Contents Introduction chapter The dramatic life of England in the late XIX early XX centuries

Chapter II. Paradox as a literary phenomenon
2.1 Plays unpleasant and pleasant
Paradox is a characteristic feature of the style of a number of writers. In the dictionary of the Russian language S.I. Ozhegov gives the following definitions to the concept of "paradox":
1. A strange statement, at odds with the generally accepted opinion, as well as an opinion that contradicts (sometimes only at first glance) common sense.
2. A phenomenon that seems incredible and unexpected.⁹
The term "paradox" arose in ancient philosophy to characterize a new, unusual, original opinion. Since it is much easier to perceive the originality of a statement than to verify its truth or falsity, paradoxical statements are often perceived as evidence of the independence, originality of the opinions they express, especially if they also have an outwardly effective, clear, aphoristic form.
Maxim Gorky spoke about the paradox as a sign in literature: “Truth is upside down, the gymnastics of the mind on a taut rope of concepts, generally accepted opinions and clichés, is a way to express one’s views, serves as a means of fighting against sanctimonious morality, stupidity, ignorance.”
An example of a paradoxical form of expression can be found in philosophical and ethical generalizations, such as: “Your views are hateful to me, but all my life I will fight for your right to defend them” (Voltaire) or “People are cruel, but a person is kind” (R. Tagore) .
The unexpectedness of the conclusions, the discrepancy between their "natural" train of thought is (along with the general logical sequence of presentation and the beauties of style) one of the essential attributes of oratory.
Paradox - defined by verbal composition and as a figure of speech carries a large charge of stylistic information, is one of the effective means of influencing the reader. Researchers rightly note the need to study its specifics.
In his scientific article in the literary journal "Bulletin" of the Ryazan State University. S.A. Esenina Fedoseeva T.V. and Ershova G.I. come to the conclusion that "a literary paradox is an artistic device based on a contradiction to a given one: a general opinion, a stereotype, or an intentionally created expectation."
As differentiating features of a literary paradox, which will distinguish it from other artistic devices, the authors name the following:
1. The dialectical interaction of opposites is expressed in the paradox. Unlike other methods of opposition - antithesis, oxymoron, catachresis - in its functioning it goes beyond the limits of artistic rhetoric.
2. In the contradiction of a paradox, the truth is always revealed. This paradox differs from the method of absurdity, in which the contradiction is self-sufficient and does not lead to the reconstruction of a holistic picture of the world.
3. The vital contradiction revealed by the paradox is always unexpected. This is its difference from the antithesis. The latter realizes the contradictions of the world, which are not a discovery for the reader (good - evil, light - darkness, hatred - love), while the paradox represents contradictory concepts that are not initially in the perceiving consciousness. An artistic paradox is characterized precisely by the unexpectedness of opposition, designed to draw the reader's attention to the problem identified by the author's original thinking, to make him reflect on it. To classify an artistic device as a category of paradox, each of the three features is necessary, while none of them is sufficient in isolation and has differentiating properties only in combination with the other two. Paradoxes are widely used in oral and written work.¹⁰
So, they largely underlie the poetics of proverbs (“You drive more slowly, you will continue”, “Do not rush, but hurry up”) and a number of literary genres (for example, the famous fable “The Nobleman” by I.A. Krylov is built on the paradox: "The fool-ruler goes to heaven ... for laziness and idleness"). Paradox, as an artistic device, is widely used in the children's poetry of the absurdities of Lewis Carroll, E. Milne, E. Lear, K. I. Chukovsky.
The purpose of some paradoxes is to ridicule dogma, to shock, to amaze with originality of judgment. Usually such paradoxes are only a means of characterizing the characters, but sometimes they express the views of the author to a certain extent (such are the paradoxes of many characters of I.S. Turgenev, O. Wilde, B. Shaw, A. France). The paradox can hide a deep thought, revealing irony: “The denial of a theory is already a theory” (I.S. Turgenev), “Now we declare that we will never be slaves; when we say that we will never be masters, then we will end slavery” (B. Shaw). Sometimes the paradox takes on the character of a philosophical generalization: “We most likely destroy what is dear to our heart” (F.I. Tyutchev).
