. "The Birth of Soviet Plots: Typology of Russian Drama of the 1920s - Early 1930s." - M.: NLO, 2008.

8 The critic G. Zaslavsky noted that new playwrights from the very beginning “aimed at texts and wrote texts.” Thus, playwright Ivan Vyrypaev called a collection of his works, including three plays, “13 texts written in the fall” (M.: “Vremya”, 2005). It is interesting that in one of the plays of this author (“Genesis No. 2”) main character- Text.

However, such author’s “characteristics of the genre” most often serve as a way to establish contact with the reader/viewer and set the “frame” of his perception. In addition, it should be noted that modern theater actively uses other genres contemporary art, including fine art (action, performance), television (talk show), psychology (psychodrama), cinema (<янимэ, триллер) и др.

New stage genres are emerging. Verbatim plays provoked the emergence of such phenomena as verbatim performance and soimdrama (hereinafter referred to as “sound drama”) - the musical and noise content of the performance clearly structured according to the score, where, along with the text, each sound, or lack of sound, has a semantic content9. Coexisting with new stage phenomena is the confusion of critics about whether it is even possible to talk about stage genres in connection with modern theater10.

The situation is further aggravated by the fact that critics and, unfortunately, to some extent literary scholars, sometimes use terminology loosely, do not specify the time frame of their research, the composition of the texts they consider, offer classifications that are not based on a single feature, etc. In addition to terminological confusion, such works create an inadequate idea of ​​modern dramaturgy, either as an aesthetically insignificant phenomenon, or as some kind of irreducible

9 Practices of the first (use of the Lifegame technique - an interactive presentation from biographical material, an “in-depth interview” of the artist, etc.) - a group of playwrights, directors and actors of the Documentary Theater project (who borrowed some techniques from their Western colleagues), the inventor of the second - actor, director and musician Vladimir Pankov, who once created the Pan Quartet and is now the head of the SounDrama studio. The features of “sound drama” make it possible to stage almost any modern or classical text with its help, however, the very first productions using this stage genre were based on documentary or documentary-fiction works: “The Red Thread” (play by L. Zheleztsov, Central Democratic Republic , “TeaTp.doc”), “DOC.TOP” (play by E. Isaeva, “Theatre.doc”), “Transition” (“overheard monologues”, fragments from Live Journals, curator - E. Isaeva, Central Democratic Republic, Studio " SoundDrama").

10 “The lack of genre of modern performance is obvious, but it is not understood by theater scholars. Is there a genre at all? What is the stage genre in its relation to the classical genre? How do classical genres relate to the author’s theater and the developed artistic consciousness of the creator?” - these and other questions were asked to the participants of the round table organized by the St. Petersburg Theater Magazine. See “And my remarks about the memory of the genre” (an attempt at conversation) // St. Petersburg Theater Journal. - 2002. - No. 27. - P. 13; “Genre, genre - something happens to genres, their purity seems to be something old, forgotten and unrealizable,” noted critic G. Zaslavsky. Theatrical diary of Grigory Zaslavsky // New World. -2003. -No. 5. - P. 194. to any criteria, “Tower of Babel.” That is why we consider it necessary to reflect on the terms and concepts we use.

The historical and literary concept of “genre quest” will be reflected in detail in Chapter 1 of the study. Let us only note that during the study we dealt exclusively with non-canonical genre formations, therefore we used the methodology that would allow us to work with non-classical texts (see the methodological foundations of the work in the Introduction).

The phrase “Russian dramaturgy” in this work is used in the meaning of “Russian-language dramaturgy.” The term “contemporary dramaturgy” is also widely used in various studies. However, there is no consensus in literary criticism about what “modern drama” is, what its chronological framework is. We adhere to the chronology of M.I. Gromova, who identifies the time period from the mid-1980s to the present as the period of “Russian drama at the present stage.” It is logical to include both the work of the playwrights of the “new wave” (“post-Vampilovtsy”) and their successors (sometimes called the “late new wave”), as well as the so-called “Novodramovtsy”.

In another sense, contemporary is called actual dramaturgy, which in turn meets the definition of “important, essential for the present moment” (Ozhegov) and reveals its connection with contemporary fine art11.

Separately, it is necessary to stipulate the use of the term “new drama” (the names “new new drama”, “new drama-2” are much less common), which is often used by critics as a synonym for the phrase “modern drama” or as a designation for a complex of a certain number of dramatic texts (selection criteria are not specified).

11 The connection between modern drama and contemporary art is emphasized even by those critics who have a negative attitude towards both phenomena. See, for example, Timasheva M. Nihilists, amateurs, maestros and bourgeois // Culture. - 2002-2003. - December 26-January 15. At the same time, the concept of “current literature” is quite widely used in modern literary criticism, for example, in articles of the New Literary Review.

It is obvious that the actualization of the name occurred in our time not only in connection with the activities of the festival of the same name12, but also as a reference to an already existing term, which, as is known, arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. and is applied to the works of G. Ibsen, G. Hauptmann, A. Strindberg, M. Maeterlinck, B. Shaw, A. Chekhov. However, currently the designation “new drama” is also used in relation to the theatrical and dramatic movement that arose at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries.

13th centuries . This phenomenon in itself - the dramaturgy of the "New Drama" movement - does not exhaust the entire diversity of modern dramatic texts, but constitutes its most representative part.

Chronological framework of the study. The period chosen for study is 1998-2008. - characterized by dramatic changes for Russia in the sphere of politics, social institutions, and culture. New forms of government are being established, the historical and cultural situation is fundamentally changing, society is being re-differentiated, a restructuring of social consciousness is taking place, a new ethics is being formulated, which in one way or another is reflected in the theatrical and dramatic processes of this period.

The object of the study is the Russian-language dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement. The phenomena of the “New Drama” include texts written and published from 1998 to 200814 by playwrights who, on the one hand, position themselves as participants in this movement, on the other hand, do not consider themselves as such, but produce texts that are correlated with artistic “ canons of the New Drama. The material under study includes more than 200 plays15, although there are many more texts from the New Drama

12th Festival “New Drama” - newdramafest.ru

13 Here we agree with the critic G. Zaslavsky, who proposes to distinguish simply a new play from a play of the “New Drama” movement. In criticism, the name of the movement is often capitalized - “new drama”, sometimes without quotation marks. When talking about the movement, we give its name with a capital letter and in quotation marks - “New Drama” - to avoid confusion with the “new drama” of the early 20th century. In quotations we give the author's spelling. s The plays could have been written much earlier, in the 1990s, but published later.

