Who is a trickster in literature. Mr. Trickster: Loki, Carlson, Odysseus, Ostap Bender and other legendary tricksters

trickster- this is the mythological archetype of the earner and organizer of the cosmic order, which is often in the archaic mythology of hunters a mischievous person with an irrepressible, unbridled character, endowed with such vices as cunning, greed, stupidity, lust, anger, passion for gluttony. The character of the trickster has a duality and combines opposite qualities: the desire for orderliness, for creation and chaotic, spontaneous impulses aimed at destroying the previous achievements of mankind (for example, the trickster destroys the annual supply of grain, devours everything around, breaks taboos, blasphemes over shrines).

The final anthropomorphic image of a cultural hero is established in the image of a creator god, who transfers the benefits of civilization to people as a gift. Archaic gods have a dual character, being both good and harmful. Moral awareness of actions, the emergence of moral evaluation leads to the emergence of a pair of antagonist gods. opposing each other as rivals. Their opposition corresponds to a clear understanding in society of moral principles, established norms of good and evil. The rules of morality did not yet have the force of law. Their observance depended on faith and was supported in the forms of ritual, knowledge about the norms was consolidated and fixed with the help of rites (religious, family, household, initiatory).

The second reason is less obvious, it can be called psychological. C. G. Jung delicately and subtly showed that the figure of the trickster in mythology personifies the desire of a person to free himself from everything vile, monstrous, dirty (symbolized by the image of an animal). Continuing Jung's thought, it becomes clear that the image of the trickster is a clear embodiment of what a person wants to give up. This is a reminder of what a person was in the deep past. One must think that the evolution of the image of a cultural hero cannot stop at this point and must demonstrate further development. That is, the hero's mythologem embodied not only the idea of ​​what a person was, but also the ideal - what a person wants to become. In analytical psychology, the figure of God just objectifies all those incredible possibilities that are inaccessible to man, but which he passionately would like to possess. Therefore, the path from an unreasonable and indefatigable trickster to an omnipotent, omniscient and (which is important in the theory of Z. Freud) a god with permissiveness is quite natural. Z. Freud repeatedly speaks of the compensatory role of God's fantasy, in which a person's dream of his own power and authority is satisfied.

TRICKSTER - ALSO GOD

Word trickster(English “deceiver, dodger”) came into modern Russian from the language of psychologists and means a character who, despite outwardly negative traits, ultimately acts rather for the good, although the methods of his actions can cause, to put it mildly, rejection.

In previous works (Gavrilov, 2004; Gavrilov, 2006b; Gavrilov, 2010), the trickster archetype has already been considered in detail. Its main features are:

1. The trickster appears to violate the established foundations and traditions, it introduces an element of chaos into the existing order, contributes to de-idealization, the transformation of the ideal world into the real world.

2. Trickster - a fundamental Force not controlled by anyone, the result of which is unpredictable even for the Trickster himself. The trickster is a provocateur and initiator of socio-cultural action and change of creation, which looks like a corruption.

3. Trickster traditionally acts as an intermediary between worlds and social groups, promotes the exchange of cultural values ​​between them and the transfer of information from the unknown (Other World, Nav) to the knowable (White Light, Yav). He makes the implicit explicit, the first to intrude into the realm of the unknown.

4. The trickster is the master of many arts, a master of all trades, sometimes he is a companion of a cultural hero, his guide or his Shadow, or even a cultural hero himself; one who tests the hero's claims to Strength. A trickster is a gainer of knowledge through a violation of a social or cosmogonic prohibition, an initiator of a mythological (archetypal) action.

5. From the point of view of the existing ethical system of the cultural hero, the Trickster is immoral. He stands on the edge of the human world. and the primitive world of Wild Nature, therefore, from the point of view of man as a social being, he is ridiculous, unreasonable or unconscious. Often has pronounced features of a seductive-hypersexual and a glutton. Prone to sex change.

6. The trickster is an illusionist, a hoaxer, a werewolf, a shifter, a gambler, for him there is no habitual idea of ​​life and death, because the game can always be started from the beginning and stopped at any moment (Gavrilov, 1997, p. 67–73; Gavrilov , 2006b). He does not always come out victorious from the game he has started and can get into trouble, becoming a victim of his own cunning, if the illusion he created (for example, Force or Truth) is not convincing.

7. The trickster acts as an old sage on the one hand, and as a youngster on the other (depending on what kind of culture hero is next to him, whose sense of significance the Trickster detracts from).

Who is the Trickster in the mythology of the ancient Slavs and in their, so to speak, "home" Natural faith? The first one that researchers usually call is the devil. Although the image of the devil, of course, is of pre-Christian origin, there is a huge difference between the devil in paganism and the devil in Christianity. Unlike the latter, in pagan ideas, the devil is not bad, but simply different, since it is beyond the line of life and death. In modern terms, he is just as much an outsider as the Trickster.

Of course, one cannot but admit that Christian ideas about the devil had a serious impact on the appearance of the demon and the devil. In folklore and folk pictures, devils are anthropomorphic creatures covered with black hair, with horns, tails and hooves (often with one hoof, which is a sign of being in two worlds at the same time or belonging to another world). The devil is the spitting image of the Greek god of nature Pan, flesh from the flesh of the Wild Forest.