Sometimes plot situations or even entire works are based on paradox. So, in O. Wilde's novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891), Dorian's portrait grows old, but he himself remains young; in B. Shaw's play "Bitter but True" (1931), a microbe becomes infected from people; in the novel Fahrenheit 451 (1953) by R. Bradbury, firefighters do not extinguish the fire, but burn books.
Paradox gives wit and stylistic brilliance to a literary work, makes the author's thoughts vivid and memorable. A good verbal paradox is short, articulate, logically complete, effective, and aphoristic.
The paradox, as a literary phenomenon, characterizes the work of English writers and playwrights of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who are united by hatred for Victorian England, rejection of its canons and rules. Their work is imbued with a desire to overthrow the false truths worshiped by the philistines from the pedestal. Among the writers famous for their paradoxes were F. La Rochefoucauld, J. L. La Bruyère, J. J. Rousseau, L. S. Mercier, P. J. Proudhon, G. Heine, T. Carlyle, A. Schopenhauer, A. Frans, especially M. Nordau, O. Wilde and, of course, the recognized master of paradoxes - Bernard. The show that said, "Paradox is the only truth."
The work of Bernard Shaw, an outstanding English playwright, one of the founders of the realistic drama of the 20th century, a talented satirist, humorist, and the most witty paradoxicalist, enjoys well-deserved fame and arouses universal world interest. In Russian literary criticism, a whole science of the work of Bernard Shaw has been created. Its foundations were laid by A.V. Lunacharsky, who showed a deep and sympathetic interest in the search, contradictions and creative originality of the writer.
In the history of English literature, the name of Bernard Shaw stands next to that of William Shakespeare, although Shaw was born three hundred years later than his predecessor. Both of them made an invaluable contribution to the development of the national theater of England, and the work of each of them became known far beyond their homeland. Having experienced its highest flowering in the Renaissance, English drama rose to new heights only with the advent of Bernard Shaw. No wonder he is called the second great playwright after Shakespeare. His difficult life, taking shape against the backdrop of difficult historical events, most likely served as an impetus for the awakening of creative power, which took shape in the form of paradoxes that the world loved.¹¹
Shaw was from Ireland. He was born in 1856 in Dublin. Throughout the 19th century The "Green Island", as Ireland was called, seethed. The liberation struggle grew. Ireland sought independence from England. Her people lived in poverty, but did not want to endure enslavement. In the atmosphere of grief and anger experienced by his homeland, the childhood and youth of the future writer passed. Shaw's parents came from an impoverished nobility. Family life was unsettled and unfriendly. Deprived of a practical vein, constantly drunk father did not succeed in his chosen business - the grain trade. Shaw's mother, a woman of extraordinary musical abilities, had to support her family herself. She sang in concerts and later earned her living by taking music lessons. Little attention was paid to children in the family; There was no money to educate them. But in their moods and views, Shaw's parents belong to the advanced patriotic strata of Dublin society. They did not adhere to religious dogmas and raised their children as free-thinking atheists. The main merit in this belonged to Shaw's mother, whose character was not broken by an unsuccessful family life. Shaw studied at a Dublin school, but his stay in it was not particularly joyful for him. It is no coincidence that he later wrote: “At school, I didn’t learn anything and forgot a lot.” However, the school course was not completed by him. At the age of fifteen, he began to earn his own living. He served as a petty in the land office. He collected rent from the inhabitants of the poor quarters of Dublin. He knew the life of the urban slums well. By the age of twenty, Shaw had received a position as a senior cashier. It was not a little, but by this time Shaw's interests had already been determined. They had nothing to do with the service career of an official. Shaw was deeply interested in art - literature, painting, music. In 1876 Shaw left Ireland and moved to London. He had no specific occupations, and there was no means of subsistence, but the range of his interests and cultural needs was very wide. He was fond of the theater, under the pseudonym Corno de Bosseto publishes his first musical review, and then for a number of years appears in print as a music critic. Shaw was not only a connoisseur of music, but he himself played superbly. His name is becoming well known in the theater circles in London.
