In Dobrolyubov’s article entitled “A Ray of Light in dark kingdom", summary which is stated below, we're talking about about the work “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky, which has become a classic of Russian literature. The author (his portrait is presented below) in the first part says that Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of a Russian person. Further, Dobrolyubov conducts what other critics have written about Ostrovsky, noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.
The concept of drama that existed during Ostrovsky's time
Nikolai Alexandrovich further compares “The Thunderstorm” with the drama standards accepted at that time. In the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” a summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in literature about the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, usually an unhappy ending occurs when passion wins, and a happy ending when duty wins. Drama, moreover, should, according to existing tradition, represent a single action. At the same time, it should be written in literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.
Why can’t “The Thunderstorm” be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?
Works of this kind must certainly make readers feel respect for duty and expose a passion that is considered harmful. However main character is not described in gloomy and dark colors, although she is, according to the rules of the drama, a “criminal.” Thanks to the pen of Ostrovsky (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "The Thunderstorm" was able to vividly express how beautifully Katerina speaks and suffers. We see this heroine in a very gloomy environment and because of this we begin to unwittingly justify the vice, speaking out against the girl’s tormentors.
The drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose and does not carry its main semantic load. The action itself in the work flows somehow uncertainly and slowly, says the author of the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” Its summary continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. What leads to “lethargy” in a work is the accumulation of characters. The language does not withstand any criticism.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich, in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” checks the plays that specifically interest him for compliance with accepted standards, since he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of what should be in a work does not reflect the actual state of affairs. What could you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to the Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov poses the question in exactly this way, discussing the standardization of the approach to works of literature. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” believes. The summary of his thesis is that man cannot be said to be inherently evil. Therefore, in the book it is not necessary that good must win and evil must lose.
Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollo Grigoriev
Dobrolyubov (“A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”) also says that for a long time writers did not pay attention to special attention to move towards the original principles of man, to his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise new level human thought. After this, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles devoted to “The Thunderstorm”. It is mentioned, in particular, that Ostrovsky’s main merit was that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this “nationality” consists of. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, so his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.
Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"
Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called “plays of life.” “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” (the summary notes only the main points) is an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous happy or punish the villain. He evaluates the general state of affairs and forces the reader to either deny or sympathize, but leaves no one indifferent. Those who do not participate in the intrigue itself cannot be considered superfluous, since without them it would be impossible, as Dobrolyubov notes.
“A ray of light in a dark kingdom”: analysis of statements of minor characters
Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Kudryashka, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their state, the way they look at the reality around them. The author notes all the features of the “dark kingdom”. He says that these people's lives are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality other than their own closed little world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova’s concern for the future of the old orders and traditions.
What is new about the play?
“The Thunderstorm” is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is an article that states that the tyranny of the “dark kingdom” and the relationships between its representatives were brought by Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by everyone familiar with “The Thunderstorm,” is contained in the general background of the play, in people “unnecessary on stage,” as well as in everything that speaks of the imminent end of the old foundations and tyranny. The death of Katerina is a new beginning against this background.
The image of Katerina Kabanova
Dobrolyubov’s article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” further continues with the author proceeding to analyze the image of Katerina, the main character, devoting quite a lot of space to it. Nikolai Aleksandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive “step forward” in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the emergence of active and determined heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and a natural understanding of it. Dobrolyubov (“A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”) says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, since she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. This heroine's powerful strength of character lies in her integrity.
Motives for Katerina's actions
In addition to the very image of this girl, Dobrolyubov examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notices that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not demand destruction. Rather, she is a creator who longs for love. This is precisely what explains her desire to ennoble her actions in her own mind. The girl is young, and the desire for love and tenderness is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so downtrodden and fixated that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he tells her directly.
Katerina embodies the idea of the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov (“A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”)
The thesis of the article is supplemented by one more statement. Dobrolyubov ultimately finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of the Russian people. He speaks about this rather abstractly, comparing Katerina to a wide and flat river. It has a flat bottom and smoothly flows around the stones encountered along the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.
The only right decision for the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov
Dobrolyubov finds in the analysis of the actions of this heroine that the only right decision for her is to escape with Boris. The girl can run away, but her dependence on his lover’s relative shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina’s husband, only more educated.