Folk ideas are known about the mobility, "fidgeting" of devils (demons), their ability to move exceptionally fast (Berezovich, Rodionova, 2002, pp. 7–44). Like the Trickster, the devil is in his own space, separate from people and gods. He has the ability to be a werewolf: he turns into a black cat, a dog, a pig, a snake, but most often into a person - a wanderer, a baby, a blacksmith, a miller. The devil constantly interferes in people's lives, causes minor troubles, forces them to unjustified actions, sends confusion, makes drunks stray, provokes crime, suicide, seduces women, seeks to get a person's soul (Myths ..., vol. 2, p. 625).

The enemy of God, the devil, unlike the “ordinary” devil, turns into both a man and a woman and, of course, an animal: a goat, a horse, a bird, a fish, a reptile.

Yes, the devil spoils, but in the end, the “corruption” of God’s Creation by the devil turns out to be nothing more than an initiatory test that the Dark Beginning arranges for the “Light One”.

It is known that the Scandinavian trickster god Odin was called the god of the gallows (hanged). In this regard, let us mention the connection of the rope in general with evil spirits or even the devil. This is reflected in the situation of suicide, which is "blessed" by evil spirits. There are stories about how a girl who tied a rope to hang herself was saved by a guardian angel, after which she heard the scolding of the departing devil (Novichkova, 1995, p. 596); how a man about to hang himself saw in a dream a grinning devil with a rope (Cherepanov, 1996). “The impact of evil spirits on the hanged man, who puts on a noose at the instigation or directly with the help of the devil, is also considered by the Slavs almost everywhere to be the cause of suicide” (Slavic Antiquities, vol. I, p. 378). Let us also recall the miraculous properties attributed to the rope from which the loop was made.

The devil is engaged in the substitution of children and their upbringing (which, by the way, may indirectly indicate that Veles acted as the patron of young people), successfully defends his favorites in a secular court, and turns out, by the way, to be the godfather of Baba Yaga.

Like Ulenspiegel, the devils slip the unworthy of uncleanness instead of communion (Zelenin, 2002, pp. 171–175, 299, 304). Of course, they also get into trouble - for example, they are shot by a hunter, and having lost the argument, the devils, like goblin, give the right to unhindered hunting and / or magic items to the good fellow, and the dues - to a peasant like Balda (Tales and Songs of the Belozersky Territory, 1999, No. 7, 35, 42, 96). The devil gives the peasant money on the security of his soul and remains with. nose, in exchange for a soul, serves instead of a soldier and cannot withstand the hardships of service (Sadovnikov, 2003, No. 79–80). If we turn to European folklore, then the devil is also inferior in resourcefulness to Pierre or Jacques the rogue (French folk tales, 1959, pp. 266–276).

In Slavic folklore and in the epic of the closest neighbors of the Slavs, numerous fragments of the dualistic myth about the creation of the world and man himself by two principles have been preserved - divine and "devilish", therefore, Light and Dark, sometimes two brothers. In fact, in this myth, the so-called Belobog (or actually God) acts as a cultural hero, and his companion and rival competing with him (i.e. Chernobog) manifests himself as a real Trickster.

“The Lord began to create the world, where the people live. He dissolved the sea-okiya; you have to sow the land. The evil devil came running, and he says

to the Lord: “You, Lord, create everything: you created the whole world, let the sea open; let me sow the land if you like” - “This!” said the Lord. He sowed, the evil one sowed - no use! “Sink down, you evil one,” said the Lord, “to the very bottom of the sea, you, evil one, get a handful of earth”; surfaced - looking, the whole earth was washed away by water. He sank into another - too: there is no earth in a handful. The evil one sank down for the third time and, by God's command, a grain of sand remained behind the nail. God took that grain of sand and sowed the whole earth, with herbs, with forests, with all sorts of land for man. - “We will be with you, Lord, brothers,” the evil one said to the Lord: You will be the younger brother, I am the big one! “The Lord chuckled. “Let us, Lord, be equal brothers.” God smiled again. “Well, Lord, you will be the elder brother, I will be the younger one!” - “Take it,” says the Lord, “take me by the handle above the elbow; shake that handle with all your might." The evil one took the Lord by the handle above the elbow; I pressed the pen with all my might, I was tired of the effort, but the Lord stands there and only smiles. Here the Lord only took the evil one by the hand: the evil one sat down. The Lord put the sign of the cross on the evil one, and the evil one fled to the underworld. People, and even holy people, are called the sons of God, and the evil one wanted to climb into the brotherhood of the Lord! (Kireevsky, 1986, vol. 2, p. 38).

“The Lord began to create the world, where the people live. He dissolved the sea-okiya; you have to sow the land. The crafty devil came running, and the Lord said: “You, Lord, create everything: you created the whole world, let the sea open; let me sow the land if you like!” - “This!” - said the Lord. He sowed, the evil one sowed, - no use! “Sink down, you evil one,” said the Lord, “to the very bottom of the sea, you, evil one, get a handful of earth.” The evil one sank to the bottom of the sea, the evil one seized a handful of earth; surfaced: looking - the whole earth was washed away by water. He sank into another, - too: there is no earth in a handful. The evil one descended for the third time, and, by God's command, a grain of sand remained behind the nail. God took that grain of sand and sowed the whole earth, with herbs, with forests, with all sorts of land for man ”(Buslaev, 1859, vol. I, part. 2, p. 100).