The best: Plays. - M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2005; Vyrypaev I. 13 texts written in the fall. - M.: Vremya, 2005; 7 more. When selecting the material, we were guided by the representativeness of the plays in the modern humanitarian field. We are talking not only about certain productions (although this aspect was also taken into account), but also about the representativeness of the texts under study at specialized scientific conferences, in scientific collections, in programs on the latest Russian literature (see the program on the latest Russian literature of the Russian State University for the Humanities D.P. Baka, S.P. Lavlinsky’s program for humanities classes “Poetics and aesthetics of Russian drama of the late 20th - early 21st centuries,” course “Analysis of literary text” of the Russian State University for the Humanities, elective course programs.

When selecting texts, a textual problem has arisen more than once, since authors often add or rewrite their texts directly for production - but this is not included in the scope of the problems we are considering. In the 3rd chapter of the study, we analyze published texts precisely as literary works (each of them as a completed artistic whole) regardless of existing theatrical interpretations.

The subject of the study is the genre strategies of selected dramatic texts, their typological features and the nature of functioning in the theatrical process of the designated period.

Scientific development of the topic. The initial analysis and assessment of modern plays is presented mainly in critical articles, which are often a direct response to the events of theatrical life, much less often - literary studies of artistic works.

Vyrypaev I. July. - M.: Korovaknigi, 2007; Grishkovets E. How I Ate the Dog and Other Plays. - M.: 2ebraE/Eksmo/Dekont+, 2003; Grishkovets E. Winter. All plays. - M.: Eksmo, 2004; Documentary theater. Plays. - M.: “Three squares”, 2004; Durnenkov V.E., Durnenkov M.E. Cultural layer: Plays / Compiled by K.Yu. Khalatova. - M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2005; Isaeva E. Elevator as a place for dating: Plays / Compiled by K.Yu. Khalatova. - M.: Eksmo, 2006; Klavdiev 10. Collector of bullets and other ordeals. - M.: Korovaknigi, 2006; Kurochkin M. Imago and other plays, as well as Lunopat. - M.: Korovaknigi, 2006; Kurochkin M.A. Kitchen: Plays / Compiled by K.Yu. Khalatova. - M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2005; Zero Kilometer: Plays by Young Ural Playwrights. - Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House, 2004; Privalov D. People of the most ancient professions and other plays. - M.: Korovaknigi, 2006; Sigarev V. Agasfer and other plays. - M.: Korovaknigi, 2006; Ugarov M.Yu. Bummer off: plays, story/composition. K. Khalatova. - Moscow: Eksmo Publishing House, 2006, etc.; New drama: [plays and articles]. - St. Petersburg: Session; Amphora, 2008; collections of the “Debut” award (2001, 2005), the “Premiere” competition (2003, 2005, 2006), the “Characters” competition (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006); publications in the magazines “Modern Drama” and “Theater” for the specified period; plays-finalists of the drama competitions “Eurasia”, “Lyubimovka” (publications on the websites liUp://kolvada-theatre.iir.ru. http://lubimovka.ru, etc.). features of new texts. In criticism, two extreme points of view have emerged regarding modern dramaturgy, represented by the “New Drama” movement, and both of them are characterized by an attitude towards it as an aesthetically unimportant phenomenon. The first of them reduces the “New Drama” to a “postmodern re-imagining”, profanity and marginalization16, the second - to a representation of violence on a par with “police-mafia”

17 TV series and crime programs. However, neither one nor the other side indicates, or indicates in a dotted manner, what criteria they use when analyzing certain phenomena of modern drama. Criticism is not limited to such positions, but we need to identify these two extreme limits. We will also highlight a number of other authors - M. Lipovetsky, G. Zaslavsky, V. Zabaluev and A. Zenzinov, P. Rudnev, K. Matvienko, E. Kovalskaya - whose critical works were used in this study.

The analysis of modern dramatic works also required turning to theater studies works, such as “The History of the Russian Drama Theater: from its Origins to the End of the 20th Century” (2004), “Proposed Circumstances” by A.M. Smelyansky (1999), “The End of the Theater Epoch” by M. Davydova (2005) and reviews, interviews, round tables, which reflected genre searches in drama and their understanding by criticism.

It is obvious that modern dramaturgy is the heir to the tradition that preceded it, therefore, to analyze its current state, we took into account the works on the history of theater and drama by P. Pavis, A. Anikst, V.E. Khalizeva and others, as well as works on the history of Russian drama of the 20th century, especially those that examined the problems of dramatic genres: “Essays on the history of Russian Soviet drama”, covering

16 See Timashep M. Betrayal of the theater // Literary newspaper. - 2008. - No. 5 (6157); Malyagin V. The stage is like a mirror? // Literary newspaper. - 2008. No. 9 (6161), etc.

17 Lipovetsky M. Performances of violence: “new drama” and the boundaries of literary criticism // NFO. - 2008. - No. 89; Theater of violence in the society of performance: philosophical farces of Vladimir and Oleg Presnyakov // UFO. - 2005.-№73. period from 1917 to 1954, “Russian Soviet drama. Main problems of development" Boguslavsky A.O. and Dieva V.A., “The fate of drama genres” by Frolov V.V. and “Russian Soviet drama 1969 - 1970s” by B.S. Bugrova. Despite all the differences in the approaches of scientists to the material, one can note a number of thematic strategies that stood out as dominant for the dramaturgy of that stage: dramaturgy of a historical-revolutionary theme, “industrial play” or “dramatism of business people”, family-everyday or “proper psychological” drama Lev 18 Anninsky also emphasized the “dramatism of metaphors.”

Works by Gromova M.I., Zhurcheva O.V., Goncharova-Grabovskaya S.Ya., Kanunnikova I.A., Stepanova A.A., Sverbilova T.G., Yavchunovsky Ya.I. and others provided many observations in the field of genre changes in 20th century drama. We especially took into account “Russian dramaturgy of the late 20th - early 21st centuries” by M.I. Gromova, “Comedy in Russian drama of the late 20th - early 21st centuries” by S.Ya. Goncharova-Grabovskaya, “Genre and style trends in dramaturgy of the 20th century”, “Author in drama: forms of expression of author’s consciousness in Russian drama of the 20th century” O.V. Zhurcheva.

