The Writer and Existentialism: Fiction as a means of expressing existential ideas

Introduction

The existentialism of the French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) is primarily associated with the alienation of the individual and his ability to influence society. Sartre's theory of literature focuses specifically on the relationship between the writer, the reader, and the social context of both. As an intellectual novelist and existential philosopher, Sartre believed that there was a close connection between literature and philosophy. Therefore, his ideas about literature and existentialism have the authority of the writer's experience of a novelist, as well as a philosopher and a critical thinker.

The subject of research in this article is existential concepts in fiction, with the help of which it is possible to illustrate that not only philosophical works, but also works of art can be carriers of existential ideas and, moreover, unlike scientific and philosophical treatises, they are accessible to a wide range of readers. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to identify and consider existential concepts in fiction. The research methodology in this paper is conditioned by the presence of exceptional characteristics in the existential paradigm of the artistic consciousness of the writers we are considering, which is manifested in a set of existential concepts that create unique constructs of their works. The work uses methods, the relevance of which is confirmed by the practice of their application in modern social and humanitarian science, namely: dialectical, biographical, cultural-historical and hermeneutic methods, as well as the method of analysis and synthesis. To achieve this goal, we plan to rely, first of all, on the theory of literature and the existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre. The scientific novelty of this work is determined, firstly, by the consideration of the existential paradigm applied specifically to fiction, and not just to its individual works, but to their complex, which allows us to talk about a certain trend; and secondly, the author's conclusion about the fundamental possibility of applying Sartre's theories to analyze a wide variety of works of art on the subject of Russian Russian literature, including the possibility of a retrospective study of fiction, for example, of the XIX century, including Russian literature, which currently seems to be a very promising direction, since the moral issues raised in the Russian literature of the XIX century still remain very relevant for modern society.

For Sartre, the question of personal morality occupies a central place in the motives of the writer, prompting him to write. Sartre believed not only that the moral sense of an individual writer is manifested in his fiction, but also that the reader also learns about the environment that created this moral sensitivity in the relevant community. Sartre's theory of literature can help in trying to better understand the value of a writer in society. The researcher needs to be aware of the importance of contextualizing the personalities of writers not only with their works, but also with the time and place where they write. It is interesting to find out how Sartre's ideas about existentialism and literature can be applied to writers and their works in such a way that a researcher can analyze both the artistic technique of writers and assess their role in society. In other words, how Sartre's theories allow us to better understand an individual writer in a social, political and moral context, both nationally and internationally. "A fictional device is always associated with the metaphysics of a novelist. The task of the critic is to determine the latter before evaluating the former" ^[21].

Existentialism and the "existentialists"

The key aspects of all existential thought are that a person has free will and, therefore, is responsible for his actions. It is obvious that existentialism is concerned with freeing the individual from the constraints of society. Philosophical terminology is sometimes problematic, especially when it comes to trying to unite individual philosophers together. There is a general tendency to group disparate philosophers and their theories on one convenient basis. This problem is especially acute with "existentialists", many of whom would argue with each other about their beliefs. The existential label implicitly allows for a breadth of ideas. Existential theory, first of all, concerns the existence of the individual and the freedom that accompanies this existence. And it became a convenient label to apply to philosophers, writers and artists who did not fit into other ideological and artistic categories. Existentialism has never been an organized movement. The conclusions drawn by Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre correspond to the historical circumstances in which they found themselves. In a sense, there is as much existentialism as there are "existentialists".

Free will means that each person's choice makes him unique. But this contradicts the natural desire of a person to belong to a group, which encourages people to look for similarities. This paradox lies at the heart of existentialism. The French philosopher Gabriel Marcel coined the term "existential" in 1943. Although this term was applied retrospectively to such thinkers as S?ren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger. It was also applied to Marcel's colleagues: Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Albert Camus. Camus himself did not consider himself an existentialist, although this did not prevent others from considering him as such. Sartre initially preferred the term "phenomenological ontology". Later he adopted the term "existentialism".