“At the beginning of the Light, God was pleased to push the Earth forward. He called the Devil, told him to dive into the abyss of water in order to get a handful of earth from there and bring it to him. - Okay, Satan thinks, I'll make the same land myself! He dived, took out the earth in his hand and stuffed his mouth with it. He brought it to God and gives it back, but he himself does not utter a word ... Wherever the Lord throws the earth - it suddenly appears so even, even, that you stand at one end - then at the other you can see everything that is happening on the earth. Satan is looking… he wanted to say something and choked. God asked: what does he want? The devil coughed and ran from fright. Then thunder and lightning struck the fleeing Satan, and where he lies down, hillocks and hills will move forward; where he coughs, a mountain will grow; And so, running all over the earth, he dug it up: he made hillocks, hills, mountains and high mountains ”(Afanasiev, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 458–462).

“Two goldeneyes floated on the old-world Okian-Sea, the first was a white-eyedeye, the other was a blackeye. And those two gogols swam the Lord Almighty himself and Satan. By God's command, by the blessing of the Mother of God, Satan pulled out a handful of earth from the bottom of the blue sea. From that handful the Lord created flat places and pathy fields, and Satan made impassable abysses, gorges and high mountains” (Onchukov, 1998).

“So, when God created water, he said to Satan: “Go into the sea, take a handful of sand from the bottom and bring it to Me, I will create the earth.” Satan took two handfuls of sand from the bottom (he had already planned to deceive the Lord and do the same as he did), brought one handful and gave it to God, and hid the other with himself. God threw a handful of sand - and the earth was born. But when he left, and threw his handful of Satan, humps and stone mountains appeared on the earth. That is why mountains were born on earth” (Burtsev, 1910, vol. 6, p. 121).

“God created man in his own image and likeness, and the devil also wanted to do it: he wrote and breathed his spirit into him. A horned goat jumped out - the devil got scared and backed away from the goat. Since then, he has been afraid of him. That is why they keep a goat in the stables, and also in horse-breeding stables - where there were pairs of up to a hundred horses, they always kept a goat. He is a damn double ”(Sadovnikov, 2003, p. 248).

And here is the version of the creation of man, set forth by the pagan magi in a dispute with the suppressor of the Belozersky pagans, Jan Vyshatich, in the retelling of the Christian Jan and the chronicler. Man was created by God and Satan: “God was washed, otterse decrepit and overthrown from heaven to earth; and satan quarreled with God, who should create a man in him. And the devil created man, and God created the soul in him. In the same way, if a person dies, the body goes to the earth, and the soul goes to God. Yang hung those Magi, “and the other night the bear climbed up, gnawed, and demolished them ...” (PSRL, vol. I). Scandinavian Loki also participated in the creation of man.

In our opinion, L. Prozorov justified the Indo-European roots of the annalistic evidence of the Magi quite convincingly, despite the criticism addressed to him (Prozorov, 2006a).

The following story was recorded in the Penza province among the Mordovians recently by historical standards. Often, Russian pagans, who did not want to sacrifice the faith of their ancestors, went to the east. On the Volga, they mixed with the local Finno-Ugric population, and the myth was superimposed on the myth: “It was not Cham Pas who wanted to create a person, but Shaitan: he collected clay, sand and earth from seventy-seven countries of the world, but he couldn’t blind the body in a good way - then he blinds a pig , then a dog, then a reptile; but he wanted to create man in the image and likeness of God. Calling the bird-mouse, he said to her: “Fly to the sky, there is a towel hanging by Cham Paz; when he goes to the bathhouse, he wipes himself with that towel; he hangs on a carnation, climb into one end of the towel, make a nest, spread the children so that one end of the towel becomes heavier and falls to me on the ground. The bat did just that. Shaitan wiped with a towel a man he had molded, who received the image and likeness of God, but he could not put a living soul into him. When the Lord revived him, Shaitan entered into an argument with him: and for his share of a person, something must be given to him. They decided as follows: “The image and likeness of my towel,” Cham Pas said, “and my soul, and let your body be.” And Cham Pas punished the bird-mouse for serving Shaitan: he took away her wings and attached a bare tail, just like Shaitan, and gave the same paws as his ”(Veselovsky, 1889, p. 10–11).

As D. Gromov points out, more than a dozen folklore variants of this plot have been recorded (Gromov, 2005, p. 8–29; Proceedings of the Expedition ..., 1872, p. 145; Radchenko, 1910, p. 74–76; Galician-Russian folk legends, 1902, p. 222, no. 388).

“The Lord God was on earth, and with him the devil. Well, the one that confuses people, and he thought of confusing God too. And so they went. They have a lot of land on the way of the strechatsa. “Who,” says the devil, “is the stronger of us, you or I, we will show our strength.” He took the land, spat on it, rolled it in his hands and made something like statues, outlined a person. “You see, he looks like (looks like) me,” the devil says to Jesus Christ. Well, Jesus Christ approached this statue. And she's on the floor. The devil could not stop her, shtob stood. So Jesus Christ came up, took a cap of the very earth in his palm, on his hand, let it go a little with saliva, stirred this dirt, and on his lips and anointed this statue. Then he blew in the face - the spirit ripened. And he revived the statue, stood up, got up and went. The devil has flown away. The body in us is devilish, from the earth, but the soul of God - it forever and after death goes back to him to heaven ”(Folklore Priangarye, 2000, pp. 47–48).

