Bibliography

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.easyschool.ru/ were used.

The darkness of bitter truths is dearer to us
A deceit that elevates us.
A. S. Pushkin

Looking at the same thing, we all see different things. There is an anecdote about this:

What is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?

The optimist says that the hall is half full, and the pessimist that it is half empty.

Look what Dobrolyubov saw in the heroine of the drama Thunderstorm: “The extraordinary originality of this character is striking. There is nothing external, alien in it, but somehow comes out from within it; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything; in her mother's house it was the same as at Kabanikh's: they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves.<...>Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs ... On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal.

When I read up to this point, I wanted to demand evidence from the critic. Show what is built by this "creative" character! And I'll show you what's broken! She crushed her family, her husband. Even if it was not the best model, then what in return? Russian variation on the theme of Madame Bovary. It would be interesting to look at the family of her parents, disgraced by adultery and suicide of their daughter. Dobrolyubov, however, writes something about poetic visions after the stories of wanderers - not frightening, but clear and kind. As I understand it, here we are talking about a woman's panic fear of the wrath of God (thunderstorm) and fiery hell. That's right, we see what we want.

As for the "loving" character... It's hard to understand why a person loves this one and not another. "Love is blind". But of all the possible "goats" Katerina chooses the most vulgar and insignificant - Boris. She passed by the meek but selfless Tikhon, who, in my opinion, showed rare generosity in forgiving his prodigal wife. She passed by the violent, courageous and in his own way noble Curly (he did not betray his Varvara, but took her away) ... She chose Boris, who patiently endures the rudeness of the Wild, spreading his dignity under his feet. True, he has an undeniable "value": he is "packed" in a Western manner, unlike the rest of the characters dressed in Russian. Informed in advance and more than once about what threatens Katerina in the event of their dates, he really destroys her, hypocritically saying: “Who knew that this would happen!”

Dobrolyubov declares that “Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters ...” Meanwhile, living in a house where she was not forced or forced to do what she did not like, she rushed to the Volga as a child, sat down into the boat and pushed off the shore. Only the next morning this "humble woman" was found downstream. And now she does not even remember the reason for her resentment, so she, apparently, was insignificant. Then she grew up, got married and calls her mother-in-law "you", contrary to the accepted "You" in the family. And she does not want to endure what she liked so much in her father's house. material from the site

Perhaps, hating the reality of his day, Dobrolyubov saw in the young merchant Katerina Kabanova the sprouts of the future, bright and beautiful. Out of respect for the classics, we do not really argue with him. Moreover, The Thunderstorm seems to us a long outdated work. But Katerina is really from the future, which really took place. We just live in it.

Modern Scavs pat modern mayor on the shoulder so that the authorities know who is the boss in the house. Without an imported outfit, even if it’s second hand, modern Katerinas won’t even look at you. But Dobrolyubov did not want this, I think, even more than the "dark kingdom". And I saw in the absurd egoist a ray of light and hope.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

MY ATTITUDE TO KATERINA. A. N. Ostrovsky - the great Russian playwright of the XIX century. Forty years of his fruitful activity in the field of drama were marked by the creation of a highly artistic repertoire of the Russian national theater. He wrote about fifty plays of various genres. Mostly these were social plays, comedies from the life of the nobility, bureaucrats and merchants. Dobrolyubov called these plays "plays of life". Noting the originality of Ostrovsky's dramatic action, he said: "We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general environment of life that does not depend on any of the characters." It is no coincidence that they started talking about Ostrovsky as the creator of a new Russian comedy - "essay" in composition and "physiological" in style. In his works, the author acted as a continuer of the humanistic traditions of Russian literature, considering, following Belinsky, realism and nationality as the highest criteria for artistry.

The pinnacle of Ostrovsky's work in the late 50s - early 60s was the drama "Thunderstorm". She raised the difficult questions of modern life in the 19th century, appearing in print and on the stage on the eve of the so-called "liberation" of the peasants.

In The Thunderstorm, the social system of Russia is sharply denounced, and the death of the main character is shown by the playwright as a consequence of her hopeless situation in the "dark kingdom" of lies, opportunism, tyranny and violence.

Katerina is faced with the terrible world of boar and wild, with its bestial laws of mockery and humiliation of the human person. It is on this collision that the conflict in the play is built. The heroine, armed only with the power of her feelings for her loved one, rebelled against tyranny and obscurantism, realizing the right to a better life, happiness and love. She, according to Dobrolyubov, "...is eager for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse." This is how we see in the play the main character - Katerina.

From childhood, she was brought up in an environment that developed in her romance and religiosity, a thirst for freedom and daydreaming. Her character is complex and multifaceted. But the main thing in her, in my opinion, is her love, to which she gives herself with all the immediacy of a young and strong nature. Yes, Katerina is very young and inexperienced in life. She needs a strong and intelligent leader, mentor, life partner. Katerina does not find all this in her husband, for whom all the joy and delight in life consists in breaking out from under the imperious guardianship of his own mother, even for a short time, to find relaxation in the booze and hops, finding himself far from the parental eye. This is how Tikhon appears before us - Katerina's husband. He knows how to adapt to the situation and live as dictated by the moral foundations of his society, without going beyond the so-called decency.

