{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019346230820547032, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.224066390041494, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
BAKHTIN AND RENE GIRARD ON DOSTOEVSKY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The article provides a critical comparison of two independent interpretations of F. M. Dostoevsky: from the side of M. Bakhtin and from the side of Rene Girard. Both authors have created coherent ways of understanding and reading the literary heritage of the writer in the perspective of their own understanding of the history of literature and the intellectual history of mankind as such. Dostoevsky is significant for Bakhtin not simply as an illustration of the applicability of some of his own ideas within the framework of literary criticism. Bakhtin sees Dostoevsky as an innovator in the development of the menippea genre and an unprecedented dialogization of literature. At the same time, without Dostoevsky, the movement of literature postulated by Girard towards the embodiment of the Gospel revelation would be incomplete. The incompleteness of Girard or Bakhtin without Dostoevsky (with all the reservations) is not fundamental.
Without Dostoevsky, history as such fundamentally changes for Girard and for Bakhtin. The apparent incomparability of the authors makes it possible to read Dostoevsky differently. From the context of Girard, the meaning of Bakhtin's works and, inevitably, the meaning of laughter and dialogue (polyphony) in history are significantly transformed. On the other hand, the ways of including Dostoevsky in the image of history created by Girard, independently of Bakhtin, also run into difficulties.