Dobrolyubov thunderstorm article summary. The only right decision for the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov
" At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”
Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you take up arms against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language as they speak characters, exceeds all the patience of a well-bred person.”
Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What to think about a man who, upon seeing a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore it cannot be accepted for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”
“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”
Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”
In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (minor and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklushi, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes " dark kingdom": "Everything is somehow restless, they are not feeling well. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”
Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.”
Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she strives for a new life, even if she has to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she does not consider life to be the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family.”
The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman.” But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, otherwise you yourself you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”
Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina, Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature, strong characters are like fountains, dependent on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat, good bottom - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”
Analyzing Katerina's actions, the author writes that he considers the escape of Katerina and Boris possible as the best solution. Katerina is ready to flee, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”
At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. To live in " dark kingdom“Worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya!” Why did I stay in the world and suffer!“ With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon’s words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”
In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in “The Thunderstorm” to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges."
Perhaps you find the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and tyranny in many literary works; but in them, for the most part, the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical way; the abstract, philosophical side of the question is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, but the real possibility is left without attention. This is not the case with Alexander Ostrovsky: with him you find not only the moral, but also the everyday economic side of the issue, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called “God’s blessing,” and how people’s irresponsibility to it is determined by their material dependence on it. Moreover, you see how this material side dominates the abstract side in all everyday relations and how people deprived of material security value abstract rights little and even lose a clear consciousness of them.
Indeed, a well-fed person can reason calmly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a dish; but a hungry man strives for food, wherever he sees it and whatever it may be. This is a phenomenon that repeats itself in all areas. public life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show more clearly than any reasoning how the system of lawlessness and rude, petty egoism established tyranny, is grafted onto those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain more or less the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights.
In the foreground is always the general, independent of any of the characters, life situation. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim; Both of them are pitiful to you, often both are funny, but the feeling aroused in you by the play is not directly addressed to them. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally be indignant, upon careful examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed to them by the routine supported by their position; but this situation is such that complete, healthy human development is impossible in it.
Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky’s plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Outsiders have a reason for their appearance and even turn out to be necessary for the completeness of the play. Inactive participants in the drama of life, each apparently busy only with his own business, often by their mere existence have such an influence on the course of business that nothing can reflect it. How many hot ideas, how many extensive plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and good feelings freeze in us out of fear, so as not to be ridiculed and scolded by this crowd. And on the other hand, how many crimes, how many impulses of arbitrariness and violence are stopped before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very unyielding in what is once recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what this crowd’s concepts of good and evil are, what they consider to be true and what lies. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.
Katerina is completely led by her nature, and not by given decisions, because for decisions she would need to have logical, solid foundations, and yet all the principles that are given to her for theoretical reasoning are decisively contrary to her natural inclinations. That is why she not only does not take heroic poses and does not utter sayings that prove her strength of character, but even on the contrary, she appears in the form of a weak woman who does not know how to resist her desires, and tries to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions.
She doesn’t complain about anyone, doesn’t blame anyone, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no malice in her, no contempt, nothing that is usually so flaunted by disappointed heroes who voluntarily leave the world. The thought of the bitterness of life that will have to be endured torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some kind of semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all the domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination.
She screams:
“And they’ll catch me and force me back home!.. Hurry, hurry...”
And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with a spineless and disgusting husband. She's freed!..
Such liberation is sad, bitter; but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why she makes a refreshing impression on us.
This end seems joyful to us; it is easy to understand why: it gives a terrible challenge to tyrant power, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She doesn’t want to put up with it, doesn’t want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.
Dobrolyubov put very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to depict the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external demands of society and depicted them with greater or lesser success. Other authors took a more internal side of life, but limited themselves to a very small circle and noticed phenomena that were far from having national significance. Ostrovsky’s work is much more fruitful: he captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate all Russian society, whose voice is heard in all phenomena of our life, the satisfaction of which is a necessary condition for our further development.
Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov
"A ray of light in a dark kingdom"
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”
Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm” at the same time “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”
Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What do you think about a man who, when he sees a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”
“The writer has until now been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”
Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”
In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (minor and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”
Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.”
Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she is striving for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she doesn’t even consider the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family to be life.”
The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman.” But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, or you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”
Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina, Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature, strong characters are like fountains, dependent on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat, good bottom - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”
Analyzing Katerina's actions, the author writes that he considers the escape of Katerina and Boris possible as the best solution. Katerina is ready to escape, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”
At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya!” Why did I stay in the world and suffer!“ With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon’s words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”
In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in “The Thunderstorm” to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges." Retold Maria Pershko
In this article, Dobrolyubov examines Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. In his opinion, Ostrovsky deeply understands Russian life. Then he analyzes articles written by other critics about Ostrovsky, who do not have the correct view of the works.
Does "The Thunderstorm" follow the rules of drama? In drama there must be a phenomenon in which the struggle between commitment and passion can be observed. The author of a drama must have good literary language. The main purpose of the drama - to influence the desire to comply with moral codes and to demonstrate the destructive consequences of strong attachment is not present in the drama "The Thunderstorm". The heroine of this drama, Katerina, should evoke negative feelings in the reader, such as condemnation; instead, the writer presented her in such a way that one wants to treat her with pity and sympathy. Therefore, the reader forgives her for all her wrongdoings. There are many characters in the drama, without whom you can do without, so that the scenes with them do not overwhelm the work. Also, the dialogues are not written in literary language.
Dobrolyubov dwelt in detail on the analysis of goals in order to draw the reader’s attention to an understanding of reality. Evil does not always win, and good is not always punished. Analyzing all of Ostrovsky’s plays, Dobrolyubov talks about the fact that all the characters in the play are necessary for understanding big picture works, therefore the role minor characters is also obvious. According to literary critic Ostrovsky was unwavering in creating this drama. Thanks to the context, the reader expects a quick dramatic ending to tyranny.
The image of Katerina is further analyzed. The country already needs more active people, so Katerina opens new era V literary images. Her image personifies a strong nature, she is selfless, ready for death, because it is not enough for her to simply exist in the Kabanov family.
It is not typical for Katerina to be dissatisfied or to destroy; she is gentle, impeccable, and loves to create. She goes on a rampage and makes noise only when obstacles arise in her path. Perhaps the decision to run away with Boris is the best way out of this situation. The only mistake in the escape is that Boris, although a literate young man, needs the financial support of his uncle.
Katerina gets rid of the miserable existence that befell her by drowning in the river. This brings relief to the reader, according to Dobrolyubov’s article. Tikhon Kabanov envies the death of his wife, which causes reflections on life in which death becomes the envy of the living.
Summing up, Dobrolyubov emphasizes the importance of actions that challenge Russian life and Russian strength.
In "Thunderstorm". First of all, he strikes us with his opposition to all tyrant principles. Not with the instinct of violence and destruction, but also not with the practical dexterity of arranging his own affairs for high purposes, not with senseless, rattling pathos, but not with diplomatic, pedantic calculation, he appears before us. No, he is concentrated and decisive, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, filled with faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that he would rather die than live under those principles that are disgusting to him.
He is guided not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by instant pathos, but simply by nature, by his whole being. In this integrity and harmony of character lies its strength and its essential necessity at a time when old, wild relationships, having lost all internal strength, continue to be held together by an external mechanical connection.
The decisive, integral Russian character acting among the Wild and Kabanovs appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chests of the weakest and most patient. The field in which Ostrovsky observes and shows us Russian life does not concern purely social and state relations, but is limited to the family; in the family, who bears the brunt of tyranny more than anything else, if not the woman?