Katerina does not know how to be hypocritical and adapt, dodge and lie. She directly declares this to Varvara: “I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut the horse!” Her character is shown in the play in motion, in development. It is no longer enough for her to contemplate nature or quiet gracious prayer addressed to her. She is looking for a more effective sphere of application of her spiritual forces, which, unexpectedly for her, became a feeling for Boris. It was this love that ultimately caused her tragedy.

Many may condemn the passion and spontaneity of Katerina's nature, perceiving her deep spiritual struggle as a sign of weakness. But it's not. The heroine is strong precisely in her feelings and her tragic choice: either live a full-blooded life with her beloved, or not live at all. She comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to live the way she lived before, that this is perhaps an even greater sin than her “illegal” love of a married woman who for a long time was only an obedient daughter, wife, daughter-in-law.

She was given out without love to the Kabanov family, where everything was not the same as in her parents' quiet and comfortable house with its dear joys of a girl's life. Katerina found herself connected for life with a stupid, unloved, narrow-minded husband, an evil and quarrelsome mother-in-law. She is looking for an outlet for her romantic impulses and finds it in love.

Naturally, passion causes a storm of doubts in the soul of the heroine, a hard struggle of feelings and duty of a married woman. The heroine is confused. Her religiosity dictates to her to retreat from her love, to repent of sin. But the impulses for freedom, the desire to break out of the Domostroyevsky prison, even at the cost of life, is stronger in her than the consciousness of duty. Having cheated on her husband, Katerina repents before him, but, exhausted by domestic moral torture, unable to hypocrisy and adapt, like Barbara, she nevertheless decides to escape. However, Boris is not ready to connect his life with a woman who has violated the moral laws of the society in which he lives. He renounces his love and leaves Katerina. Abandoned by her beloved, Katerina prefers death to returning to her husband and mother-in-law, to family bondage.

At all times, suicide was considered one of the worst sins. Katerina, being pious, I think, also understood this well, but nevertheless she took such a terrible step. I cannot justify this act of hers, even making allowance for the unbearable conditions of her life, disappointment in love, the impossibility of returning to her parents' house or a life full of humiliation and insults in the house of a hated mother-in-law. This act is unworthy of such a strong and integral nature, which we see Katerina throughout the play. Despair pushed the heroine to such a rash step. In it, it seems to me, is the weakness of a young and inexperienced woman, driven to despair, driven into a corner. You can try to understand her, knowing the mores and customs of the society in which Katerina lived, but I cannot justify her act.

MY ATTITUDE TO KATERINA

MY ATTITUDE TO KATERINA. A. N. Ostrovsky - the great Russian playwright of the XIX century. Forty years of his fruitful activity in the field of drama were marked by the creation of a highly artistic repertoire of the Russian national theater.

The theater critic A. Kupel said well about Ostrovsky that he is "a worldly person, writes his heroes, crowding his backs and bumping his heads." Just as in real life there are no only bad or only good people, so in the play "Thunderstorm" there are no exclusively "black" or "white" characters. Each person perceives them in his own way, and some, perhaps, will even approve of the Kabanikha. It is not surprising, therefore, that the controversy that continues to this day as to whether to consider Katerina a “beam of light in a dark kingdom” or a fallen woman who has become a victim of circumstances. However, when trying to express one's opinion, one should not forget about the author's intention, which endowed his heroine with precisely these and not other features and put his own, sometimes hidden meaning into her words.

My attitude towards Katerina is also, probably, ambiguous. On the one hand, she is really a woman, tortured by everyday life and her mother-in-law, who does not find the strength to break with her husband and his family, and seeks solace in prayers and crying. What are even these words of hers, uttered after she found out that Boris, whom she loves so much, is leaving: “Wild winds, you endure my sadness and longing for him. Father, I'm bored, bored.

Boredom is one of the main motives running through Ostrovsky's play. It's boring in the city of Kalinov, there are no events there. So Kabanikha, one of the pillars of the "dark kingdom", confirms this: "We have nowhere to hurry, ... we live slowly." It is difficult in such conditions for a weak woman to protest. A society that lives by the laws of boredom will condemn it. And she doesn't know how to protest. He can only gently reproach his husband - Tikhon, or politely answer his mother-in-law to her reproaches. But, reading the play, with each new page you understand that it must protest, and also, with each new page, you are convinced that this is not possible ...

However, Katerina is trying. Her protest is her love for Boris, which he probably did not deserve. And even in her protest, Katerina's pure soul is not capable of deceit: “My whole heart has broken! I can't take it anymore!" She is honest and pure, like rain after a thunderstorm, and for this she cannot but be respected and loved!

But Katerina is not only a "downtrodden creature", she is quite capable of making decisions and has her own opinion about what is happening around. She does not listen to either Varvara or Tikhon when they try to stop her, to keep her confession of adultery. And first of all, this is a recognition of Kabanikhe, and not Tikhon or others. Realizing that she is dying, Katerina does not realize that she is knocking out the first brick from the foundation of the “dark kingdom” of wild and wild boars, but we, the readers, understand this.

Pity and love for Katerina are closely intertwined in my mind, sometimes it’s even difficult to distinguish them, but in my understanding, Katerina still has more strong features than humility, although suicide is nevertheless the destiny of weak people who have not coped with circumstances. Still, we must not forget about time, because this is the 19th century, and the spirit of Domostroy still hovers over every house and orders the doors to be locked, and not to keep the gate open, through which that inevitably dangerous line passes.

