Abstract: The purpose of the study is to determine the specifics of the compositional–speech form of E. Grishkovets' monodrama. The subject of the study is the ratio of narrative and anarrative elements in six monodramas by E. Grishkovets - "How I ate a dog", "Simultaneously", "Dreadnoughts", "+1", "Farewell to paper", "Whisper of the heart". To achieve this goal, the following tasks are solved: firstly, to identify and characterize the anarrative elements in the monodramas of E. Grishkovets; secondly, to analyze the communicative situations underlying the action of the studied plays; thirdly, to determine the ratio of narrative and performative elements in the works. The theoretical basis was the work in the field of artistic discourse: the theory of the dialogical nature of art by M. M. Bakhtin, which has already become a classic, and was developed in the research of V. I. Tyupa. The main method of research was the discursive analysis of the literary text, which allows to identify and describe the invariant model of E. Grishkovets' monodrama. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the approach used: the invariant structure of E. Grishkovets' monodramas is revealed by studying the genre through discourse. The analysis of the peculiarities of the discourse of E. Grishkovets' monodramas showed that the event of each of the plays consists in the explication "here and now" before the reader/viewer of complex internal processes occurring in the minds of the characters asking ontological questions related to the self-determination of a person in the world. The human essence in one aspect or another of being becomes a communicative object, while the hero tries to clarify his status for himself and the addressee of his speech. At the same time, in the picture of the hero's world, understanding turns out to be more significant than gaining knowledge. Trying to clarify for himself and the addressee one of the general laws of existence, the hero simultaneously transforms his own consciousness, since he comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve mutual understanding in its entirety.