It is known that Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre, whom Camus considered a mentor and friend, quarreled over the philosophical story of the first "The Rebellious Man", which appeared in 1951 and seemed to oppose the Marxist principles that Sartre and other non-communist leftists enthusiastically accepted. They never spoke again. Although their quarrel was political in nature, this did not prevent Camus from trying to distance himself from any ties with Sartre and the French existentialists. In one of his notebooks, he wrote about existentialists that "when they accuse each other, you can be sure that this is done to incriminate everyone else" ^[2]. This quote suggests that the differences may have been personal rather than ideological. Despite such protests, Camus is still regarded as an existential writer, and his novels, which were as important as any other texts in popularizing philosophy, testify to his existential views.

Some commentators also include the existentialist phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Marcel Merleau Ponty. There are notable differences between all of the above philosophers and writers. Some, such as Kierkegaard and Marcel, were devout Christians, while others, including Heidegger and Sartre, were outspoken atheists. Since existentialism deals with the individual, such differences are not only to be expected, but can also be considered necessary for philosophy. There are a great many differences among representatives of existentialism.

It can be argued that the whole existentialist philosophy goes back to Rene Descartes and his belief that the only thing he could be sure of was his own existence. Descartes' statement, first expressed in Arguments about the method, that "I am, I exist, whenever it is uttered by me or conceived by the mind, is necessarily true", was simplified to the meaningful "I think, therefore I exist" ^{[1, p. 52]}. Having accepted this certainty as "truth", subsequent philosophers used it as a starting point for studying what can be said about man, human nature, his existence or the existence of God. In his book Sartre's Dictionary, Gary Cox describes how Sartre acknowledged that he and other existentialists were indebted to Descartes: "Perhaps the main concern of continental philosophy since Descartes' time has been to identify and overcome the problems of his dualism and develop a more consistent philosophy of mind. Sartre is part of this tradition. He describes himself as a post-Cartesian, recognizing Descartes as the founder of the discourse in which he participates" ^{[16, p. 60]}.

To simplify the problem, we can say that the common theme of all existential philosophers and writers is that they are concerned with "existence" and "truth". "Existence" can only refer to an individual, whereas "truth" is essentially a universal judgment concerning the "existence" of all individuals. It is precisely in the intersecting relationship between the concepts of "existence" and "truth" that existentialism avoids accusations that it is a purely solipsistic trend and promotes moral relativism. The philosophy of existence has become the basis of the interests of existentialists. Philosophical questions that concerned the "existentialists" were touched upon by some writers, not only in philosophical works, but also in fiction, drama and, less often, poetry.

The Existential Paradigm in Fiction

Fiction seemed to be the most suitable for the artistic expression of existential ideas, which is quite understandable, given that Sartre attaches paramount importance to it as the most appropriate way to convey human ideas and ideals. Among the most famous existentialist writers was Sartre himself. His work as a novelist and playwright, especially his trilogy "Roads of Freedom" and the play "Flies" represented many aspects of his existential ideas in ways of fiction. The trilogy of "Freedom Roads" was not completed. Sartre abandoned this project to focus on his political and philosophical writings.