The play "Thunderstorm" appeared in 1859, when the formidable reign of Nicholas I and the Crimean War were replaced by the expectation of beneficial changes, hopes for renewal came. But the changes did not improve much - this is also reflected in the play. So is Katherine. She loves and rejoices, but she cannot free herself from the sad forebodings of her non-accommodation to ordinary life. "I can't live," she says. “If I died a little, it would be better,” she says, even so. And her feelings are more like a feat. Katerina loves Boris, apparently, first of all, because he is different, not from here, not from Kalinov, and this is precisely the need to break away, rise, rise up, resist. Maybe suicide in her case is also a feat? After all, only heroes, real heroes, perform feats. So for me, Katerina is a real heroine, capable of exploits in the name of love and in the name of herself.

Bibliography

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.easyschool.ru/ were used.

The theater critic A. Kupel said well about Ostrovsky that he is "a worldly person, writes his heroes, crowding his backs and bumping his heads." Just as in real life there are no only bad or only good people, so in the play "Thunderstorm" there are no exclusively "black" or "white" characters. Each person perceives them in his own way, and some, perhaps, will even approve of the Kabanikha. It is not surprising, therefore, that the controversy that continues to this day as to whether to consider Katerina a “beam of light in a dark kingdom” or a fallen woman who has become a victim of circumstances. However, when trying to express one's opinion, one should not forget about the author's intention, which endowed his heroine with precisely these and not other features and put his own, sometimes hidden meaning into her words.

My attitude towards Katerina is also, probably, ambiguous. On the one hand, she is really a woman, tortured by everyday life and her mother-in-law, who does not find the strength to break with her husband and his family, and seeks solace in prayers and crying. What are even these words of hers, uttered after she found out that Boris, whom she loves so much, is leaving: “Wild winds, you endure my sadness and longing for him. Father, I'm bored, bored.

Boredom is one of the main motives running through Ostrovsky's play. It's boring in the city of Kalinov, there are no events there. So Kabanikha, one of the pillars of the "dark kingdom", confirms this: "We have nowhere to hurry, ... we live slowly." It is difficult in such conditions for a weak woman to protest. A society that lives by the laws of boredom will condemn it. And she doesn't know how to protest. He can only gently reproach his husband - Tikhon, or politely answer his mother-in-law to her reproaches. But, reading the play, with each new page you understand that it must protest, and also, with each new page, you are convinced that this is not possible ...

However, Katerina is trying. Her protest is her love for Boris, which he probably did not deserve. And even in her protest, Katerina's pure soul is not capable of deceit: “My whole heart has broken! I can't take it anymore!" She is honest and pure, like rain after a thunderstorm, and for this she cannot but be respected and loved!

But Katerina is not only a "downtrodden creature", she is quite capable of making decisions and has her own opinion about what is happening around. She does not listen to either Varvara or Tikhon when they try to stop her, to keep her confession of adultery. And first of all, this is a recognition of Kabanikhe, and not Tikhon or others. Realizing that she is dying, Katerina does not realize that she is knocking out the first brick from the foundation of the “dark kingdom” of wild and wild boars, but we, the readers, understand this.

Pity and love for Katerina are closely intertwined in my mind, sometimes it’s even difficult to distinguish them, but in my understanding, Katerina still has more strong features than humility, although suicide is nevertheless the destiny of weak people who have not coped with circumstances. Still, we must not forget about time, because this is the 19th century, and the spirit of Domostroy still hovers over every house and orders the doors to be locked, and not to keep the gate open, through which that inevitably dangerous line passes.

The play "Thunderstorm" appeared in 1859, when the formidable reign of Nicholas I and the Crimean War were replaced by the expectation of beneficial changes, hopes for renewal came. But the changes did not improve much - this is also reflected in the play. So is Katherine. She loves and rejoices, but she cannot free herself from the sad forebodings of her non-accommodation to ordinary life. "I can't live," she says. “If I died a little, it would be better,” she says, even so. And her feelings are more like a feat. Katerina loves Boris, apparently, first of all, because he is different, not from here, not from Kalinov, and this is precisely the need to break away, rise, rise up, resist. Maybe suicide in her case is also a feat? After all, only heroes, real heroes, perform feats. So for me, Katerina is a real heroine, capable of exploits in the name of love and in the name of herself.

The name of Ostrovsky is well known and remembered by everyone who cherishes the national Russian culture. "Plays of life" called the plays of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. His contemporaries and descendants were struck by the naturalness of his works, their simplicity, and truthfulness unusual for that time. A thoughtful reader or viewer sees in Ostrovsky not only a description of everyday life, but also a sharp satirist, lyricist, dramatic poet.

Most critics appreciated in A. Ostrovsky not so much the writer's talent as his gift as an outstanding playwright, many of his plays were staged during the life of the writer in the Moscow Maly Theater, or "Ostrovsky's House", as the inhabitants of the capital called it. Many of them are still going there.

Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of people, knew how to vividly portray its most characteristic features. A. Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" is in this sense another manifestation of his talent.

Thunderstorm caused a lot of different opinions from Russian critics, many of which were directly opposite to each other. The image of the main character of the play, Katerina, caused the greatest controversy. The outstanding Russian critic Dobrolyubov considered her "a ray of light in the dark realm of Russian reality" with a character "predominantly creative, loving, ideal."