“The devil created the human body from clay, but could not revive him; God said to the devil: “Give me a man, I will give him life”; gave the devil to see how to do it. Further, the devil misses the moment of creation, and will never know how God revived a person (Zelenin, 1914, pp. 675–676).

“Tai vin then rip out of the land of a person and start hacking at him, spitting, spitting, abi revive him, but telepaim him, storm - you can’t. Pan-God comes and feeds him: - “What’s up, my robish?” for you, it seems, may you comrades, but I may not; I want to meet my comrades as well.” - And God, it seems: - “Are you good enough for your comrades to grow up?” - “Tai tell him to go to that get and to that man, there is a wine - ass to him - spitting in the middle, and revive him and call him Adam "" (Materials to the Hutsul demonology, 1909, p. 66).

“God created an angel in his own image and likeness, and the devil, like an evil spirit, began to envy him and began to make a creature out of earth and water, which looked like an angel in everything. And so he created a man from the earth, put him in the sun to dry... The impure one looked sadly at his creation, to which he could not give a soul. At this time, the Lord God came and asked him: - "What is it that you blinded from the earth?" - "Man", - answered the devil. - "So why doesn't he walk?" - "I can't give him a soul," the devil replied. “Oh, good,” said the Lord. “So I will give him a soul, and while he is alive, let him be mine, and when he dies, yours.” The devil agreed to this condition. Then God, glad that he would give a soul to another creature, grinned and blew in the face of a man. And then the human face lit up with divine lordship, became sweet and smiling, like an angel's, and the eyes quietly opened, and the face of God appeared in them, filled with angelic bliss. And therefore, even now, a person who has nothing in his soul, who is not tormented by any sin, has spiritual purity and angelic goodness on his face, as at the moment when God gave him a soul with his spirit ”(Voltaire, Vukichevich, 1915, p. 101–114).

All of the above exactly corresponds to the image of the Trickster according to the second, and partly the fifth and sixth signs highlighted above.

TRIKSTER(eng. trickster deceiver, trickster), an archaic character in early mythology of almost all the peoples of the earth. The term was introduced into scientific use by the American anthropologist Paul Radin, who for the first time undertook a study of the trickster archetype in the cultural analysis of the mythology of the Winnebago Indians. Subsequently, the trickster became the subject of research by many scientists - philosophers, anthropologists, culturologists, folklorists, theater critics, etc. By the end of the 20th century. in philosophy and cultural studies, the trickster has been recognized as one of the fundamental characters of human culture.

The trickster (in the myths of different cultures embodied in the Rabbit, Raven, Spider, etc.) is distinguished by cunning, cunning, deceit, cruelty, the ability to transform or reincarnate. He is always both a creator and a destroyer, a deceiver and a victim of deception. He has no conscious desires, his behavior is determined by instincts and impulses. He knows neither good nor evil, although he is responsible for both.

Often the trickster acts under the guise of a deity or demigod: the Egyptian Set, the Scandinavian Loki, the Greek Hercules, etc. In the overwhelming majority of myths, the trickster is the "second" creator of the world; in a certain sense, he is the comic stand-in for the cultural hero. However, duality, ambivalence is inherent in the trickster himself and is his fundamental property: he is witty, active, resourceful; then lazy, ignorant and stupid. The trickster is the instigator of strife and conflicts that bring humiliation and beatings on himself. Sometimes he even changes sex, which also has a double interpretation: in many cultures, sexual travesty was a symbol of passive sodomy, but in shamanism it was considered one of the highest achievements of a male shaman. Any trickster's actions are not amenable to an unambiguous assessment, including ethical, not fitting into the framework of "positive" or "negative". For him, there are no moral or social values; he is guided only by his own passions and appetites, and, despite this, it is only thanks to his deeds that all values ​​acquire their real value.

This character has been greatly developed in the traditions of carnival culture (travesty, disguise, i.e. traditional carnival techniques are undoubtedly the essence of the continuation of the trickster's ability to turn into different animals and change sex); and later in the theatrical culture of the Renaissance, in particular in the commedia dell'arte (by the way, it is here that the homosexual and bisexual features of the trickster are especially clearly preserved in the plasticity of the characters for example, the famous engravings of J. Callo).

Further, the trickster duality of comedy characters was preserved mainly in the folk theater street, farce and especially puppet (according to one of the versions of culturologists, the puppet is always in a certain sense the embodiment of the trickster). Traditional characters of the folk puppet theater of different countries trace their ancestry from the trickster: Petrushka, Punch, Pulcinella, Hansvurst, Vidushaka, Karagez, Palvan-Kachal, etc. They undoubtedly possess trickster ambivalence, lack of a moral absolute, knavery, deceit, cruelty and innocence; propensity to get into stupid situations and at the same time come out of them as a winner.

In the literary tradition, the phenomenon of the trickster developed in a slightly different way. If in prose, especially in large forms, the "heirs" of the trickster are represented quite widely (for example, the medieval Gargantua and Pantagruel F. Rabelais; later Til Ulenspiegel S. Coster and even Schweik J. Hasek and many others), then in dramaturgy ( and hence in the secular theater) there were no such heroes for several centuries. The development of the psychological orientation of dramaturgy, which sought to create voluminous, but internally consistent characters, led to the actual division of the single image of the trickster into different, relatively speaking, “positive” and “negative” characters. Undoubtedly, this is due to the traditionally recognized educational function of theatrical art, designed to form high feelings and uphold moral ideals. These traditions were equally strong in almost all aesthetic directions of the post-Renaissance theater - classicism, enlightenment, romanticism, sentimentalism, realism, social drama. Perhaps only theatrical symbolism remained aloof from the persistently shaped moral ideal; however, the whole aesthetic and ideological concept of symbolism was extremely far from the trickster theme.