Other famous "existential" novelists include Albert Camus, Franz Kafka, Samuel Beckett... Also, this term was applied retrospectively to the Russian writer Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, whose conceptual aphorism "if there is no God, then everything is allowed" Sartre considered the very essence of existentialism. Today Dostoevsky is a recognized existential writer of the XIX century. His novels are permeated with existential issues, in particular, he "tries to solve the existential-psychological problem of the nature of criminal human behavior" ^{[4, p. 58]}. In this case, we face a logical question: if Sartre's theories can be applied so organically to Dostoevsky's novels, then why not apply them in a similar way to other authors of works of fiction, including those representing Russian literature, including writers who are Dostoevsky's predecessors and who had a significant influence on him. So, it is known that Dostoevsky was greatly impressed by the work of another Russian writer and poet – Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, whose "diamond prose", embodied in the novel "Hero of Our Time", served as a kind of spark for Dostoevsky's thoughts. Considering the existential foundations of the nature of Raskolnikov's criminal behavior, Dostoevsky largely reflects in his character the features of the hero Lermontov – Pechorin, because the existential foundations of the nature of the criminal behavior of both characters are largely similar. In fact, it can be argued that Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov is born from the image of Pechorin. The main difference between the main characters of the two Russian writers lies only in their social status: if Pechorin had been born poor, he would have become Raskolnikov, if Raskolnikov had been rich, he would have turned into Pechorin. Therefore, the existential theories derived in Western Europe in the twentieth century, in our opinion, it is quite possible to apply to Russian writers of the first half of the XIX century, and not only to Dostoevsky. A common feature of Lermontov and Dostoevsky with Western European existential writers of the twentieth century is the expression in their works of concern arising from the realization that a person is free and responsible for his own actions. Perhaps the most striking example of the consonance of the novels of Lermontov and Dostoevsky with existential works of art of the twentieth century is Camus' novel "The Outsider". The main character Mersault kills a man unknown to him. Despite the fact that he was tried and found guilty, Mersault has no remorse. He does not resist imprisonment, because he is physically incapable of it, and this condition does not depress him. His apparent indifference means that he is alien not only to society, which cannot understand the reasons behind the murder, but also to himself.

Other well-known existential works, such as Beckett's play Waiting for Godot and Trocchi's Young Adam, describe similar problems. In the first case, it is the fear of what free will and responsibility mean for the individual that makes the main characters inactive, waiting for instructions on what to do from the eternally absent Godot. Trocchi's novel also describes a murder and a trial, but this time the culprit, narrator Joe, escapes punishment and is content to watch the trial of a man convicted of his crime. And again, the lack of emotion or remorse is striking, since Joe, like Mersault, seems to lack any moral imperative to act in a way that society would consider morally acceptable. Thus, here we can note almost complete identity with the views of Pechorin, whom Lermontov placed above morality or simply outside it, like the future Nietzschean superman. The connecting theme in all these texts is that if a person is free and responsible, then only he can decide what the concepts of "right" and "wrong" mean, and therefore the judgment comes only from the individual. Such literature depicts a gloomy existence, which suggests that existential life is a painful life that must be endured alone, as Lermontov's hero Pechorin did.

Sartre considered literature as the most suitable form for the exchange of ideas. In the literary manifesto "Literature and Existentialism" Sartre states that literature is best suited for the transmission of human ideas. He believes that a writer expresses his being through his writing. Sartre mentions the role of the critic without specifying what kind of criticism he has in mind. It is possible that two separate types of criticism are meant here: literary and philosophical. It can be argued that the task of a literary critic is mainly to study the technique of a novelist. The task of a philosophical critic can be defined as the study of the metaphysics of a novelist. However, Sartre argues that the task of the critic is to determine the latter by evaluating the former. For Sartre, a "critic", at least from the point of view of literature, is someone whose task is to study both what a writer writes and to try to find out why he writes it, to find out how meaning is created. Sartre's critic is defined by what he criticizes, but he cannot be considered to have completed his task if he does not engage in metaphysics. Both are necessary.

One of the main propositions underlying Sartre's existential philosophy is that "existence precedes essence." In the work "Existentialism is Humanism" he explains what he means by this statement: "What does it mean "existence precedes essence"? This means that a person first exists, meets, appears in the world, and only then is he determined. For an existentialist, man therefore defies definition because he initially does not represent anything. He becomes a man only later, and such a person as he will make himself. Thus, there is no human nature, just as there is no god who would have conceived it. A person simply exists, and he is not only what he imagines himself to be, but what he wants to become. And since he presents himself after he begins to exist, and manifests his will after he begins to exist, and after this impulse to existence, he is only what he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existentialism" ^[12]. The principle of Sartre's existentialism is based on his atheism. Since God does not exist, man is not "created" according to any plan and image. The comparison that Sartre uses is a comparison between a man and a paper knife. A paper knife is designed to do a certain job. Its essence, the reason for its existence is determined before its existence. A person is born without such a "plan", therefore he creates his own essence, he, thanks to the free choice that he makes, creates himself. If this is the case, then the writer primarily creates his essence through his writing, and the critic can learn more about the person by studying both the text and the reasoning behind it.