Dobrolyubov compares Katerina with a large deep river. Katerina endures all misfortunes, endures everything, in spite of any obstacles; "and when there is not enough strength, he will perish, but will not betray himself." According to N. A. Dobrolyubov, Katerina is condemned to fight; submitting or going to deceit, it will still "reach its end." Dobrolyubov highly appreciates Katerina's ability to protest against the "boar's" concepts of morality. He sees in her a woman who "does not want to put up or take advantage of a miserable existence."

Another point of view on this image is expressed in the article by D. I. Pisarev "Motives of Russian Drama". Pisarev emphasizes that Katerina's life is full of internal contradictions. In her soul, "two different women are constantly colliding, as it were." Katerina, according to the critic, "confuses her life herself," and having tangled the knot to the end, cuts it "in the simplest and most stupid way - by suicide."

In my opinion, the point of view of F. M. Dostoevsky is closest to the truth. He considers Katerina's personal drama to be quite natural and thus rejects the arguments of those who are trying to deduce from The Thunderstorm the idea of ​​"the perniciousness of patriarchal despotism." He claims that "... the crafty one, who tormented Katerina, loves such natures. If she were surrounded by the kindest people, she, having committed her sin, would have been executed in the same way and yearned. Maybe there would be no suicide, but her life is all would have been broken." And this is true, you just have to read the text of the play more carefully. Katerina is so sincere, honest, pure in soul that, having fallen in love with Boris and thereby accepting a “grave” sin on her soul, she cannot help but feel pangs of conscience. And, of course, it was not the patriarchal way of life that forced her to take the most terrible step - suicide, but simply truthfulness, deep faith and purity of moral principles did not allow Katerina to continue her "sinful" existence on earth.

We remember that in her parents' house she "lived, did not grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild." Her mother "did not have a soul in her, she did not force her to work." And although, in the house of the mother-in-law, everything is “the same”, but Katerina feels some kind of oppression, everything is “as if from bondage”. The members of the family that Katerina got into relate to the situation prevailing in the house in different ways. Tikhon completely submitted to his mother, he does not want to "live by his own will", although he is sometimes glad to break free. Varvara adapted more successfully, slowly deceiving her mother and pursuing, above all, her own interests.

Katerina is firmly convinced that, having married, she "is like being buried." However, this does not prevent her, having fallen in love with Boris, to give vent to her feelings, thus violating centuries-old traditions. But Katerina is deeply pious. Having cheated on her husband, she cannot live with such a sin in her heart, which seems to her even worse than suicide. In her last monologue, after saying goodbye to Boris, Katerina says that she cannot return home, that “she doesn’t even want to think about life, ... people, house, walls - everything is disgusting,” and whoever loves, “he doesn’t care will pray." Thus, the discord between what is going on in Katerina's soul, between her feelings, desires and the norms of Kalinov's reality becomes more and more tragic. Tikhon's last exclamation, in which his envy of his dead wife shows through, emphasizes, in my opinion, all the horror of everyday life, in which the living "envy" the dead.

One can interpret the image of Katerina in different ways, one can see manifestations of human weakness in her actions, but it seems to me that one cannot condemn Katerina for them and one cannot help but sympathize with a heroine so rare in her inner beauty.

Was the love of Katerina Kabanova from A. N. Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" a crime? Did the poor woman deserve such a terrible punishment? Katerina's misfortunes begin after, having married Tikhon Kabanov, she moves into his house. There is a young...

1. New!

   Look for some more scolding like Savel Prokofich with us! .. Kabanikha is also good. A. Ostrovsky. Thunderstorm In his drama "Thunderstorm" A. N. Ostrovsky vividly and vividly portrayed the "dark kingdom" of the Russian province, overwhelming the best human ...

Enmity between loved ones can be especially irreconcilable P. Tacitus There is no worse retribution for madness and delusion than to see your own children suffer because of them W. Sumner A play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" tells about the life of a provincial...

The name of Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" plays a big role in understanding this play. The image of a thunderstorm in Ostrovsky's drama is unusually complex and ambiguous. On the one hand, a thunderstorm is a direct participant in the action of the play, on the other hand, it is a symbol of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthis work ....

My attitude to the heroine of Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm".

The theater critic A. Kupel said well about Ostrovsky that he is "a worldly person, writes his heroes, crowding his backs and bumping his heads." Just as in real life there are no only bad or only good people, so in the play "Thunderstorm" there are no exclusively "black" or "white" characters. Each person perceives them in his own way, and some, perhaps, will even approve of the Kabanikha. It is not surprising, therefore, that the controversy that continues to this day as to whether to consider Katerina a “beam of light in a dark kingdom” or a fallen woman who has become a victim of circumstances. However, when trying to express one's opinion, one should not forget about the author's intention, which endowed his heroine with precisely these and not other features and put his own, sometimes hidden meaning into her words.

My attitude towards Katerina is also, probably, ambiguous. On the one hand, she is really a woman, tortured by everyday life and her mother-in-law, who does not find the strength to break with her husband and his family, and seeks solace in prayers and crying. What are even these words of hers, uttered after she found out that Boris, whom she loves so much, is leaving: “Wild winds, you endure my sadness and longing for him. Father, I'm bored, bored.

Boredom is one of the main motives running through Ostrovsky's play. It's boring in the city of Kalinov, there are no events there. So Kabanikha, one of the pillars of the "dark kingdom", confirms this: "We have nowhere to hurry, ... we live slowly." It is difficult in such conditions for a weak woman to protest. A society that lives by the laws of boredom will condemn it. And she doesn't know how to protest. He can only gently reproach his husband - Tikhon, or politely answer his mother-in-law to her reproaches. But, reading the play, with each new page you understand that it must protest, and also, with each new page, you are convinced that this is not possible ...