It is clear from this that if a woman wants to free herself from such a situation, then her case will be serious and decisive. It doesn’t cost any Kudryash anything to quarrel with Dikiy: they both need each other, and, therefore, there is no need for special heroism on Kudryash’s part to present his demands. But his prank will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Dikoy, and threaten to give him up as a soldier, but will not give him up; Curly will be pleased that he bit off, and things will go on as before again. Not so with a woman: she must have a lot of strength of character in order to express her dissatisfaction, her demands. At the first attempt, they will make her feel that she is nothing, that they can crush her. She knows that this is really so, and must come to terms with it; otherwise they will fulfill the threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repent, on bread and water, deprive her of daylight, try all the home remedies of the good old days and finally lead her to submission. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and tyranny of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on anything and be ready for anything. How can she stand herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural aspirations of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent.
Thus, the emergence of a feminine energetic character fully corresponds to the situation to which tyranny has been brought in Ostrovsky’s drama. In the situation presented by The Thunderstorm, it went to the extreme, to the denial of all common sense; it is more hostile than ever to the natural demands of humanity and is trying more fiercely than ever to stop their development, because in their triumph it sees the approach of its inevitable destruction. Through this, it even more causes murmur and protest even in the weakest creatures. And at the same time, tyranny, as we have seen, lost its self-confidence, lost its firmness in action, and lost a significant share of the power that it contained in instilling fear in everyone. Therefore, the protest against it is not drowned out at the very beginning, but can turn into a stubborn struggle.
First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external or alien in him, but everything somehow comes out from within him; every impression is processed in him and then grows organically with him. We see this, for example, in Katerina’s simple-minded story about her childhood and about life in his mother’s house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life gave her nothing; in her mother’s house it was the same as at the Kabanovs’ - they went to church, sewed with gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, had dinner, walked in the garden, again talked with the praying pilgrims and prayed themselves... After listening to Katerina’s story, Varvara, her sister her husband, remarks with surprise: “But it’s the same with us.” But Katerina defines the difference very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from under captivity!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so commonplace everywhere, Katerina knew how to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until Kabanikha’s heavy hand fell on her. Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character who is never satisfied, who loves to destroy at any cost. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That’s why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination. She tries to reconcile any external dissonance with the harmony of her soul, covering any shortcoming from the fullness of her inner strength.
She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this is because she cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations.
In the dry, monotonous life of her youth, in the rude and superstitious concepts of the environment, she constantly knew how to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. In the conversations of the wanderers, in the prostrations and lamentations, she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. Based on them, she built her ideal world, without passions, without need, without grief, a world entirely dedicated to goodness and pleasure. But what is real and true pleasure for a person, she could not determine for herself; That’s why these sudden impulses of some kind of unaccountable, unclear aspirations.
In a gloomy environment new family Katerina began to feel the insufficiency of her appearance, with which she had thought to be content before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikha there is no scope for her bright visions, just as there is no freedom for her feelings. In a fit of tenderness for her husband, she wants to hug him, - the old woman shouts: “Why are you hanging around your neck, shameless one? Bow down at your feet!” She wants to stay alone and be sad quietly, as before, but her mother-in-law says: “Why aren’t you howling? She is looking for light, air, she wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, at the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - but she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of unclean, depraved intentions. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in going to church, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he no longer finds the same impressions. Killed by her daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty pillar illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the Gardens of Eden with their unperturbed appearance and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so stern, and the church readings are so menacing, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous... They are still the same, in essence, they have not changed at all, but she herself has changed: she no longer has the desire to construct aerial visions, and the vague imagination of bliss that she enjoyed before does not satisfy her. She matured, other desires awoke in her, more real ones; not knowing any other career than the family, any other world than the one that has developed for her in the society of her town, she, of course, begins to recognize of all human aspirations the one that is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire for love and devotion . In the past, her heart was too full of dreams, she did not pay attention to the young people who looked at her, but only laughed. When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either, she still did not understand this feeling; They told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she married him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be resisted if she has a decisive character; but she does not even think about resistance, because she does not have enough reasons for this. In this one cannot see either powerlessness or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience and even too great a readiness to do everything for others, caring little about oneself.