Sartre, considering an individual writer and his relationship with the reader, comes to the conclusion that it is in these relationships that literature becomes concrete. Just as an individual reveals "being" through his relationship with the world, so the reader is necessary for literature to "be". Writers need the freedom of the reader for their work to exist authentically. Without this, they will cease to function as authors, and their works will end up in obscurity, unread. The freedom of the writer and the freedom of the reader create an imperative for change.

Sartre was simultaneously in the position of a theorist and a creative writer. Fiction becomes the means by which Sartre expresses his philosophy. Sartre believed that all actions are free, and that writing is an artistic expression of this freedom. A writer cannot do otherwise than express this freedom. Literature is an ideal means for both the writer and the reader to realize their own freedom and each other's freedom. Sartre believes that this relationship between writer and reader contributes to further changes in the social context.

When a writer makes a free choice to write, he chooses what he thinks is best, both for him and for everyone, and if the writer's actions are convincing, and those who read believe in it, then they can be influenced by the text, change their view of the world and their place in him. This embodies the paradox underlying Sartre's philosophy: the existentialist is a solitary "I"; but writing is an intervention, an appeal to the social and transistorical totality of individuals. Writing presupposes both individuality and the possibility of social change. Sartre believed that the "engaged" writer does not write for the present, but about the present in the hope that he will be able to determine the future. As Bernard Henri-Levy says in his biography of Sartre: "An impeccable writer is one who resolves with firmness, determination and clarity not to address some future, distant and, consequently, fictional period, but to the very time of which he is a contemporary. He is the one who, not content with talking about this time that belongs to him, decides to speak for him" ^{[13, p. 66]}.

The relationship between a reader and a writer is a relationship that both sides understand to a greater or lesser extent. From the writer's point of view, he will succeed if he persuades the reader to change his previous point of view or his values, whether aesthetic or ethical, in order to get closer to the writer's point of view. The writer and the reader conclude this contract freely. Indeed, the reader has an expectation, a desire to be affected. This is an expectation that many writers strive to justify. This active connection is central to Jean Paul Sartre's views on literature and existentialism. Aesthetics and the writer's intention are inextricably linked, but the relationship between them is hierarchical. The author's intention is primary. Style, subject matter, language, setting, character, plot, time and place act as writing tools. There is a tension between intention and aesthetics, as there is a transition from the subjective to the objective. The writer must accept his only point of view and present it in such a way that others not only understand, but also appreciate it. The writer, like all other artists, strives to give his reader a certain feeling, which is usually called aesthetic pleasure, and this feeling, when it appears, can be considered as a sign that the work is done.

Suffice it to say that if a writer gives aesthetic pleasure to at least one reader, then he reaches a certain level of success, but this pleasure or joy should contribute to the expression of the artist's intention. Aesthetic joy in itself is not enough, and this is another example of the inner connection between a writer and a reader. The aesthetics of a writer allows an individual writer to have a collective impact and, therefore, allows him to convincingly convey his intention. Sartre's aesthetic is clear. Art, and literature in particular, has little to do with any idea of beauty or art for oneself. They write to enlighten their readers. They create fiction to ignite both their own imagination and the imagination of their readers, and it is in the imaginary that changes can be foreseen. It is this definition of the writer's aesthetics that allows the theories of existentialism and Sartre's literature to successfully achieve their goals. To succeed in writing literature – which Sartre always strives for, even, perhaps, in his factual works – a writer must deal with modern problems. He should be prepared to ask relevant questions and challenge existing norms in a way that raises awareness of his readers and inspires them to take action. Literature challenges aspects of the modern world. The text shows how an individual writer looks at the world and how he reacts to it. The reader is faced with the task of reassessing his own worldview, and the writer is challenged by the reader's reaction. The statement that literature necessarily deals with the modern world is true, since only the modern world will be directly challenged and changed. This does not mean that the subject of literature should be limited to this world, but the world that is being talked about is necessarily the one in which the writer writes, regardless of when and where the novel takes place: a writer like Sartre, for example, does not write about political corruption in Ancient Babylon, unless he does not comment on political corruption at the time. Writing literature increases the social, political, historical and philosophical awareness of the writer, while reading literature increases these same forms of awareness in the reader.