There is also a group of works dedicated to individual playwrights. Among them, we note the monographs by H.JL Leiderman “The Dramaturgy of Nikolai Kolyada”, I.L. Danilova “Modern - Postmodern?”, dissertations by E.E. Shleynikova, E.V. Starchenko, V.V. Zarzhetsky, A.A. Shcherbakova.

Based on the general state of scientific development of the topic, we will consider the theatrical and dramatic movement “New Drama” as a separate socio-cultural phenomenon and as the most representative segment of modern Russian drama from the point of view of genre quests. Identification of the genre properties of individual plays, and, at a general level, the leading genre strategies, will make it possible to comprehend the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement as a specific system.

The relevance of the study seems obvious, firstly, from a historical and literary point of view. End of XX - beginning of XXI centuries. marked by such a variety of dramatic and theatrical phenomena, often designated by the general term “new drama,” that any attempt at their analysis and typology is simply necessary. Secondly, the problem of genre definition of objects of modern Russian drama, in particular, the identification of its invariant structure within a single chronological framework, is relevant. Raising this question gives the study theoretical significance.

The relevance of the dissertation topic is thus determined by the lack of sociocultural and scientific literary studies devoted to the theatrical and dramatic phenomenon of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, denoted by the term “new drama”; lack of knowledge of the genre paradigm and artistic originality of the above phenomenon, its typological varieties.

The purpose of the dissertation research: to clarify the genre strategies for the development of Russian drama at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries.

In accordance with this goal, the dissertation sets the following objectives: to reflect on the specifics of the study of dramatic genres in modern literary criticism; explicate the concept of “genre quest”; define the concept of “new drama” as a cultural and historical phenomenon; to identify the specifics of the theatrical and dramatic movement “New Drama” as a sociocultural phenomenon; determine the aesthetic strategies of the theatrical and drama movement “New Drama”; develop the principles of the typology of dramatic works of the “New Drama”; reflect on the genre strategies of modern Russian drama.

The methodological and theoretical principles of the work are based on 20th century research devoted to genre issues. To describe the invariant structure (“internal measure”) of the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement, we used the model of the literary genre proposed by M.M. Bakhtin, as well as elements of his theory of the novel, developed in application to Russian literature by N.D. Tamarchenko. In the dissertation, when speaking about genre, we mean, first of all, its “internal measure” (Tamarchenko N.D., Broitman S.N.), i.e. the basis for the reproduction of non-canonical genres, the dynamic relationship of polar properties in each of the three parameters of the artistic whole19.

In addition, we took into account the achievements of such researchers of dramatic genres as V.E. Khalizev, N.I. Ishchuk-Fadeeva, M.S. Kurginyan, N.D. Tamarchenko, V.E. Golovchiner and others. This determined the combination of theoretical and historical approaches to the study of genre strategies of drama.

Analyzing the texts of the “New Drama”, we in no way abandon the existing theoretical and literary tools, as some researchers call for this20, and consider this phenomenon within the framework of previous traditions of Russian and world drama. Moreover, we have created a typology of plays from the New Drama, despite the fact that, at first glance, “the active, fluid artistic process renders any attempts at classification powerless”21.

When studying the material, descriptive, sociocultural, historical and cultural studies, contextual, comparative methods of working with the material and the method of holistic analysis of a literary work were used. The latter involves a combination of principles

19 Artemova S.Yu., Milovidov V.A. Internal measure of genre // Poetics: Dictionary of current terms and concepts / Ch. scientific Ed. P.D. Tamarchenko. - M.: Kulagina Publishing House; Intrada, 2008. - pp. 40-41.

20 Lipovetsky M. Performances of violence: “new drama” and the boundaries of literary criticism // NLO.-2008. -No. 89.-P.196.

21 Vladimirov S. Action in drama.-L., 1972.- P. 119. modern historical and literary approach with the approaches of theoretical and historical poetics, which makes it possible to study genre strategies in synchronic and diachronic aspects.

It is also necessary to enter the fields of aesthetics, theater studies, cultural studies, sociology, receptive phenomenology and hermeneutics related to the theory and history of literature.

Scientific novelty of the work.

1. For the first time, the theatrical and dramatic movement “New Drama” is described as a sociocultural phenomenon. Her aesthetic strategies are revealed.

2. For the first time, the poetics of the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement has been analyzed and described. A typological description is given. Its genre internal measure is revealed.

The scientific and practical significance of the dissertation lies in the fact that its results can be used in the development of educational courses in the history and theory of literature. The material collected by the author (see Appendices) can serve as the subject of literary and theater studies. Interpretation of contemporary dramatic works could help the director's interpretation of them. The conclusions presented in the work are relevant for further understanding of the literary and theatrical processes of the late 20th - early 21st centuries.

Approbation of work. The main provisions and results of the study were discussed at the postgraduate seminar and the department of Russian literature and journalism of the 20th - 21st centuries. MGTGU. The material for the dissertation has been collected since 2002. Final qualifying bachelor's and master's theses were written. Based on the dissertation materials, reports and communications were made at eight scientific conferences: the Second All-Russian Scientific Conference of Young Scientists (Moscow, 2003); X Sheshukov Readings “Russian Literature of the 20th Century. Typological aspects of study" (Moscow, 2004); Sixth international scientific readings of the Russian State Library for Art “Theatrical book between past and future” (Moscow, 2004); XI Sheshukov Readings “Historiosophy in Russian Literature of the 20th and 21st Centuries: Traditions and a New Look” (Moscow, 2005); International scientific conference “Modern Russian Drama” (Kazan, 2007); The Fourth Humanitarian Conference “The Scene of Life” in Russian Drama of the 20th Century” (Moscow, 2008); Scientific and practical seminar “Newest drama at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries: the problem of conflict” (within the framework of the International Festival of Drama, Theater and Contemporary Art “New Drama. Tolyatti”) (Togliatti, 2008); International scientific conference “Poetics of Russian literature. Problems of studying genres" (Moscow, 2008).

The main materials are presented in 12 publications: 5 articles based on the results of conferences in scientific collections (2004, 2005, 2007), 6 articles in the journals “Questions of Literature” (2004), “The Art of Cinema” (2008), “October” (2006), “Modern Drama” (2006, 2007, 2008), a collection of the independent literary award “Debut” (2005). In addition, there are 37 publications related to the topic of the dissertation in various media (“Modern Drama”, “Literary Russia”, “Literary Newspaper”, “NG. Ex libris”, etc.): 16 articles, 9 reviews of productions of modern plays, 12 interviews with playwrights and directors. In 2003, the monograph “Documentary Drama as a New Direction in Contemporary Drama” was included in the Long List (the best seven works) of the Debut National Prize in the category “Literary Criticism and Journalism.”