However, Katerina is trying. Her protest is her love for Boris, which he probably did not deserve. And even in her protest, Katerina's pure soul is not capable of deceit: “My whole heart has broken! I can't take it anymore!" She is honest and pure, like rain after a thunderstorm, and for this she cannot but be respected and loved!

But Katerina is not only a "downtrodden creature", she is quite capable of making decisions and has her own opinion about what is happening around. She does not listen to either Varvara or Tikhon when they try to stop her, to keep her confession of adultery. And first of all, this is a recognition of Kabanikhe, and not Tikhon or others. Realizing that she is dying, Katerina does not realize that she is knocking out the first brick from the foundation of the “dark kingdom” of wild and wild boars, but we, the readers, understand this.

Pity and love for Katerina are closely intertwined in my mind, sometimes it’s even difficult to distinguish them, but in my understanding, Katerina still has more strong features than humility, although suicide is nevertheless the destiny of weak people who have not coped with circumstances. Still, we must not forget about time, because this is the 19th century, and the spirit of Domostroy still hovers over every house and orders the doors to be locked, and not to keep the gate open, through which that inevitably dangerous line passes.

The play "Thunderstorm" appeared in 1859, when the formidable reign of Nicholas I and the Crimean War were replaced by the expectation of beneficial changes, hopes for renewal came. But the changes did not improve much - this is also reflected in the play. So is Katherine. She loves and rejoices, but she cannot free herself from the sad forebodings of her non-accommodation to ordinary life. "I can't live," she says. “If I died a little, it would be better,” she says, even so. And her feelings are more like a feat. Katerina loves Boris, apparently, first of all, because he is different, not from here, not from Kalinov, and this is precisely the need to break away, rise, rise up, resist. Maybe suicide in her case is also a feat? After all, only heroes, real heroes, perform feats. So for me, Katerina is a real heroine, capable of exploits in the name of love and in the name of herself.

Bibliography

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.easyschool.ru/ were used.

A. N. Ostrovsky - the great Russian playwright of the XIX century. Forty years of his fruitful activity in the field of drama were marked by the creation of a highly artistic repertoire of the Russian national theater. He wrote about fifty plays of various genres. Mostly these were social plays, comedies from the life of the nobility, bureaucrats and merchants. Dobrolyubov called these plays "plays of life". Noting the originality of Ostrovsky's dramatic action, he said: "We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general environment of life that does not depend on any of the characters." It is no coincidence that they started talking about Ostrovsky as the creator of a new Russian comedy - "essay" in composition and "physiological" in style. In his works, the author acted as a continuer of the humanistic traditions of Russian literature, considering, following Belinsky, realism and nationality as the highest criteria for artistry.

The pinnacle of Ostrovsky's work in the late 50s - early 60s was the drama "Thunderstorm". She raised the complex questions of modern life in the 19th century. appearing in print and on stage on the eve of the so-called "liberation" of the peasants.

In The Thunderstorm, the social system of Russia is sharply denounced, and the death of the main character is shown by the playwright as a consequence of her hopeless situation in the "dark kingdom" of lies, opportunism, tyranny and violence.

Katerina is faced with the terrible world of boar and wild, with its bestial laws of mockery and humiliation of the human person. It is on this collision that the conflict in the play is built. The heroine, armed only with the power of her feelings for her loved one, rebelled against tyranny and obscurantism, realizing the right to a better life, happiness and love. She, according to Dobrolyubov, "...is eager for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse." Such we see in the play the main character - Katerina.

From childhood, she was brought up in an environment that developed in her romance and religiosity, a thirst for freedom and daydreaming. Her character is complex and multifaceted. But the main thing in her, in my opinion, is her love, to which she gives herself with all the immediacy of a young and strong nature. Yes, Katerina is very young and inexperienced in life. She needs a strong and intelligent leader, mentor, life partner. Katerina does not find all this in her husband, for whom all the joy and delight in life is to escape at least for a short time from under the imperious guardianship of her own mother, to find relaxation in revelry and hops, finding herself far from her parent's eye. This is how Tikhon appears before us - Katerina's husband. He knows how to adapt to the situation and live as dictated by the moral foundations of his society, without going beyond the so-called decency.

Katerina does not know how to be hypocritical and adapt, dodge and lie. She directly declares this to Varvara: “I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” Her character is shown in the play in motion, in development. It is no longer enough for her to contemplate nature or quiet gracious prayer addressed to her. She is looking for a more effective sphere of application of her spiritual forces, which, unexpectedly for her, became a feeling for Boris. It was this love that ultimately caused her tragedy.

Many may condemn the passion and spontaneity of Katerina's nature, perceiving her deep spiritual struggle as a sign of weakness. But it's not. The heroine is strong precisely in her feelings and her tragic choice: either live a full-blooded life with her beloved, or not live at all. She comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to live the way she lived before, that this is perhaps an even greater sin than her “illegal” love of a married woman who for a long time was only an obedient daughter, wife, daughter-in-law.

She was given out without love to the Kabanov family, where everything was not the same as in her parents' quiet and comfortable house with its dear joys of a girl's life. Katerina found herself connected for life with a stupid, unloved, narrow-minded husband, an evil and quarrelsome mother-in-law. She is looking for an outlet for her romantic impulses and finds it in love.