Sartre's 1964 autobiographical book "Words" is divided into two separate parts. The first one is called "Read", and the second one is called "Write". Sartre seeks to differentiate his life into these two separate stages, emphasizing that all writers were readers at first, but not all readers become writers. Then the role of writers becomes more important because they understand the relationship between the reader and the writer on both sides, and that both the writer and the reader project meaning onto the text. This is analogous to the relationship between the performer and the viewer. Just as a performer is motivated to perform because he was a spectator at first, so a writer is motivated to write by what he has read. The literal primacy of reading over writing is not implied here, since writing and reading are mutual acts. Imagination works in reading as well as in writing, and in writing the writer's imagination has been and remains informed by the entire history of the work of imagination in reading. This universal capacity for creativity is considered by Jacques Rancier in the book "The Emancipated Spectator": "our achievements – whether it is about learning or playing, speaking or writing, art or contemplation – do not at all certify our involvement in a certain ability embodied in the community. We are talking about the ability of anonymous, the ability that makes everyone/everyone equal/equal to any other/any other" ^{[6, p. 18]}. This ability may remain hidden, but having the ability to create allows people to realize that they are free. Indeed, they should be free, because although they may be inspired by the same art, their reaction to it, the formation of their personal aesthetics, can only be individual. People who never get to know each other, who remain "anonymous", will respond to the same artistic stimuli in a necessarily unique way. Rancier continues: "It is in this ability to connect and divide that the emancipation of the viewer lies, that is, the emancipation of each of us as a viewer. Being a spectator is not a passive state that we need to transform into an active one. Being a spectator is our normal situation. When we study and teach, act and learn, we are the same viewers who every second associate the visible with what we have already seen, said, done and imagined" ^{[6, p. 18]}.

In an existential sense, since we cannot overcome human subjectivity, we must recognize that the negative of one person can reflect the positive of another. Art can be seen as a battlefield of ideas and ideals. This is what makes the claims of "high" and "low" art controversial. If the function of art is to exchange ideas and ideals, then, undoubtedly, the method of transmitting these ideas can be considered only from the point of view of how "successful" the artist was in transmitting ideas to his specific audience, and not some abstract artistic merits.

According to Sartre, the purpose of art is to restore this world, to make it possible to see it as it is, but as if it had its sources in human freedom. This is the central idea in Sartre's theories, which link aesthetics and morality. But aesthetic value and moral value are not the same thing. Sartre recognizes that these values, although different, are inextricably linked. In the book "What is Literature?" he examines this connection with reference to the author and the reader: "the writer's universe is revealed in all its depth only through the comprehension, admiration and indignation of the reader; and noble love is an oath to support something, noble indignation is an oath to change something, and noble admiration is an oath to imitate someone; although literature is one thing and morality is something completely different, we always distinguish the moral imperative at the heart of the aesthetic imperative. Since the one who writes, by the mere fact that he takes the trouble to write, recognizes the freedom of his readers, and the one who reads, by the mere fact that he opens a book, recognizes the freedom of the writer, a work of art, from whatever side you look at it, is an act of trust in the field human freedom" ^{[11, p. 69]}.