The author of the study participated in conducting individual classes within the framework of special seminars and special courses on modern Russian drama (MPGU, RGGU), was invited as a selector of plays in the “Dramaturgy” nomination of the national award “Debut” (2006, 2007, 2008) and as a jury member in drama competition “Eurasia” (Ekaterinburg, 2007).

Provisions submitted for defense: 1. When creating a universal model of the genre structure of non-classical drama of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, it is advisable to use the concept of “internal measure” of the genre (M.M. Bakhtin, N.D. Tamarchenko), which can be constructed on the basis comparative analysis of genre structures of a number of works. By “genre quest” we should understand, first of all, genre strategies determined by the emotional and value intention of the author, aimed at searching for a form of completion of the work as an artistic whole.

2. The theatrical and dramaturgical movement “New Drama” should be considered as a culturally oriented and provocative activity of an informal and unofficial association of playwrights, directors, actors, critics, etc. based on artistic principles formulated in the “open” practice of theatrical life. As a sociocultural phenomenon, the “New Drama” movement is distinguished by its own group “picture of the world” and strategies for its representation, oppositional and innovative nature, focused on categories such as “reality”, “documentary” (associated with the use of new dramatic and theatrical techniques: verbatim etc.), “provocation”, “new”, “relevant”, authenticity of the statement, active position of the reader/viewer. The “New Drama” movement represents a unique form of self-realization and self-identification of its participants.

3. The dramaturgy of the “New Drama” reflects a special aesthetic vision of the problem of identity crisis - the dramatic “image of an identity crisis.” It represents crisis states of essential, social, cultural and spiritual types of personal identification, which are respectively associated with four types of hero (“biographical” personality; personality as a social unit; personality self-determining through culture; self-revealing personality as a representative of the human race) and four types of conflict “ New drama." The type of conflict is a single feature that is the basis for the classification of the phenomena of the “New Drama” and specifies four main strategies of movement, determined either by a collision with oneself as with the Other; either - with social Others; either by conflict with oneself as a cultural Other and/or Others as cultural artifacts; or - with the Other as a “stranger”, the Higher Principle. 4. The “internal measure” of the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement is determined by structural and value oppositions at the following levels of an individual work: (compositional-speech level) confessional “personal” monologue / framing structures of the “alien” plot, myth; total self-reflection / reflection on the word of the Other, reflected in culture; “documentary” word / “literary-book” statement; “authoritarian” statement / profane statement; “sincerely sublime” statement / provocative and playful statement-gesture; (plot level) the situation of total alienation of a person from the Other / the situation of searching and finding truth; cumulation of verbal actions leading the hero to disaster / cyclization of events (clarification of the initial situation); loss of identity / acquisition of a false (or, conversely, true) identity; (level of artistic completion, value oppositions) ironic / idyllic; ironic/elegiac; ironic/tragic.

The identified oppositions are manifested in genre modifications, which can be defined, using established terminology, as a confessional monodrama (“my drama”, “theater for oneself”), in one case gravitating towards an idyllic comedy (Grishkovets), in another - towards a tragifarce or tragicomedy ( Vyrypaev); tragicomedy; tragic farce; drama-mennipea.

Structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction,

3.3. Conclusions on the third chapter.

1. The basis for the preliminary grouping of the plays of the “New Drama” and comparison of their structures is one of the cultural and historical modifications of the “crisis of private life” - the dramatic “image of an identity crisis”, which determines the originality of the hero and the conflict of the dramaturgy of this movement.

2. The dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement represents crisis states of four types of personal identification: essential, social, cultural and spiritual. Identification is carried out exclusively through the Other (even if this Other is myself).

3. The identified crisis states of four types of identification are associated with four types of hero (a “biographical” personality self-determining in its biography and evolution; a self-exposing and exposing society personality as a social unit; a self-determining personality through culture and associated myths; a self-determining and self-exposing personality as a representative human race) and the four types of conflict of the New Drama.

4. The type of conflict - a single feature that can be used as the basis for the classification of the phenomena of the "New Drama" - sets the four main strategies of the "New Drama" movement, defined either by a collision with oneself as with the Other; either - with social Others; or a conflict with oneself as a cultural Other and/or Others as cultural artifacts and/or bearers of “other”, “alien” values; or - with the Other as a “stranger” (the Higher Principle, God, acts as a “stranger”). 5. The hero of the play “How I Ate the Dog” by E. Grishkovets is characterized by alienation and incomplete self-realization. The hero’s life and his experiences have meaning only in the horizons of “others” - readers/viewers, by whose reactions the hero’s statements and the total self-reflection expressed in them are checked for truth. In Grishkovets's drama the initial situation is not clarified, i.e. the conflict remains unresolved, but, firstly, the presence of a conflict as such is stated, and secondly, the hero, through reflection on the conflict itself, manages to enter the interpersonal world of Others, establish contact between them and himself, including through humor, comic effects, which allows us to characterize “my drama” by Grishkovets as gravitating towards an idyllic comedy.

7. The teenage hero of the play “Plasticine” by V. Sigarev “exposes” “reality” as unchangeable, impossible for the “innocent” to survive, destroying this “innocence”. Here “reality” is comparable to the concept of tragic “fate”. The individual’s opposition to his immediate environment and the entire society is demonstrated, but the conflict, in essence, remains unresolved. The death of the hero-victim returns “harmony” to the escheated world - “reality”, but not to the reader/viewer. In his desire to assess, diagnose the world, the author is forced to “expose” his sympathy for the hero and negative attitude towards his tormentors not only in paratext and fictionalized remarks, but also in the plot organization, the cumulative principle of which makes it possible to introduce a tragic catastrophe into the drama, which characterizes “Plasticine” as a drama tending toward tragedy.

8. The dominant thing in the play “Three Acts in Four Pictures” by V. Durnenkov will be the conflict between the position of the author-creator and the position of the author of the paintings, about which the author-creator reflects in the preface of the play. The author's reflection on the existing tradition is shown through the story of his hero Nikolai. The subdominant collisions of each of the “pictures” reveal a contradiction between the bearers of different types of mentalities - traditional and postmodern. The author does not propose a “third way”, but in fact it becomes the genre strategy of “Three Actions.”: existence within the framework of “alien plot”, myths, irony instead of ideal, “recoding” of myths for the purpose of cultural self-determination of the author-creator and reader/viewer . Formally, the conflict is resolved by the death of the hero, but the final remark returns the reader/viewer to the dominant unresolved conflict. The listed features allow us to characterize this strategy as tragic and farcical.