Naturally, passion causes a storm of doubts in the soul of the heroine, a hard struggle of feelings and duty of a married woman.

The heroine is confused. Her religiosity dictates to her to retreat from her love, to repent of sin. But the impulses for freedom, the desire to break out of the Domostroyevsky prison, even at the cost of life, is stronger in her than the consciousness of duty. Having cheated on her husband, Katerina repents before him, but, exhausted by domestic moral torture, unable to hypocrisy and adapt, like Barbara, she decides to escape. However, Boris is not ready to connect his life with a woman who has violated the moral laws of the society in which he lives. He renounces his love and leaves Katerina. Abandoned by her beloved, Katerina prefers death to returning to her husband and mother-in-law, to family bondage. At all times, suicide was considered one of the worst sins. Katerina, being pious, I think, also understood this well, but nevertheless she took such a terrible step. I cannot justify this act of hers, even making allowance for the unbearable conditions of her life, disappointment in love, the impossibility of returning to her parents' house or a life full of humiliation and insults in the house of a hated mother-in-law. This act is unworthy of such a strong and integral nature, which we see Katerina throughout the play. Despair pushed the heroine to such a rash step. In it, it seems to me, is the weakness of a young and inexperienced woman, driven to despair, driven into a corner.

You can try to understand her, knowing the mores and customs of the society in which Katerina lived, but I cannot justify her act.

The darkness of bitter truths is dearer to us than the uplifting deception. AS Pushkin Looking at the same thing, we all see different things. There is an anecdote about this: - What is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist? - The optimist says that the hall is half full, and the pessimist that it is half empty. Look what Dobrolyubov saw in the heroine of the drama Thunderstorm: “The extraordinary originality of this character is striking. There is nothing external, alien in it, but somehow comes out from within it; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything; in her mother's house it was the same as at Kabanikh's: they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves. Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs ... On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. When I read up to this point, I wanted to demand evidence from the critic. Show what is built by this "creative" character! And I'll show you what's broken! She crushed her family, her husband. Even if it was not the best model, then what in return? Russian variation on the theme of Madame Bovary. It would be interesting to look at the family of her parents, disgraced by adultery and suicide of their daughter. Dobrolyubov, however, writes something about poetic visions after the stories of wanderers - not frightening, but clear and kind. As I understand it, here we are talking about a woman's panic fear of the wrath of God (thunderstorm) and fiery hell. That's right, we see what we want. As for the "loving" character... It's hard to understand why a person loves this one and not another. "Love is blind". But of all the possible "goats" Katerina chooses the most vulgar and insignificant - Boris. She passed by the meek but selfless Tikhon, who, in my opinion, showed rare generosity in forgiving his prodigal wife. She passed by the violent, courageous and in his own way noble Curly (he did not betray his Varvara, but took her away) ... She chose Boris, who patiently endures the rudeness of the Wild, spreading his dignity under his feet. True, he has an undeniable "value": he is "packed" in a Western manner, unlike the rest of the characters dressed in Russian. Informed in advance and more than once about what threatens Katerina in the event of their dates, he really destroys her, hypocritically saying: “Who knew that this would happen! " Dobrolyubov declares that "Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters ..." Meanwhile, living in a house where she was not forced or forced to do what she did not like, she rushed to the Volga as a child, got into the boat and pushed off the shore. Only the next morning this "humble woman" was found downstream. And now she does not even remember the reason for her resentment, so she, apparently, was insignificant. Then she grew up, got married and calls her mother-in-law "you", contrary to the accepted "You" in the family. And she does not want to endure what she liked so much in her father's house. Perhaps, hating the reality of his day, Dobrolyubov saw in the young merchant Katerina Kabanova the sprouts of the future, bright and beautiful. Out of respect for the classics, we do not really argue with him. Moreover, The Thunderstorm seems to us a long outdated work. But Katerina is really from the future, which really took place. We just live in it. Modern Scavs pat modern mayor on the shoulder so that the authorities know who is the boss in the house. Without an imported outfit, even if it’s second hand, modern Katerinas won’t even look at you. But Dobrolyubov did not want this, I think, even more than the "dark kingdom". And I saw in the absurd egoist a ray of light and hope.

MY ATTITUDE TO KATERINA. A. N. Ostrovsky - the great Russian playwright of the 19th century .. Forty years of his fruitful activity in the field of dramaturgy were marked by the creation of a highly artistic repertoire of the Russian national theater. He wrote about fifty plays of various genres. Mostly these were social plays, comedies from noble, bureaucratic and merchant life, Dobrolyubov called these plays "plays of life." Noting the originality of Ostrovsky's dramatic action, he said: "We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general environment of life that does not depend on any of the characters." It is no coincidence that they started talking about Ostrovsky as the creator of a new Russian comedy - "essay" in composition and "physiological" in style. In his works, the author acted as a continuer of the humanistic traditions of Russian literature, considering, following Belinsky, realism and nationality as the highest criteria for artistry.

The pinnacle of Ostrovsky's work in the late 50s - early 60s was the drama "Thunderstorm". She raised the difficult questions of modern life in the 19th century, appearing in print and on the stage on the eve of the so-called "liberation" of the peasants.