The term "existential" is as problematic when applied to a writer as it is when applied to a philosopher, because it predetermines what is expected in the work. In fact, it can be said about many writers that they are concerned about "existence" and "truth", that their characters suffer, think about everyday life. But, in addition, it is important to understand whether the writer explores the prerequisites of their existence, whether their deeply individual experience is considered; whether they are isolated, lonely, alienated, whether the writer takes into account the political, economic and moral climate in modern society, finally, whether he believes that social changes can occur with the help of literature…

Sartre puts prose above other forms of art. He calls prose an "empire of signs." Words are primarily not objects, but designations of objects. The point is not whether they like themselves or not, but whether they correctly point to a certain thing or a certain concept. Sartre's theory of literature places the individual writer at the center of social and political change. Sartre's philosophy and fiction dealt with the specific situation in France at the time he was writing. But in the end they became universal. Sartre believed that the answer to the question "Who is writing for?" is: for the maximum possible readership and, ultimately, for everyone. That is, they write for a universal reader, and the writer's message is most often addressed to all people. Fiction can give us an idea of a specific time and place that Sartre considers of paramount importance. Their ideas and ideals are designed to become relevant for every person, regardless of national borders.

Sartre's ideas are still relevant today. As the concepts of nationality and belonging are being revised and changed, the process of globalization is underway, Sartre's theories allow critics to contextualize writers beyond such obvious boundaries. Today it seems interesting to find out whether Sartre's ideas about existentialism and literature can be applied to writers and their work in such a way that the "critic" can analyze both the metaphysics of the novelist and his artistic technique, and, moreover, evaluate his role in society and beyond.

If art is perceived as an aesthetic expression of ideas and ideals, then we must recognize that ultimately all the values associated with it will be largely subjective, whether moral or aesthetic. A successful literary critic, at least according to Sartre, deals with the metaphysics of the writer, as well as with his aesthetics. For Sartre, the intention of the writer is of paramount importance. When Sartre spoke about the existence of good and bad novels, he meant this intention, and not any superficial aesthetic judgment. A bad novel seeks to please with flattery, while a good one is an act of faith and a unique point of view from which the author can present the world to the freedoms with which he wants to achieve agreement. This is the point of view according to which the world should always be filled with freedom.

Conclusion

Studying fiction and those who create it, it is interesting to trace the transition from the individual to the universal and the role of the writer in this movement. In particular, it is interesting to see how writers represent and influence people's ideas and values. Politics, language, class, gender, religion and nation – all can be viewed from the point of view of the belief that by changing the aesthetic and moral values of people through art, the artist influences broader political, social, cultural spheres. From the point of view of changing aesthetic and moral values, the artist's goal is to influence the latter through the former. The reader changes both ways. The reader is forced to look at the world differently by a writer who has chosen his words, his actions not only as the best for the writer, but also as the best for everyone. But this is not a one-sided process. The artist is influenced by others to create, and this act of creation requires a response that creates changes anew.

Sartre's theories of literature and existentialism were largely considered obsolete after the rise of structuralism and post-structuralism in literary criticism in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were subsequently revised. The gradual turn to politics in literary studies at the end of the twentieth century presented Sartre's work in a different light. The ethical and political aspects of his existential thought and activity; his dramatic, interactive stories about writing and reading; and his portrait of the reader as a complex person with specific interests and values serve as models for those writers and theorists who critically interact not only with the institute of literary studies, but also with the world as a whole.

Philosophy and literature are connected with understanding the world around us, and existentialism has turned out to be the philosophical movement that most explicitly recognizes this. Sartre's thoughts on existentialism and literature further reinforced these ideas by establishing a relationship between the writer, the reader, and the society in which they both live. Jean-Paul Sartre was convinced that literature is the most appropriate way by which a person can realize and change society.

Thus, we can say that in fiction, from the first half of the XIX century to the present, one can find a huge number of existential concepts. At the same time, fiction, unlike scientific philosophical works, is an excellent means of expressing existential ideas that become understandable to a wide range of readers, not just professional philosophers. The theories of literature and existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre can be applied to identify and analyze existential concepts in a wide variety of works of fiction, including retrospectively, as it was shown in this article by the example of Russian writers – M. Y. Lermontov and F. M. Dostoevsky.