9. The plot of the play “Oxygen” by I. Vyrypaev is a modern interpretation of the biblical commandments. The disputes waged by the heroes HE and SHE are due to the conflict with God, as with the One from Whom such “bad fruits” as people come. The conflict is expressed through the clash of biblical commandments and truths with people’s false ideas about them, the “authoritarian word” with the obscene, the impossibility for a modern person “in the player” not only to observe them, but at least to hear them. Obscene, transgressive behavior here is directed not at God, but at readers/viewers. The main conflict, which cannot be resolved in principle, is resolved at the moment of “meeting” of the consciousnesses of the reader/viewer and the author-creator, when the reader/viewer “responds” to the “event of searching for truth” (M.M. Bakhtin) of the hero, his recognition of spiritual and moral aspect of man - conscience. The transgressive approach of the author-creator to the world and to himself, the plot situation of testing the “truth” and its bearer, and the epic nature allow us to characterize this strategy as a mennipian one.

The internal measure of the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” consists of the oppositions presented in table 2301.

CONCLUSION

Having outlined in the introduction the main problems associated with the study of Russian drama of the late 20th - early 21st centuries (free use of terminology, lack of theoretical reflections, logical classifications, compilation of study), we limited the scope of our study to the most representative part of modern dramatic texts - plays of the New drama" - examined their functioning within the framework of sociocultural processes, analyzed the poetics and identified the genre's internal measure.

To study the genre searches of the modern dramaturgical process, we reflected on the specifics of the study of genres in modern literary criticism, identified generic and genre features of drama, and adapted the concept of “internal measure” of a genre, developed to create an invariant of epic works, for dramatic texts. We have explicated the concept of “genre searches”, by which we proposed to understand, first of all, genre strategies determined by searches within the three aspects of the “artistic whole” (M.M. Bakhtin) and the emotional and value intention of the author, aimed at finding a form of completion of the work as an artistic whole.

It was discovered that the “New Drama” at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries. continues the priority strategies of dramaturgy of the 20th century (appeal to the consciousness of the reader/viewer, strengthening the author’s principle), which prompted us to turn to its origins. In addition to the historical definition, the term “new drama” can be used, firstly, as a historical and literary category (we have highlighted its external and internal aspects), and secondly, as a designation of the theatrical and dramatic movement of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. We considered the latter as a separate sociocultural phenomenon that arose in opposition to repertory theater and television, possessing its own group “picture of the world” and strategies for its representation, innovative character and aesthetic program. The results of the movement's activities were especially evident in the field of updating the theatrical language, both thematic and speech, which was facilitated by the use of new stage techniques and verbatim techniques, and the influence of Western European theater and cinema.

We have determined that the main functions (transformative, communicative, cultural, compensatory and implementation function) and orientations of the “New Drama” (“reality”, “documentary”, “new”, “relevant”, authenticity of the statement, active position of the public, provocation and etc.) indicate that this theatrical and dramatic movement is a unique form of self-realization and self-identification of its participants.

We have discovered that the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” itself represents such a phenomenon of reality as an identity crisis (primarily its special aesthetic vision), which gives rise to intratextual physical and communicative violence. The plays of the movement present crisis states of four types of personal identification: essential, social, cultural and spiritual, associated with the four types of hero and conflict of the New Drama.

In the course of the study, we were able to discover a single feature on the basis of which it became possible to construct a classification of the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” - the type of conflict that determines the main strategies of the movement. To illustrate each of them, we analyzed four iconic texts for the New Drama (“How I Ate a Dog” by E. Grishkovets, “Plasticine” by V. Sigarev, “Three Acts in Four Pictures” by V. Durnenkov, “Oxygen” by I. Vyrypaeva). The analysis showed that the main genre of the movement is drama, the specifics of which are determined by the type of conflict and the intention of the author.

Thus, an internal measure of the dramaturgy of the “New Drama” movement was derived, which is a system of oppositions identified in three aspects of the genre whole (M.M. Bakhtin), which makes it possible to determine the conditions of artistic choice, which in each specific sample is carried out between one or the other other oppositions.

In the course of the study, some terminological concepts were clarified: “new drama” (as a cultural and historical phenomenon), theatrical and dramatic movement, “genre quest,” “verbatim.”

A comprehensive description of such a sociocultural phenomenon as “New Drama” is given. The connection between the nature and functioning of this movement is correlated with its aesthetic program, the representations of reality presented in it and the poetics of its dramatic works.

For the first time, a typology of conflicts in the “New Drama”, directly related to its genre strategies, has been developed, the intentions of the authors and the genre modifications they define have been identified. An analysis of the movement’s texts showed that the internal measure of the “New Drama” fluctuates between the “poles” of confessional monodrama (“my drama”, “theater for oneself” in the sense of N. Evreipov), in one case gravitating towards idyllic comedy (the strategy of E. Grishkovets) , in the other - to tragic farce or tragicomedy (strategy of I. Vyrypaev). These are the two limits of the New Drama, with which all other works are connected. Within these limits, it is possible to replicate or update established techniques, the drama to gravitate either to the mennipic tradition, or to tragedy, or to tragic farce, tragicomedy.

The methodology developed and presented in this study for studying the genre internal measure of dramatic works in connection with their sociocultural origin and functioning makes it possible to clarify a number of pressing theoretical and methodological problems, in particular, questions about the genre nature of non-classical examples of drama, the possibilities of their typology, the relationship between representations presented in drama reality and its poetics, reception of modern drama. By analogy with the theatrical and dramatic movement “New

2. Presnyakov brothers. The best: Plays. - M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2005. - 352 p.

3. Vartanov A., Malikov R., Malikova T. Big meal (MS).

5. Vyrypaev I. 13 texts written in the fall. M.: Vremya, 2005. - 240 p.

6. Vyrypaev I. July. - M.: Korovaknigi, 2007. 74 p.

7. Grishkovets E. How I Ate the Dog and Other Plays. M.: gebraE/Eksmo/Dekont+, 2003. - 348 p.

8. Documentary theater. Plays. - M.: “Three squares”, 2004. - 240 p.

9. Durnenkov V.E., Durnenkov M.E. Cultural layer: Plays / Compiled by K.Yu. Khalatova. M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2005. - 352 p.