However, with the development of the latest theater, especially postmodern theater (in particular, tragicomedy with its moral relativism), characters reappear in the stage art, revealing their kinship with the trickster. Of course, their characters are created by completely different pictorial means; nevertheless, in the tragicomic and absurdist works of various authors, there is a new development of the trickster theme. One of the most curious and unexpected early examples of new dramaturgy Charlotte in cherry orchard A. Chekhov, a strange, almost sexless creature, a jester who is not directly related to the development of the plot, but determines the general aesthetics of the play and, in a certain sense, becomes its tuning fork.

Probably, it was essential for the world theater to go through the stage of unequivocal stage roles in order to return to one of the most important archetypes of our culture, the ambivalent trickster, at a new round of its development.

Tatyana Shabalina

Lyubov Orlova in the film by Grigory Alexandrov "Volga-Volga". 1938Mosfilm Cinema Concern / Fotodom

Trickster mythological and trickster modern

Initially, the trickster is a mythological concept; in modern times (also called modernity), the cultural roles of a rogue, a jester, a thief, an adventurer, an impostor, a holy fool, and so on, ascend to him. However, speaking of Soviet culture, I return to the term "trickster" to reflect the syncretic nature of its brightest characters. If Ostap Bender can still, at the very least, be attributed to rogues (although his roguery is clearly different from the classical models, if only because he has no owner), and Benya Krik can be attributed to thieves (although, as in the case of Bender, artistry here is clearly prevails over pragmatics), then it is impossible to classify Ehrenburg's Julio Jurenito, Ivan Babichev, the inventor of Ophelia, into any particular category.
from Olesha's "Envy", Woland with his retinue - a kind of multifaceted trickster, Venichka from "Moscow-Petushka" ... They are very different, and at the same time they are all tricksters.

Tricksters of the 20th century are very far from the mythological prototype: often they are far from simple, and even intellectual, their tricks can have sociocultural significance, and so on. Of course, there are common features - ambivalence, being on the border between opposite categories and states, creating a kind of "criminal" situation and existing inside it. Another important common feature is the specific relationship with the sacred. The American researcher Lewis Hyde rightly noted that if a trickster does not correspond to the sacred, he is simply a crook.

The sacred context of the new tricksters is best described using the category of spending introduced by Georges Bataille. Spending everything valuable, everything authoritative is, on the one hand, a form of intimacy of relations with the world, and on the other, it is the acquisition of a special kind of freedom. The anarchic destruction characteristic of the trickster is a ritual of gaining freedom, and a very dangerous freedom at that. Dmitry Alexandrovich Prigov, who, I believe, quite consciously “posed” himself as a trickster, often repeated: what is my function? In order to show freedom with all the dangers - "to show the image of an artist who has infected himself with freedom with all the components of its limits and dangers." And in nothing else.

Everyone knows that it is in the rogue that the personality traits of the New Age are formed. The rogue is the first type to break away from traditional connections, relying on himself, on his own reason, calculation, and so on. And looking at the Soviet trickster, it is obvious that it was through him that the logic of modernity was realized in the Soviet Union. The official culture declared its "new man" the ideal of modern times. But in fact, he turned out to be a cardboard character who did not stand the test of time at all. There are new people in Olesha's "Envy" - Andrei Babichev and Volodya Makarov, they are opposed by the poet Nikolai Kavalerov and the trickster Ivan Babichev. These are all versions of modernity. In the second part of the book, Olesha pushes their foreheads together and quite artificially leads Ivan and Kavalerov to defeat - although the logic of the text indicates something completely different.

The Soviet popularity of the trickster is striking in comparison with the role assigned to him by Russian literature of the 19th century: in the West we see the most charming Truffaldino, the Lame Bes, Figaro, Rastignac - but in the Russian classics? Gogol's devil from "The Night Before Christmas"? Khlestakov? Chichikov? They are followed by Dostoevsky's distinctly negative heroes - Smerdyakov and Petrusha Verkhovensky. Against this background, Soviet tricksters of the 20th century look like superstars, like the undisputed favorites of the public.

The Russian 19th century did not create a powerful trickster figure due to the opposition to individualism that is specific to Russian post-Pushkin culture. And the trickster, the rogue, is the embodiment of individualism, which is why he is discredited in the Russian classics. Tolstovsky Dolokhov is a real trickster and at the same time the darkest figure in the entire panorama of War and Peace, next to which only Napoleon can be placed - the embodiment of extreme individualism in the culture of the 19th century.

This negative attitude, oddly enough, reaches Bulgakov. In The Heart of a Dog, picaresque individualism is sharply reduced in the figure of Sharikov. Here the tradition of discrediting the trickster is so exaggerated that it paradoxically returns us to the mythological depths: Sharikov fully corresponds to Jung's (appeared thirty years later) definition of the trickster as an archetype of the bestial in man.

But almost simultaneously with The Heart of a Dog (1925), Olesha wrote Envy (published in 1927), where Ivan Babichev is a completely different trickster, artistically rebelling against the (imaginary) rationalism of the Soviet project. And even earlier (in 1921), Ehrenburg wrote The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito, in which the intellectual trickster becomes the center of all modern civilization.