In The Thunderstorm, the social system of Russia is sharply denounced, and the death of the main character is shown by the playwright as a consequence of her hopeless situation in the "dark kingdom" of lies, opportunism, tyranny and violence.

Katerina is faced with the terrible world of boar and wild, with its bestial laws of mockery and humiliation of the human person. It is on this collision that the conflict in the play is built. The heroine, armed only with the power of her feelings for her loved one, rebelled against tyranny and obscurantism, realizing the right to a better life, happiness and love. She, according to Dobrolyubov, "...is eager for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse." Such we see in the play the main character - Katerina.

From childhood, she was brought up in an environment that developed in her romance and religiosity, a thirst for freedom and daydreaming. Her character is complex and multifaceted. But the main thing in her, in my opinion, is her love, to which she gives herself with all the immediacy of a young and strong nature. Yes, Katerina is very young and inexperienced in life. She needs a strong and intelligent leader, mentor, life partner. Katerina does not find all this in her husband, for whom all the joy and delight in life is to escape at least for a short time from under the imperious guardianship of her own mother, to find relaxation in revelry and hops, finding herself far from her parent's eye. This is how Tikhon appears before us - Katerina's husband. He knows how to adapt to the situation and live as dictated by the moral foundations of his society, without going beyond the so-called decency.

Katerina does not know how to be hypocritical and adapt, dodge and lie. She directly declares this to Varvara: “I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” Her character is shown in the play in motion, in development. It is no longer enough for her to contemplate nature or quiet gracious prayer addressed to her. She is looking for a more effective sphere of application of her spiritual forces, which, unexpectedly for her, became a feeling for Boris. It was this love that ultimately caused her tragedy.

Many may condemn the passion and spontaneity of Katerina's nature, perceiving her deep spiritual struggle as a sign of weakness. But it's not. The heroine is strong precisely in her feelings and her tragic choice: either live a full-blooded life with her beloved, or not live at all. She comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to live the way she lived before, that this is perhaps an even greater sin than her “illegal” love of a married woman who for a long time was only an obedient daughter, wife, daughter-in-law.

She was given out without love to the Kabanov family, where everything was not the same as in her parents' quiet and comfortable house with its dear joys of a girl's life. Katerina found herself connected for life with a stupid, unloved, narrow-minded husband, an evil and quarrelsome mother-in-law. She is looking for an outlet for her romantic impulses and finds it in love.

Naturally, passion causes a storm of doubts in the soul of the heroine, a hard struggle of feelings and duty of a married woman.

The heroine is confused. Her religiosity dictates to her to retreat from her love, to repent of sin. But the impulses for freedom, the desire to break out of the Domostroyevsky prison, even at the cost of life, is stronger in her than the consciousness of duty. Having cheated on her husband, Katerina repents before him, but, exhausted by domestic moral torture, unable to hypocrisy and adapt, like Barbara, she nevertheless decides to escape. However, Boris is not ready to connect his life with a woman who has violated the moral laws of the society in which he lives. He renounces his love and leaves Katerina. Abandoned by her beloved, Katerina prefers death to returning to her husband and mother-in-law, to family bondage.

At all times, suicide was considered one of the worst sins. Katerina, being pious, I think, also understood this well, but nevertheless she took such a terrible step. I cannot justify this act of hers, even making allowance for the unbearable conditions of her life, disappointment in love, the impossibility of returning to her parents' house or a life full of humiliation and insults in the house of a hated mother-in-law. This act is unworthy of such a strong and integral nature, which we see Katerina throughout the play. Despair pushed the heroine to such a rash step. In it, it seems to me, is the weakness of a young and inexperienced woman, driven to despair, driven into a corner. You can try to understand her, knowing the mores and customs of the society in which Katerina lived, but I cannot justify her act.

Pisarev's criticism of The Thunderstorm begins with the formulation of a conclusion about the recklessness of Dobrolyubov's conclusion. He motivates him by citing arguments from the author's text of the play. His polemic with Nikolai Dobrolyubov is reminiscent of a pessimist's summary of the conclusions drawn by the optimist. According to the reasoning of Dmitry Ivanovich, the essence of Katerina is melancholic, there is no real virtue in her, characteristic of people who are called "bright". According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov made a systematic mistake in the analysis of the image of the main character of the play. He gathered all her positive qualities into a single positive image, ignoring the shortcomings. According to Dmitry Ivanovich, a dialectical view of the heroine is important.

Inability to cope with oneself

At the same time, Pisarev's criticism of The Thunderstorm objectively points to Katerina's infantilism and impulsiveness. She does not marry for love. Only the majestic Boris Grigoryevich, the nephew of the merchant Diky, smiled at her, and - the deed is ready: Katya hurries to a secret meeting. At the same time, having become close to this, in principle, a stranger, she does not think at all about the consequences. “Is the author really depicting a “light beam ?!” - Pisarev's critical article asks the reader. "Thunderstorm" displays an extremely illogical heroine, unable not only to cope with circumstances, but also to cope with herself. After betraying her husband, being depressed, childishly frightened by a thunderstorm and the hysteria of a crazy lady, she confesses to her deed and immediately identifies herself with the victim. Banal, isn't it?

On the advice of mother, Tikhon beats her "a little", "for the sake of order". However, the bullying of the mother-in-law herself becomes an order of magnitude more sophisticated. After Katerina learns that Boris Grigorievich is going to Kyakhta (Transbaikalia), she, having neither will nor character, decides to commit suicide: she throws herself into the river and drowns.