10. Isaeva E. Elevator as a place for dating: Plays / Compiled by K.Yu. Khalatova. M.: Eksmo, 2006. - 352 p.

11. Klavdiev Yu. Collector of bullets and other ordeals. M.: Korovaknigi, 2006. -214 p.

12. Cultural layer. A collection of plays by contemporary playwrights. - M.: Festival of Young Drama “Lyubimovka”, 2005. - 512 p.

13. Kurochkin M. Imago and other plays, as well as Lunopat. M.: Korovaknigi, 2006.-170 p.

14. Kurochkin M.A. Kitchen: Plays / Compiled by K.Yu. Khalatova. M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2005. - 336 p.

16. New drama: plays and articles. SPb.: Session; Amphora, 2008. - 511 p.

17. Zero kilometer: Plays by young Ural playwrights / Comp. Kolyada N.V. Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House, 2004. - 320 p.

18. Privalov D. People of the most ancient professions and other plays. M.: Korovaknigi, 2006. - 104 p.

19. Putin.yoos: nine revolutionary plays. - M.: “Mitin magazine”, “KOLONNA publications”, 2005. 384 p.

20. Ravenhill M. Shopping & Fucking / Trans. A. Rodionova. M.: “New Play”, 1999. - 80 p.

21. Sigarev V. Agasfer and other plays. M.: Korovaknigi, 2006. - 226 p.

22. Sigarev V. Plasticine // Debut-2000. Plasticine: prose, drama. - M., 2001.-S. 392-446.

23. Ugarov M.Yu. Bummer off: Plays. Story / Compiled by K. Khalatova. M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2006. - 416 p.

24. Falkovsky I. Fishing (MS).

25. Churchill Carol. Serious money (MS).

26. Dauldry St. Body talk (MS).

27. Smith Anna Deavere. Twilight. New York, 1994. - 265 p. Dictionaries:

28. Large dictionary of obscenities. T.l. - St. Petersburg: Limbus Press, 2001. - 390 p.

29. Western literary criticism of the 20th century. Encyclopedia. - M.: Intrada, 2004. 560 p.

30. Literary encyclopedia of terms and concepts / Ed. A.N. Nikolyukina. Institute of Scientific information on social sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M.: NPK "Intelvac", 2003. - 1600 stb.

31. Pavis P. Dictionary of the theater. M.: Publishing house "GITIS", 2003. - 516 p.

32. Poetics: Dictionary of current terms and concepts / Ch. scientific Ed. N.D. Tamarchenko. M.: Kulagina Publishing House; Intrada, 2008. - 358 p.

33. Monographs, textbooks, collections of scientific works:

34. Anikst A.A. History of teachings about drama. Theory of drama from Aristotle to Lessing. M., 1967. - 455 p.

35. Anikst A.A. History of teachings about drama. Theory of drama in Russia from Pushkin to Chekhov. M., 1972. - 643 p.

36. Babicheva Yu.V. The evolution of genres of Russian drama of the 19th - early 20th centuries: A textbook for a special course. Vologda: Vologda GPI, 1982. - 127 p.

37. Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics: Studies from different years. M.: Fiction, 1975. - 502 p.

38. Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. - M.: Sov. writer, 1963. -363 p.

39. Bakhtin M.M. Formal method in literary criticism / P.N. Medvedev. - M.: Labyrinth, 1993. 205 p.

40. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M.: Art, 1986. - 444 p.

41. Berger P.L., Berger B. Condition of identity: to be intended or attached // Personality-oriented sociology. M.: Academician. project, 2004. pp. 88 - 89.

42. Bosuglavsky A.O., Diev V.A. Russian Soviet dramaturgy. Main problems of development. 1946-1966. -M.: Nauka, 1968. 240 p.

43. Broitman S.N. Historical poetics: Study. allowance. - M.: RGGU, 2001. - 320 p.

44. Buber M. Two images of faith: Trans. with him / Ed. P.S. Gurevich, S.Ya. Levit, S.V. Lezova. M. Respublika, 1995. - 464 p.

45. Bugrov B.S. Russian Soviet drama (1960-1970s). - M.: Higher School, 1981. -286 p.

46. ​​Vattimo J. Transparent society: Trans. from Italian / Translation by D. Novikov. -M.: Logos, 2002.- 128 p.

47. Vladimirov S. Action in drama. - L.: Art, 1972. - 159 p.

48. Volkov I.F. Theory of literature: Study. village M.: Education, 1995. - 256 p.

49. Wulf V. A little away from Broadway: Essays on the theatrical life of the USA, and not only about it, the 70s. - M.: Art, 1982. - 264 p.

50. Goncharova-Grabovskaya S.Ya. Comedy in Russian drama of the late 20th century - early 21st century: textbook. allowance. M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2006. - 278 p.

51. Gromova M.I. Russian dramaturgy of the late 20th and early 21st centuries: Textbook. - M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2007. - 368 p.

52. Gudkova V. The birth of Soviet plots: typology of domestic drama of the 1920s and early 1930s. - M.: NLO, 2008. - 453 p.

53. Davydova M. The end of the theater era. M.: OGI: Golden Mask, 2005. -380 p.

54. Danilova I.L. Modern Postmodern? About the development processes of dramaturgy in the 90s. - Kazan, 1999. - 96 p.

55. Dolin A. Lare von Trier: Tests. Analysis, interviews. - M.: NLO, 2007.-454 p.

56. Evreinov N. Introduction to monodrama. St. Petersburg, 1913. - 30 p.

57. Esin A.B. Principles and techniques of analyzing a literary work: Textbook. - 9th ed., rev. - M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2008. - 247 p.

58. Zhurcheva O.V. Genre and style trends in dramaturgy of the 20th century: Textbook. Samara: SamSPU Publishing House, 2001. - 184 p.

60. Zalambani M. Literature of fact. From avant-garde to surrealism / Trans. from Italian N.V. Kolesova. - St. Petersburg: Academic Project, 2006. - 224 p.

61. Ivasheva V. On the threshold of the 21st century: (NTR and literature). M., 1979. - 318 p.

62. Kanunnikova I.A. Russian drama of the 20th century: Textbook. - M.: Flinta, Science. 2003. - 207 p.

63. Kozlova S.M. Paradoxes of drama drama of paradoxes: Poetics of drama genres of the 1950-1970s. - Novosibirsk: NSU Publishing House, 1994.-218 p.