Trickster against cynicism

Why did the figure of the trickster become central to Soviet culture? This has to do with cynicism as a reaction to (Soviet) modernity, a phenomenon described by the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk in The Critique of Cynical Reason, but very little developed in relation to Soviet culture. As follows from the Soviet literature of the 1920s-30s, and then the 1960s-70s, cynicism became the norm of survival and a mass response to the methodical cynicism of the authorities. The gallery of Soviet cynics is diverse and rich: from the mass cynic fighting for existence in the stories of Zoshchenko and the plays of Erdman to the tragic Pilate in Bulgakov, from the satirically spat upon Koreiko
to the poeticized and romanticized supercynic Stirlitz.

The trickster presents perhaps the only alternative to this cynicism. The goal of his game is to undermine power, whether symbolic or political. Moreover, the trickster carries out this undermining through the languages ​​of power, turning them inside out, bringing them to the point of absurdity, but without inventing anything new. In this sense, the trickster is an expression for “the power of the weak” (as an important dissident essay by Vaclav Havel and a book important for feminism by Elizabeth Janeway were called).

It is significant that in most of the works I have mentioned, it is precisely the conflict between the trickster and the cynic that is in the foreground: Ostap Bender vs. Koreiko, Julio Jurenito vs. cynicism of various political doctrines, Woland with retinue vs. Muscovites, whose cynicism is presented as a trivialization of the cynicism of Pontius Pilate, Venichka vs. God and angels as the embodiment of cynicism (remember Venichka's last argument about what the laughter of angels reminded him of?), fox A Huli vs. wolf-werewolf Sasha Sery, part-time general of the FSB ("The Holy Book of the Werewolf" by Pelevin).

Trickster as an excuse for cynicism?

The trickster is not only a parody of the cynicism of the authorities. He also reacts to the opposite thing, to the social cynicism of the common man, which in the Soviet state became necessary for everyday survival. This second cynicism of the trickster exalts, as it were, relieves the feeling of guilt, the feeling of shame, illegality. After all, the trickster turns the cynicism of survival into a performance, into a show. In survival, the most important thing is pragmatics: getting something, moving up in the hierarchy, and so on. And the trickster removes the pragmatic effect. Ostap Bender hunts for treasures, however, having received a million from Koreiko, he loses the meaning of existence: it turns out that Bender does not need pragmatics. Well, Venichka denies pragmatics immediately, completely and defiantly. Therefore, the trickster gesture is self-sufficient as an aesthetic work.

Trickster in official culture

Russian culture of the 20th century prefers sophisticated, complex, witty tricksters. And, of course, parodying the "cultural hero" - in the face of the Soviet authorities and authorities in a broad sense (if we mean "Julio Hurenito" or "Moscow-Petushki"). This logic was assimilated even by socialist realism. A trickster was placed next to the hero embodying power: Menshikov next to Peter, grandfather Shchukar next to Davydov, Malyuta next to Ivan the Terrible. This connection was ironically reproduced by Bulgakov in "Ivan Vasilyevich", placing next to the pseudo-Terrible - Bunsha quite convincing thief Georges Miloslavsky. The trickster, with its syncretism, has a place in both informal and official culture. Ostap Bender, despite all the difficulties, existed in the official field until 1948, when the next publication of novels was recognized as a "gross political mistake" and "slander on Soviet society." But already in 1956, Bender returned; moreover, soon with the film by Mikhail Schweitzer (1968) he entered a wide circle of Soviet film tricksters. Other tricksters of official culture are Vasily Terkin, Kostya the musician from "Merry Fellows", Strelka from "Volga-Volga", Pyotr Oleinikov in various film roles.

Soviet comic culture turned many powerful characters into either fools or tricksters. Heroic Stirlitz and Chapaev become tricksters in jokes. It is widely known that when creating Vasily Terkin, Tvardovsky relied on the folklore tradition of soldiers' tales, in which the soldier is also a trickster character. But the trickster, entering the official culture, undergoes a kind of castration, and this is evident in the main part of Vasily Terkin. When Tvardovsky writes the poem "Terkin in the Other World", he removes his coiffed hero from official culture, and his trickster potential is revealed in full. And the same thing happens with characters moving from a movie to a joke. The potential that is present in them, but not accentuated, is realized in the folklore genre.

Of course, there are many tricksters in other cultures. But, as often happened, in Soviet culture the universal features were expressed in an exaggerated, almost grotesque form: tricksters are, perhaps, more important than national heroes. Let's say there are a lot of rogues in Hollywood and British cinema, but most often they are rogues, like Michael Caine's and Steve Martin's Inveterate Scammers, Robert Redford's and Paul Newman's characters, or Max Bialistok from The Producers, as well as many others. Although there are exceptions - the grandiose success of the classic trickster, and not just the rogue Sacha Baron Cohen, is an example of this.

Tricksters across the range

Modernism, and even more postmodernism, is consonant with the trickster undermining of oppositions, border crossings, language games, and the like. It may seem that there are more tricksters in Soviet modernism than in postmodernism. This is not so: modernist figures are more noticeable, but there are plenty of tricksters in postmodernism. These are Venichka, and Gurevich from Walpurgis Night by the same author, and Pelevin's fox A Khuli, and, of course, the artistic project of Dmitry Alexandrovich Prigov, who built the image of a modern artist as a "software" trickster.

