Epilogue in literature is what? Is the epilogue required as part of a literary work

Those who read books (well, at least sometimes), meet in some of them "prologue", "epilogue" or "preface" and "afterword" of the author. Many people do not quite understand the difference between these pairs of concepts, so we decided to write an article that will answer the question: what is an epilogue in literature? Of course, we'll talk about both the afterword and the preface.

Foreword and Afterword

Maybe we will say obvious things, but let the reader not be angry with us. So, when the author wrote a book, and his publisher asks him to write a preface to it, then in the latter the writer can write whatever his heart desires.

For example, S. King in the preface to his work "How to write books" dotted recalled his childhood. Sometimes the author also writes an afterword, and again he does not recall the events described in the book, but some, perhaps technical or personal episodes, and perhaps reincarnate and recreate in his memory the socio-cultural context that allowed the book to be born.

And if we ask ourselves: an epilogue in literature is what it is, then an entirely different approach. The author can not present his personal experiences in the form of reflection. When they talk about an epilogue or a prologue, they mean parts of a literary work, however, not very necessary components.

Prologue and epilogue

A novel (usually it contains a prologue and an epilogue) is a whole story. But if the author for some reason decided that he needed a small prelude to the main story and the same final chord, then why not.

For example, "Crime and Punishment" by FM Dostoevsky is self-sufficient. The story ends with the recognition and fainting of Raskolnikov. But FM Dostoyevsky wanted to show the further path of the hero (or heroes, if you also mean S. Marmeladov).

The edifying meaning of the epilogue in the novel of the Russian classic

The main issue here is the epilogue in literature: this is what, why it is needed in a specific work of Dostoevsky. This is a fertile topic, we can think in this direction. On the one hand, the prologue and epilogue create the volume of the narrative, but on the other hand, Dostoevsky not only created an epilogue for the sake of perspective.

As it seems, this is in many respects an ideological step. After all, Rodion Romanich suffered terribly before exile and gaining faith. Thus, the Russian classic shows an outlet for all desperate and lost. Of course, in the opinion of Fyodor Mikhailovich, the enlightenment of life is possible only with God.

The very same novel, if you do not take the epilogue (in literature, we already know what it is), does not give any way out and answer a person for his spiritual quest. And since Russian literature of the 19th century, according to Berdyaev's apt definition, is "instructive," it is only natural that Dostoevsky could not overcome the temptation and not tell the reader the simple and understandable way for the Russian heart to correct and improve. By the way, most people really find support in God, therefore, it can not be said that Dostoevsky is so wrong.

The meaning of the word "epilogue" was clarified and thoroughly investigated. If the definition of the epilogue is cast in a lapidary formula, then it will be something like this: these are the events that follow after the main plot of the narrative and, subjectively or according to the meaning, adjoin it. The epilogue gives the product some depth.