64. Kugel A.R. Approval of the theater // Theater and art. - M., 1923.

65. Kurginyan M.S. Drama // Literary theory: Main problems in historical coverage. T.2. - M., 1964. - P. 253 - 304.

66. Leiderman N.L. The movement of time and the laws of genre: Genre patterns of development of Soviet prose in the 60s and 70s. - Sverdlovsk: Middle-Ural. book publishing house, 1982. -254 p.

67. Leiderman N.L., Lipovetsky M.N. Modern Russian literature: 1950-1990s: Textbook for students of higher educational institutions: In 2 volumes. M., 2003. - T.2. - 688 p.

68. Literary directions and trends in Russian literature of the 20th century. Vol. 2. Part 2: Sat. to art. St. Petersburg: Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg State University, 2005. - 54 p.

69. Mann Yu.V. Russian literature of the 19th century. The era of romanticism: textbook. allowance. M.: RGGU, 2007. - 510 p.

70. Mikheicheva E.A. About the psychologism of Leonid Andreev. - M.: MPU, 1994. -188 p.

71. Mukarzhovsky Ya. Studies in aesthetics and theory of art: Transl. from Czech - M.: Art, 1994. 605 p.

72. Myalo K.G. Under the banner of rebellion: Essays on the history and psychology of youth protest of the 1950s-1970s. M.: Mol. Guard, 1985. - 287 p.

73. History of foreign literature of the 20th century: Textbook. / Ed. L.G. Mikhailova and Ya.N. Zasursky. M.: TK Velby, 2003. - 544 p.

74. History of Russian dramatic theater: from its origins to the end of the 20th century: Textbook. M.: Publishing house "GITIS", 2004. - 736 p.

75. Essays on the history of Russian Soviet drama / Ed. S.V. Vladimirov, D.I. Zolotnitsky, S.A. Lapkina, Ya.S. Bilinks, V.N. Dmitrievsky and others. In 3 volumes. - L.: “Iskusstvo”, M., 1963, 1966, 1968. - 602 e., 407 e., 463 p.

76. Polyakov M.Ya. About the theater: poetics, semiotics, drama theory. M., 2001. -384 p.

77. Pospelov G.N. Problems of the historical development of literature. M., 1972. -271 p.

78. Pospelov G.N. Theory of literature: Textbook. - M.: Higher School, 1978. -351 p.

79. Russian literature of the 20th century in the mirror of parody: Anthology / Comp. ABOUT. Kushlina. - M.: Higher School, 1993. 477 p.

80. Sverbilova T.G. Tragicomedy in Soviet literature: (Genesis and development trends). - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka., 1990. - 145 p.

81. Selemeneva M.V. Artistic worlds of Russian drama of the 20th century: Textbook. Elets: Yerevan State University named after. I.A. Bunina, 2006. - 114 p.

82. Slavkin V. Monument to an unknown dude. M.: Artist, 1996. - 311 p.

83. Smelyansky A.M. Proposed circumstances: from the life of Russian theater in the 2nd half of the 20th century. M.: Artist. Director. Theater, 1999. - 351 p.

84. Stepanova A.A. Modern Soviet drama and its genres. M.: Knowledge, 1985.- 112 p.

85. Tamarchenko N.D. Realistic type of novel: Introduction to the typology of the Russian classical novel of the 19th century: Uch. allowance. - Kemerovo, 1985. -89 p.

86. Tamarchenko N.D. Typology of the realistic novel: Based on classical examples of the genre in Russian literature of the 19th century. - Krasnoyarsk, 1988. 195 p.

87. Tamarchenko N.D. Russian story of the Silver Age. (Problems of the poetics of plot and genre). Monograph. - M.: Intrada, 2007. - 256 p.

88. Theory of literature: Textbook. manual: In 2 volumes / Ed. N.D. Tamarchenko. - T. 1: N.D. Tamarchenko, V.I. Tyupa, S.N. Broitman. Theory of artistic discourse. Theoretical poetics. - M.: Academy, 2004. 512 p.

89. Theoretical poetics: Concepts and definitions: Reader for students/Auth.-comp. N.D. Tamarchenko. M.: RSUH, 2002. - 467 p.

90. Tikhvinskaya JI. The life of theatrical bohemia of the Silver Age: Cabarets and miniature theaters in Russia. 1908-1917. - M.: Young Guard, 2005. 527 p.

91. Tomashevsky B.V. Theory of literature. Poetics: Textbook. village M.: Aspect Press, 1999.-333 p.

92. Tyupa V.I. Analytics of art: microform. (Introduction to literary analysis). M.: Labyrinth, Russian State University for the Humanities, 2001. - 189 p.

93. Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M.: Nauka, 1977. -574 p.

94. Fedorov V.V. On the nature of poetic reality: Monograph. - M.: Sov. writer, 1984. 184 p.

95. Frolov V.V. The fate of drama genres. -M.: Sov. writer, 1979. -424 p.

96. Khalizev E.V. Drama as a phenomenon of art. - M.: Art, 1978. - 240 p.

97. Khalizev E.V. Theory of literature: Textbook. 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Higher. school, 2002. - 436 p.

98. Artistic life of modern society: In 4 volumes - Vol.1. -Subcultures and ethnic groups in artistic life. St. Petersburg, 1996. -238 p.

99. Shemanov A.Yu. Human self-identification and culture. M., 2007. - 479 p.

100. Yavchunovsky Ya.I. Drama yesterday and today: genre dynamics. Conflicts and characters. - Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1980. -254 p.

102. Zarzhetsky V.V. Traditions of the farce in Russian modern dramaturgy: dissertation. candidate philol. Sci. - M., 2006. - 228 p.

103. Ivashnev V.I. On the problems of the development of modern Soviet documentary theater: Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Sci. M., 1977. - 27 p.

104. Roginskaya O.O. Epistolary novel; poetics of the genre and its transformation in Russian literature: dissertation. candidate philol. nauk.-M., 2002.-237 p.

105. Starchenko E.V. Plays by N.V. Kolyada and N.N. Sadur in the context of dramaturgy of the 1980-90s: dissertation. candidate philol. Sci. - M., 2005.-213 p.

106. Tamarchenko N.D. Realistic type of novel (historical originality of the genre and patterns of its formation in Russian literature of the 19th century): Abstract of thesis. dis. doc. Sci. M., 1989. - 38 p.