In connection with Prigov, the question arises: is it possible to call not a cultural, but a historical, real character a trickster? It is possible, but only when his or her behavior is built as an artistic image, in other words, if we are dealing with life-creation, as in the case of Alexei Kruchenykh, Daniil Kharms, Faina Ranevskaya, Nikolai Glazkov, Abram Tertz. That is, with an artistic image devoid of pragmatic effect. In all other cases, there is a variation of cynicism. Even (and especially) when techniques from the arsenal of tricksters are utilized (Zhirinovsky).

Trickster and cynic in modern society

Looking from today at Soviet culture, we understand that it was the cynic poetized by the trickster who was the man of Soviet modernity. This type was formed then, but it functions now and now determines post-Soviet politics and post-Soviet public opinion. The trickster humor of the 2011-2012 protests and Pussy Riot’s “punk prayer”, which is integral to the protest movement, testify to the fact that the trickster is once again in demand when the cynicism of the authorities, on the one hand, is unbearable, and on the other hand, is insurmountable by others, political or social methods.

Mark Lipovetsky- Doctor of Philology, specialist in postmodern literature, professor at the University of Colorado (USA). Together with his father, Naum Leiderman, he wrote a two-volume textbook on modern Russian literature, and is publishing a five-volume book by Dmitry Aleksandrovich Prigov. 

Post #4 - Herald, Ally, Changeling

Let's start with the Trickster

Trickster is perhaps the most popular term from mythology. You either know perfectly well without me what a trickster is, or you already guess, because you have heard the word more than once. But for every firefighter:

trickster - deceiver, trickster) archetype in mythology, folklore and religion - "a demonic-comic understudy of a cultural hero, endowed with the features of a rogue, a mischievous person" a deity, spirit, person or anthropomorphic animal that commits illegal actions or, in any case, does not obey the general rules of behavior . As a rule, the trickster performs an action not due to the "malicious intent" of resistance, but sets the task of the essence of the game process of the situation and life. Not the game of life itself, but the process is important for the trickster. In fictional works, tricksters often act as antiheroes."The trickster is a mind without a sense of responsibility."

Here's what Wikipedia tells us. Simply put, the Trickster is a prankster character. And the most famous trickster of all time is Loki, the Norse god.

Why are tricksters needed?

Trickster has several functions. Firstly , it works like the Herald catalyst - changes the state of things around, makes others change, though without changing himself. The trickster breaks the usual well-established course of life, arranging tricky setups, and not always good, but not always evil.

Trister is ambivalent, which means - contradictory, at the same time angry and kind. But not as the Keeper of the Threshold, who is neither evil nor good, but in itself, namely, evil and good at the same time. Such a complex character.

The second task of the Trickster is to make people laugh . This is certainly a comic character, he jokes himself and often becomes the object of a return joke.

And finally, the third task , directly arising from the first two: Trickster - natural, natural, so to speak,opponent of the status quo, that is, the current state of affairs, the established opinion of other characters about themselves. The Trickster lowers the Hero and the rest from heaven to earth, brings unattainable gods closer to ordinary people, reduces pathos.

Like the Changeling, the Trickster changes the Hero's point of view, enriches, albeit aggressively, the picture of the world.

Trickster - evil?

Yes, that's the point, no. The trickster is the favorite hero of the public, the protagonist of many fairy tales of all peoples of the world. Trickster - the embodiment of the victory of the mind and dexterity over brute force and power. Trister is a fox that deceives a lion, a hare that beats a wolf, a tortoise that beats a hare in a run. We love Tricksters. Why?

Because they are contradictory. They achieve our love with bold, extraordinary deeds and humor, but at the same time remain imperfect and are not shy about it. On the contrary, they claim that the whole world is imperfect, and this is normal. You never know what the kings and gods imagined for themselves. Princesses also poop.

In general, the Trickster can be a Hero and an Anti-Hero, can be a companion and assistant of the Hero, can be an ambiguous minion of evil, who will turn everything in his favor. It often happens that the Trickster is generally a third force, which has its own goals, and from which everyone will get - both the Hero and the villain.

Odysseus is probably the most famous Trickster Hero from mythology.

Tricksters in life

In preparation for the post, Internet trolls came to my mind as the embodiment of modern tricksters. The task of the troll is not to prove his point of view, but to evoke negative emotions in you. Trolls don't argue, they have fun, teasing you, exposing your pain points. As we remember, it is better not to feed the trolls, but to draw conclusions - how and why you were hurt by the troll's statements. And strengthen the defense there.

This is an example of an external trickster. But it is much more useful to be able to handle the inner trickster, or rather to grow it for yourself. I'm not advocating becoming an Internet troll right now, but taking on the role of Trickster can help the Hero defeat a stronger and more powerful villain - yes, yes, with the help of wit and laughter! - or bypass the Keeper of the Threshold. It's good to be a Trickster, don't forget about it!

The female version of the Trickster

I'm having some trouble remembering famous female tricksters to illustrate, and I've been looking into the inventory to sort it out. The fact is that the Trickster is ambivalent not only in relation to good and evil, but also in relation to gender. The Trickster is very close to the Changeling, often with the same character taking on both roles. Historically, in fairy tales and myths, tristers often had signs of both sexes - the same Loki once became the mother of Sleipnir, the eight-legged horse of Odin. So do not think that women are deprived of trickster features. It’s just that their presence immediately removes the heroine from the category of “good girls”, and public morality does not like this.

