DIALOGICAL FORM AS A WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACT AND FICTION IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICAL EVENTS IN THE NOVEL “SIX DAYS” BY P. KRALIUK

Abstract

The article deals with the dialogic nature of the historical novel “Six Days, or The Crown of the Ostrozky House” by the modern postmodern author Petro Kraliuk, which manifests itself primarily at the level of the memories of the two heroes of the work – Prince Vasyl Kostiantyn Ostrozky (1526–1608) and the artist Ivan. Talking to each other, they share their experiences, playing a kind of intellectual game to find answers both to their own questions and to the problems of Ukrainian history in general. It is noteworthy that the voices of other characters also join their discussions, creating a productive rather than a confusing polylogue. The author of “Six Days” invites the reader to a dialogue, as a result of which the recipient will be able to find the historical truth. Purpose – to investigate the author’s means of dialogue in the novel, thanks to which the truth about the past of the 16th century is established in the text; to single out the types of dialogues in P. Kraliuk’s work and characterize their specificity; to establish the importance of the dialogical form of “Six Days”, which allows, by combining different views, to find the correct interpretation of the experienced events. Methods. In the article, the narratological method was used to identify and distinguish the available dialogues of the heroes. Their typology testifies to the novel’s focus on dialogism both in form (construction of the text) and in content (call to the reader). Results. In terms of content, the dialogues in “Six Days” belong to different groups (informational, probable, psychological/characteristic, comparative, plot). That is, these conversations carry a different semantic load, mostly being aimed at a single function. While communicating, the characters of P. Kraliuk’s novel interact with each other to one degree or another. Accordingly, their interpersonal relationships allow us to talk about the types of dialogues according to meaningful varieties (which complement, refute, support what was heard, or lead the interlocutor to something). According to structural features, communication in the writer’s novel also has its own typology (number of participants, their character, presentation in the text, boundaries between interlocutors, their attitude to what is said). First of all, the above-mentioned types of dialogues are opposed, but such a combination serves to clarify the circumstances and details of the past. Conclusions. “Six Days” by P. Kraliuk is distinguished by dialogicity, which helps to reconstruct the 16th century. It is the set of dialogues in the work that makes it possible to unravel the secrets of the Ukrainian past, which the writer calls for discussion in his text.