Victor Sonkin. Rhetoric lesson

A lesson in rhetoric
Somerset Maugham. Gigolo and gigoletta. Translation by I. Bernstein

Victor Sonkin

Publication date: December 9, 2000

"The Igolo and the Gigolette" is an exemplary story. I would introduce it as compulsory material in the first year of all philology departments, when they study the theory of literature. For educational purposes, it is much better suited than, say, Bunin’s “Easy Breathing,” with which we were once tormented. Probably, it is not very suitable for studying tropes , like any translated text. But the rules of plotting according to it can be considered in one lesson.

The main elements of the structure are highlighted so clearly that they are accessible to younger students. Exposition: scene in a bar, description of the resort audience. The plot: a certain Cotman discusses with a casual acquaintance a fatal act performed by his wife Stella. (She jumps from a great height into a very shallow pool, on the surface of which gasoline is also burning.) Climax: Stella has a nervous breakdown and refuses to jump twice a day. Resolution: Stella comes to her senses and prepares for the second jump.

This is at the most superficial level. Students will be able to find many complicating techniques. For example, the length of the exposure. The description of the English and other holidaymakers vacationing on the French Riviera, their conversations takes up almost more than half of the story. These people are not directly related to the plot as such; Moreover, the exposition begins, then is interrupted by the plot (and the reader still does not know what exactly the story will be about), then it resumes again and continues, continues. Here the teacher will ask the students: what is this for? Why did the writer devote so much space to these unnecessary people?

Another is a deceptive technique that the writer uses to begin the text. "Sandy Westcott had a couple of cocktails and now felt hungry . " You expect this Sandy to be the main character, otherwise why suddenly start with him? But no.

Another feature is the additional climax, the appearance of elderly circus actors and their story about themselves. The benign bewilderment of Flora, the Cannonball Woman, at the complete ignorance of the current public about her long-ago exploits. The end of the story of these Penezzi spouses divides the story almost exactly in half, and immediately then Stella starts a conversation with her husband about how she can no longer bear to jump a second time. Here we need to ask - why are the two plot peaks so close to each other?

From climax to denouement - almost half a story; this space is filled with the story of Cotman and Stella; the plot itself stops the movement; we understand why the story is called "Gigolo and Gigoletta." This is another complication; another literary critic would probably call it retardation , slowing down; We, spoiled by cinema, anything other than a flashback can no longer call it . Here, of course, there is nothing to ask the students about; everything is clear; What is interesting is only the quantitative relationship between this part of the story and the rest of the text.

Finally, the denouement. Formally, it takes up the last few paragraphs, starting with Stella’s words “It’s probably time for me to get ready to go out . ” But the real shock chord comes in the last line: “You can’t deceive the public’s expectations,” she said with a chuckle . ” After that there is nothing. This seems to be generally characteristic of the English story; but in any case, here you need to ask - what other types of decoupling are there? What might come next ? And finally, for a snack, they say, we have read a story in which the plot coincides with the plot (however, such words must be pronounced with caution; some experts believe that the distinction between these terms is a heavy legacy of scholasticism, which it is time to get rid of); events are described in the same sequence in which they occur (except for the mentioned flashback). What works do you know where the plot is structured differently? And let them rejoice, remembering “A Hero of Our Time” and “Pulp Fiction”.

Now let’s take off our square cap and robe, leave the audience and quietly close the door behind us. Here is a story built according to all the rules of rhetoric, with a clear, easily distinguishable structure, and we have analyzed it - very briefly, very superficially. And did the impact of the text become weaker because of this? Probably everyone will answer this question in their own way; For me this is an obvious no. You can’t deceive the public’s expectations, each of us tells ourselves at one point or another in our lives, either feeling grateful to this very public (because otherwise life would stop), or hating it because you are indifferent to it, incomprehensible, inaccessible, uninteresting, just like she does to you, and she comes not to look at your skill, but so as not to miss the day when you will inevitably crash. You're waiting for this phrase, you know it should be there somewhere at the end; but this does not make her weaker; the calculation with which the entire story is constructed only sharpens its sting.

This is an amazing thing - words. Everything is said, everything is written, everything is known; but if you rearrange them a little differently - and if you rearranged them skillfully, they will reach you, enter your life and not let go.

---