Among the heroines of Shakespeare, there are many trickster girls - for example, Viola is the main character of "12 Nights". Not only does she not hesitate to dress up as a boy (see the ambivalence of the Tricksters), but she is also quite a comic character, making fun of the proud and pretentious Olivia.

Shadow

And so we got to the image that is closest to the role of the villain. But even here everything is not so simple. Let's start with the obvious.

What is Shadow?

This is the embodiment of our secret fears, repressed feelings and thoughts, everything that we drive deep into ourselves, in the hope that if we do not pay attention to it, it will resolve itself. But it doesn't work like that. On the contrary, in the darkness and silence of the subconscious, the Shadow accumulates strength, grows, and may one day break out and even seize control over us. Yes, she sometimes bucks when you make a stupid reservation or suddenly forget to do something important - this is your Shadow showing signs of life. Everyone has it.

In the stories, the Shadow is incarnated as a villain. This is the easiest way out - to distance yourself from the Shadow. Declare it to be a completely different entity from you. Relieve yourself of responsibility and give it to someone who is “dressed in black, mustache, swears dirty”.

Something, but women-Shadows in art are a dime a dozen. All feme fatale belong to this archetype. And this is not because "women are evil" in the eyes of male authors, but because the myth of the battle with the Shadow tells of a fight with one's own shadow side, in this case, with the repressed Anima, the female part of the psyche, which, being abandoned and pushed into The ninth plan can destroy the hero.

How to defeat the Shadow?

The most important secret of victory over the Shadow is to bring it into the light, stop hiding the source of the Shadow, understand yourself. For this, people go to psychoanalysts - to understand what is happening to you, to understand that the root of the problem is inside, not outside.

In stories, this is embodied in the humanization of the Shadow. We quickly become bored and stop believing in cardboard black rulers. We endow villains with human qualities, make them contradictory, understandable, bring them closer to ourselves.

You know that no one considers himself a villain. The villain is the Hero, or rather the Anti-Hero, of his own story.

Shadow is not evil

Moreover, the Shadow itself is not evil. Just like Trickster, Changeling, Keeper of the Threshold. It is like a conspiracy of different elements and functions of our psyche. So evolution arranged that we develop, grow, become better in the conditions of conflict, competition, struggle. And the body itself arranges this struggle for us for our own good.

If the Keeper of the Threshold is the embodiment of your neuroses, then the Shadow is the embodiment of psychoses, a much more serious opponent. Yes, the body can overdo it and, in an attempt to improve you in the battle with itself, destroy you.

Rules of mythological literacy

Mythological literacy is needed in order not to blow the battle to oneself. The rules are simple:

Do not feed your Shadow, do not drive it into the depths, where it will get stronger and be able to control you. Practice mindfulness and attention to yourself. Be friends with your Shadow, and it will become your ally, strengthen you before spring fights. In short, know yourself, your fears, your feelings and their causes. Don't lie to yourself.




Do not fight the Keeper of the Threshold, solve his riddle and turn him into an ally.




Remember that the Changeling's job is to expand your picture of the world. It's not hypocrisy, it's diversity.




Sometimes you become a Trickster yourself to defeat stronger opponents with agility and intelligence. Laugh at yourself, do not put on airs, and then the Trickster will be unarmed against you.




Listen to the Mentors and be able to distinguish false mentors from true ones. The false ones do not give you gifts, but they themselves receive them from you.




Listen to the messengers - do not miss the opportunity and call for adventure.




Gain allies and remember that the main enemy is within yourself.




And finally, remember that the essence of the Hero is altruism, sacrifice for the sake of other people, selflessness and protection of the weaker. Selfishness turns you into an Anti-Hero and leads to loss.

And another important conclusion

We covered all the characters - Hero, Mentor, Keeper of the Threshold, Herald, Ally, Changeling, Trickster and Shadow. You may have repeatedly noticed that often the functions of these characters intersect or combine in one person. This is fine. Even more than that, it's good. The combination of roles makes the character deep, reliable, ambiguous. And vice versa, a character, limited to only one function, only one role, becomes cardboard, one-dimensional, boring and does not inspire sympathy and trust.

So, yes - a Hero can be a Mentor for someone, can suddenly become a Changeling or take on the role of a Trickster. He has his own Shadow, with whom he is friends or in conflict.

Roles impose some restrictions on their carrier and are governed by the work of certain rules, but in no case should they hinder the growth and development of the character, that is, you. Remember, you are a Hero, and a Hero can try on different masks and guises, even his own “heroism” - a mask that can be removed, lost, acquired. And this is good news!

Next time we'll talk about the "hero's journey" itself and begin to analyze its structural elements.

___________________________________

Exercise #5

Take your fairy tale - however, any other work in general is possible - and try to imagine what would happen if the Hero behaved like a Trickster. How would he then solve his problems?

For example: Cinderella. If Cinderella were not an obedient, unrequited kind girl, but a mischievous, sharp-tongued rogue who does not hesitate to dress up as a boy, if necessary, how would she behave in a collision with her stepmother? And in preparation for the ball? And when meeting the Fairy Godmother? How would she win the Prince?

Now do the same with Shadow. Imagine that there is no villain in the fairy tale. That all the problems of the Hero are caused, provoked, allowed by him? How will history change?