Even before “The Thunderstorm” was released, we examined other works by Ostrovsky in the article, and came to the conclusion that this author deeply understands the life of the people. At first we didn’t want to write anything about “The Thunderstorm,” since we would have to repeat ourselves, but after reading the critics’ polemics, we decided that it was still worth expressing some thoughts on this matter.
Colleagues criticize us for studying a work first and then proceeding to analyze it. While they first determine what should be present in what is written, and then evaluate it according to their criteria.
But criticism is intended to facilitate perception, to force the reader to think, and not to check compliance with standards!
If you study “The Thunderstorm” according to their laws, it turns out that in it, as it should be, there is a struggle between a sense of duty and passion. However, drama does not inspire respect for duty. On the contrary, we empathize with the main character and justify her vice. There are also “shortcomings” in the artistic part: the lack of motivation for Katerina’s feelings and actions, the duality of the intrigue, the action being loaded with unnecessary people, the non-literary language. But we believe that the main criterion for evaluating a work is the extent to which it serves to express the aspirations of the time and the people. All virtues are worthless if there is no truth. Ostrovsky was able to express the main aspirations and needs that permeate Russian society. Having drawn a false relationship - arbitrariness on the one hand and ignorance of one's own rights on the other, he demands respect for a person.
Ostrovsky's works are not comedies of intrigue or character, but plays of life. He always justifies both the villain and the victim, and the main evil in dramas is the system. After all, his tyrants are even virtuous in their own way. They were only placed in conditions under which normal moral development was impossible. In order to understand what these conditions are, we need “extra” characters.
Kalinov is a quiet, beautiful town. No interests of the world reach him, and if they do, it is only thanks to wanderers whose stories cannot inspire a desire to change anything. Feklusha tells how outside of Kalinov everything happens against the will of the Lord, and only this city is a blessed corner.
Kalinov's law and logic - the absence of law and logic. This is anarchy, in which one part of society meekly endures all the outrages of the other. However, members of the “dark kingdom” begin to feel some kind of causeless anxiety. It seems like everything is the same, but it’s breaking out from under their yoke new life with new ideals. People allow themselves to think differently. Kabanikha sees that her son and daughter-in-law do not follow traditions, scolds them, but no longer demands, but asks Katerina to howl on the porch. However, it is very difficult for Kabanova to partially renounce “empty forms” while maintaining actual power in the family. After all, she understands that the last moments of her greatness have come, and she is strong only as long as the regiments are afraid of her. The views of the Wild One contradict human logic. Hence his constant dissatisfaction. He is sometimes aware of his own absurdity, but shifts the blame to his character. All this shows that the merchant’s rage is not particularly scary. All this makes it possible to feel how precarious the position of the Wild and Kabanovs is. Hence the suspicion and pickiness. Knowing deep down that they have nothing to respect, they show their lack of self-confidence through pettiness and constant reminders that they need to be respected.
We see that, despite all the drama, this is a hopeful work, because its background reveals the precariousness of inhuman orders. Character main character also light. He is faithful to the instinct of natural truth, filled with faith in new ideals. He is guided not by abstract ideas of the mind, but by human nature itself. It is also important that Ostrovsky presented such a character in woman's face, because the strongest protest rises from the chests of the weak, and the situation of women in Rus' has always been the most difficult.
Upbringing did not give Katerina anything - in her mother’s house everything was the same as in Kalinov. Only then she knew how to reconcile any external dissonance with internal harmony. In the environment of a new family, where everything seems to be out of captivity, she can no longer romanticize the surrounding reality. Real desires have awakened in her - love and devotion, and everything disappears before the power of internal attraction. Natural aspirations triumph over her. Katerina goes to the end and dies, not thinking about high selflessness.
Such a release is sad, but this is the strength of her character. If it is impossible to reconcile her nature, she could run away with Boris, but he turns out to be as dependent as Tikhon. Education took away from him the opportunity to commit nasty things, but did not give him the ability to resist them. The tragedy of such people is even more terrible - it is the painful internal decay of a person who does not have the strength to free himself from a world where the living envy the dead.