Katerina is not a "hero of time"

Pisarev reflects philosophically on Ostrovsky's The Thunderstorm. He wonders whether in a slave society a person who is not endowed with a deep mind, who does not have a will, who does not educate himself, who does not understand people - in principle, can become a ray of light. Yes, this woman is touchingly meek, kind and sincere, she does not know how to defend her point of view. (“She crushed me,” Katerina says about Kabanikh). Yes, she has a creative, impressionable nature. And this type can really charm (as it happened with Dobrolyubov). But this does not change the essence ... "Under the circumstances set forth in the play, a person cannot arise -" a ray of light "!" - says Dmitry Ivanovich.

A. N. Ostrovsky - the great Russian playwright of the XIX century. Forty years of his fruitful activity in the field of drama were marked by the creation of a highly artistic repertoire of the Russian national theater. He wrote about fifty plays of various genres. Mostly these were social plays, comedies from the life of the nobility, bureaucrats and merchants. Dobrolyubov called these plays "plays of life". Noting the originality of Ostrovsky's dramatic action, he said: "We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general environment of life that does not depend on any of the characters." It is no coincidence that they started talking about Ostrovsky as the creator of a new Russian comedy - "essay" in composition and "physiological" in style. In his works, the author acted as a continuer of the humanistic traditions of Russian literature, considering, following Belinsky, realism and nationality as the highest criteria for artistry.

The pinnacle of Ostrovsky's work in the late 50s - early 60s was the drama "Thunderstorm". She raised the complex questions of modern life in the 19th century. appearing in print and on stage on the eve of the so-called "liberation" of the peasants.

In The Thunderstorm, the social system of Russia is sharply denounced, and the death of the main character is shown by the playwright as a consequence of her hopeless situation in the "dark kingdom" of lies, opportunism, tyranny and violence.

Katerina is faced with the terrible world of boar and wild, with its bestial laws of mockery and humiliation of the human person. It is on this collision that the conflict in the play is built. The heroine, armed only with the power of her feelings for her loved one, rebelled against tyranny and obscurantism, realizing the right to a better life, happiness and love. She, according to Dobrolyubov, "...is eager for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse." Such we see in the play the main character - Katerina.

From childhood, she was brought up in an environment that developed in her romance and religiosity, a thirst for freedom and daydreaming. Her character is complex and multifaceted. But the main thing in her, in my opinion, is her love, to which she gives herself with all the immediacy of a young and strong nature. Yes, Katerina is very young and inexperienced in life. She needs a strong and intelligent leader, mentor, life partner. Katerina does not find all this in her husband, for whom all the joy and delight in life is to escape at least for a short time from under the imperious guardianship of her own mother, to find relaxation in revelry and hops, finding herself far from her parent's eye. This is how Tikhon appears before us - Katerina's husband. He knows how to adapt to the situation and live as dictated by the moral foundations of his society, without going beyond the so-called decency.

Katerina does not know how to be hypocritical and adapt, dodge and lie. She directly declares this to Varvara: “I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” Her character is shown in the play in motion, in development. It is no longer enough for her to contemplate nature or quiet gracious prayer addressed to her. She is looking for a more effective sphere of application of her spiritual forces, which, unexpectedly for her, became a feeling for Boris. It was this love that ultimately caused her tragedy.

Many may condemn the passion and spontaneity of Katerina's nature, perceiving her deep spiritual struggle as a sign of weakness. But it's not. The heroine is strong precisely in her feelings and her tragic choice: either live a full-blooded life with her beloved, or not live at all. She comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to live the way she lived before, that this is perhaps an even greater sin than her “illegal” love of a married woman who for a long time was only an obedient daughter, wife, daughter-in-law.

She was given out without love to the Kabanov family, where everything was not the same as in her parents' quiet and comfortable house with its dear joys of a girl's life. Katerina found herself connected for life with a stupid, unloved, narrow-minded husband, an evil and quarrelsome mother-in-law. She is looking for an outlet for her romantic impulses and finds it in love.

Naturally, passion causes a storm of doubts in the soul of the heroine, a hard struggle of feelings and duty of a married woman.

The heroine is confused. Her religiosity dictates to her to retreat from her love, to repent of sin. But the impulses for freedom, the desire to break out of the Domostroyevsky prison, even at the cost of life, is stronger in her than the consciousness of duty. Having cheated on her husband, Katerina repents before him, but, exhausted by domestic moral torture, unable to hypocrisy and adapt, like Barbara, she decides to escape. However, Boris is not ready to connect his life with a woman who has violated the moral laws of the society in which he lives. He renounces his love and leaves Katerina. Abandoned by her beloved, Katerina prefers death to returning to her husband and mother-in-law, to family bondage. At all times, suicide was considered one of the worst sins. Katerina, being pious, I think, also understood this well, but nevertheless she took such a terrible step. I cannot justify this act of hers, even making allowance for the unbearable conditions of her life, disappointment in love, the impossibility of returning to her parents' house or a life full of humiliation and insults in the house of a hated mother-in-law. This act is unworthy of such a strong and integral nature, which we see Katerina throughout the play. Despair pushed the heroine to such a rash step. In it, it seems to me, is the weakness of a young and inexperienced woman, driven to despair, driven into a corner.

You can try to understand her, knowing the mores and customs of the society in which Katerina lived, but I cannot justify her act.