A characteristic feature of Shaw was that he never separated art from his inherent interest in the socio-political life of his time. He attends meetings of the Social Democrats, takes part in debates, persistently developing the skills of an orator, reads Marx's Capital with enthusiasm and deep interest - a work that, in his own words, was a revelation to him. Shaw's interest in topical issues of our time was reflected in his earliest works. Between 1879 and 1883 Shaw has written five novels: Immaturity, An Unwise Marriage, The Love of Artists, Cashil Byron's Profession, and The Lone Socialist. In those years, Shaw's novels did not receive recognition. The novice writer had to endure a long and unequal combat with numerous publishers. He received only refusals, but did not give up. An innovator by nature, Shaw also sought to bring something new to the novel.
The works of the English playwright can be compared with the plays of O. Wilde, who wrote: “To understand reality, one must see how it balances on a tightrope. And only by looking at all those acrobatic numbers that Truth performs, we can correctly judge her. However, if Wilde's paradoxes were the result of his skeptical attitude towards the world, then B. Shaw's paradoxes are a reflection of an abnormal, illogical course of life in which every phenomenon, every concept includes the opposite meaning. In Shaw, paradoxes have a vital basis, and this is not only an opinion, but also a situation and a conflict that violate the usual course of events, showing "the banal absurdity and external deceit of the surrounding world."¹²
The English playwright creates a new theater of "ideas". The internal movement of ideas, in his opinion, should be an essential factor in plays. In the struggle of ideas, he saw a characteristic feature of modern life and the conditions for the formation of people's worldview, their spiritual development. The writer avoided external entertainment in his plays.
The path of B. Shaw, as a playwright, begins with a cycle of plays united under the general title "Unpleasant Plays". These included: Widower's House, which Shaw began working on in 1885, Mrs. Warren's Profession, and Red tape. In his preface to The Unpleasant Plays, Shaw wrote: “…the power of the dramatic art in these plays is to force the viewer to face the unpleasant facts. Undoubtedly, every author who sincerely wishes the good of mankind does not at all take into account the monstrous opinion that the task of literature is flattery. But in these dramas we are confronted not only with the comedy and tragedy of an individual character and the fate of an individual, but also with the terrible and disgusting sides of the social order. The horror of these relations lies in the fact that an ordinary middle-class Englishman, a person, perhaps even dreaming of a thousand-year reign of grace, in his social manifestations turns out to be a criminal citizen, turning a blind eye to the meanest, most terrible abuses, if their elimination threatens him. lose at least one penny of their income. In "Unpleasant Plays" we have in front of us outwardly quite decent respectable English bourgeois, who have significant capital and lead a calm, settled life. But this calmness is deceptive. It conceals behind itself such phenomena as exploitation, as the dirty, dishonest enrichment of the bourgeois at the expense of the poverty and misfortunes of the common people. Before the eyes of readers and viewers of Shaw's plays, there are pictures of injustice, cruelty and meanness of the bourgeois world. Characteristically, Shaw's plays begin with traditional pictures of the everyday life of a bourgeois family. But, as is usually the case in Ibsen's dramas, there comes a moment when the social aspect of the writer's deeply disturbing question comes to the fore: where are the sources of the heroes' wealth? what means do they live on? in what ways did they manage to achieve the well-being in which they are? The bold posing of these questions and no less answers to them form the basis of the accusatory power of Shaw's plays, which revolted some and could not but impress and delight others.¹³
"Pleasant Plays". Pleasant Pieces became the second cycle of Bernard Shaw's plays. These included: "War and Man", "Candida", "The Chosen One of Fate", "Never You Can Tell". In "Pleasant Pieces" Shaw changes the methods of satirical denunciation. If in "Unpleasant Plays" he turned to the "terrible and disgusting sides of the social order", angrily attacked the social order, then in "Pleasant Plays" he focuses on that hypocritical morality, which is designed to hide the true essence of bourgeois relations.