107. Tyupa V.I. Artistry of a literary work: Author's abstract. dis. doc. Sci. M., 1990. - 25 p.

108. Shleynikova E.E. Dramaturgy O.A. Bogaeva in the context of Russian drama at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries: Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Sci. - St. Petersburg, 2008.- 19 p.

109. Shcherbakova A.A. Chekhov's text in modern dramaturgy: dissertation. candidate philol. Sci. - Irkutsk, 2006. 184 p.1. Articles:

110. Bernatskaya V.I. American drama of the 1970s // Problems and trends in the development of modern foreign drama. 1970s. M., 1982. - P. 57 - 69.

111. Golovko V.M. Hermeneutics of genre: project concept of literary studies // Literary studies on the threshold of the 21st century. -M.: Rendezvous -AM, 1998.-S. 207-211.

112. Gudkova V. The theme of death in Soviet stories of the 1920s. Relations between the world of the living and the world of the dead // Modern dramaturgy. 2007. - No. 2. -S. 213-220.

113. Dramaturgy from scratch: transcript of the “round table” // October. No. 5. -S. 167-176.

114. Zhurcheva T.V. From “new drama” to “new drama”: the death of tragicomedy (statement of the problem) (MS) // Proceedings of the international scientific conference “Modern Russian Drama”. - Kazan, 2007.

115. Zhurcheva T.V. “Tolyatti Drama”: summary of a critical essay (MS)// Materials of the scientific and practical seminar “Newest drama at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries: the problem of conflict.” - Togliatti, 2008.

116. Zabaluev V., Zenzinov A. The inescapable song of goats-3 // Russian Journal (russ.ru). - 2003. January 14.

117. Zabaluev V., Zenzinov A. New drama as the drama of the new // Theater. 2003. -No. 4. - P. 128-131.

118. Zabaluev V., Zenzinov A. Between meditation and know-how // Modern dramaturgy. 2003. - No. 4. - P. 163 - 166.

119. Zaslavsky G. Halfway between life and stage // October. - 2004. - No. 7.

120. Zaslavsky G. Theatrical diary of Grigory Zaslavsky // New world.-2003.-No. 5.-S. 194-196.

121. Zintsov O. Bodies and boundaries (European theater: physiology)// The Art of Cinema. 2007. - No. 3. - P. 99 - 111.124. ". .And my remarks about the memory of the genre” (an attempt at conversation) // St. Petersburg Theater Magazine. - 2002. No. 27. - P. 13 - 17.

122. Kukulin I. European theater of the 2000s: social criticism and poetics of mystery (from the editor) // New Literary Review. -2005. No. 73. - P. 241 - 243.

123. Lavlinsky S.P. In search of the "lost object". Narrative and receptive logic of T. Tolstoy's story

124. Yorick” // Poetics of Russian literature: Collection. articles, for the 75th anniversary of Professor Yu.V. Manna. M., 2006. - P. 423 - 441.

125. Lavlinsky S.P. The situation of “learning from a monster” in the literature of the 20th century: “Lessons” by D. Kharms, E. Ionesco, Y. Mamleeva // Discourse. Communication strategies of culture and education. - M., 2002. No. 10.

126. Lavrova A. Life in the era of transition // Theatrical life. 2007. - No. 1. - P. 58-60.

127. Lapkina G.A. Dialectics of movement (about some trends in the development of modern Soviet drama) // World of modern drama: Collection of scientific works. Ed. S. Bolkhontseva. Leningrad, 1985. -S. 6-20.

128. Lipovetsky M. Performances of violence: “New drama” and the boundaries of literary criticism // New Literary Review. - 2008. No. 89. -S. 192-200.

129. Lipovetsky M. Theater of violence in the society of performance: philosophical farces of Vladimir and Oleg Presnyakov // New Literary Review. 2005. - No. 73. - P. 244 - 276.

130. Mamaladze M. Theater of catastrophic consciousness: about the plays - philosophical tales of Vyacheslav Durnenkov against the background of theatrical myths around the “new drama” // New Literary Review. - 2005. -№73.-S. 279-302.

131. Matvienko K. New drama // Theater life. - 2007. No. 1. - P. 55 -57.

132. Matvienko K. New and progressive // ​​Theater life. 2007. - No. 1.-P.61-63.

133. Mesterghazi E.G. About “documentary” genres // Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. Series “Russian Philology”. M.: Publishing house MGOU. - 2007. - No. 2. - P. 188 - 195.

134. Mesterghazi E.G. Specificity of artistic imagery in “documentary literature” // Philological sciences. - 2007. No. 1. -P.3-13.

135. Moskaleva E.K. Trends in the genre development of Soviet drama in the 1970s and 80s // The World of Modern Drama: Collection of scientific works. Ed. S. Bolkhontseva. - Leningrad, 1985. - P. 59 - 71.

136. Moskovkina E., Nikolaeva O. Documentary theater: avant-garde rebellion or implicit commercialization? // New Literary Review. 2005.-№73.

137. Roginskaya O. Body and speech of Evgeniy Grishkovets (MS) // Materials of the scientific seminar of the Center for Visual Anthropology and Egohistory of the Russian State University for the Humanities (April 1, 2008).

138. Roginskaya O. About “Po Po” and around. About Evgeny Grishkovets and his new performance // Critical Mass. - 2006. - No. 1. - P. 11 - 14.

139. Rodionov A. British documentary dramaturgy verbatim (MS)// teatrdoc.ru

140. Rodionov A. Verbatim (MS) // teatrdoc.ru

141. Salnikova E. Logic of the genre // Modern dramaturgy. 1997. - No. 2. -S. 162-170.

142. Smirnov I. Subcultural revolution // http://www.screen.ru/Smirnov/7.htm

143. Ushakin S. On the benefits of fictitious kinship: notes on “missed” names // UFO. 2008. - No. 89. - P. 201 - 212.

144. Shekhovtsev I.S. Documentary and literature // Kursk Pedagogical Institute. Scientific notes. T.94. Questions of literature. - Kursk, 1972. - P. 3-47.

145. Chernets L.V. On the theory of literary genres // Philological sciences. -2006.-No.3.-S. 3-12.

146. Yakubova N. Verbatim: verbatim and pre-textual // Theater. 2006. - No. 4. -S. 38 -43.

147. Stephen Bottoms “Putting the Document into Documentary. An Unwelcome Corrective" // "TDR: The Drama Review". Fall 2006. - No. 50:3 (T191).