Finale of the play
The ending of the play is both joyful and tragic. Main idea works - deliverance from the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. Life is impossible in its environment. Even Tikhon, when his wife’s corpse is pulled out, shouts that she is fine now and asks: “What about me?” The ending of the play and this cry itself provide an unambiguous understanding of the truth. Tikhon’s words make us look at Katerina’s act not as a love affair. A world opens before us in which the dead are envied by the living.
This concludes Dobrolyubov’s article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its summary. However, some details and comments from the author were missed. “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is better read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how works should be analyzed.
In 1859 A.N. Ostrovsky wrote the play "The Thunderstorm", which caused a strong public outcry for the courage of the main character. Why did this story become the most popular of the entire series about the “dark kingdom”? Is the reason only in the heroine’s action? Could the young woman have done anything differently? Schoolchildren are invited to write an essay “Was there another way for Katerina,” which examines different options development later life Kabanov.
Social significance of the play
Before you start writing the essay “Did Katerina Have Another Path,” it would be useful to find out the reasons for the success of this work. "The Thunderstorm" was written in 1859, when all of Russia was awaiting peasant reform. Therefore, society accepted it with delight: the play was staged huge amount once on the stage of all theaters in Russia.
Ostrovsky created a new type of heroine, who became the personification of the struggle against the old order. Her act looked in the eyes of society as the beginning of a new period. Everyone perceived the play not as a personal drama, but as a public one. Some asked Ostrovsky to exclude Kabanikha from the list of characters, because in her image they found similarities with the Tsar. "The Thunderstorm" surprised readers with its strength and depth dramatic story, denouncing merchant morals and challenging them.
In the essay “Was there a different path for Katerina in the play “The Thunderstorm””, it is worth recalling the very plot of the work in order to better analyze the development of other versions of the story. In one city, which is located on the Volga, lived the Kabanov family: Marfa Ignatyevna, Tikhon, Katerina and Varvara Kabanikha was a despotic woman, she commanded her son Tikhon and humiliated her daughter-in-law Katerina. Kabanov always obeyed his mother, loved his wife in his own way, but he often drank with a rich merchant whose name was Savel Prokofich Dikoy. He has a cool disposition, just like Kabanikha.
Katerina was an honest girl, very pious, she tried to please her mother-in-law in everything, but it was hard for her to be among them. She could not be in such a despotic, “Domostroevsky” society. Nephew Boris, an educated young man, comes to visit Dikiy. He and Katerina fall in love with each other. But the woman could not deceive her husband and confessed everything to him. Boris Dikoy is sent out of the city, and Katerina, realizing that she can no longer live like this, commits suicide. Of course, many readers feel sorry for the girl. That is why the essay “Was there a different path for Katerina in the play “The Thunderstorm”” was included in the school curriculum.
Possible plot development options
The best way out of the situation for the young woman was to leave with Boris. This is what she hopes for on their last date, that he will take her with him. But the young man was somewhat similar to Tikhon - he did not have his own opinion, was afraid of disobeying his uncle and was not ready to protect Katerina. So he leaves, leaving the poor woman.
What else can you write in the essay “Was there another way for Katerina in “The Thunderstorm”? Another option is to divorce Tikhon. But we should not forget that at that time it was almost impossible to get a divorce. To do this, it was necessary to go through many instances that They would have brought nothing but humiliation to Katerina. If for the noble classes divorce was a long and labor-intensive process, for the merchant class it was practically impossible.
The third option is to go to a monastery. But if she were married, she would have been sent back to the Kabanov family.
The fourth, most terrible thing is to get rid of your husband and mother-in-law. But Katerina could not do such an act: she has too pure, bright soul, she is very pious, so a woman would not break the commandments.
In the essay “Was there another way for Katerina?” it can be mentioned that the connection could have been hidden - Varvara advised her to be cunning. But this would be contrary to the principles of a young woman - she would not be able to deceive anyone.
Essay on drama by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"
Drama A.N. Ostrovsky ends with the death of Katerina: she throws herself into the Volga in despair. Death is always terrible, but the suicide of a young woman is doubly terrible. But did the heroine have any other choice?
Russian critic N.A. Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” and considered her suicide a protest, “a terrible challenge to tyrant power.” Indeed, the heroine is not like other inhabitants " dark kingdom": she is sincere and honest, all hypocrisy is alien to her. Katerina publicly admits to cheating on her husband and, according to Kabanikha, should be punished. There is no doubt that, having returned home, Tikhon’s wife would have received “what she deserved.” However, the heroine prefers a different path, protesting in her own way against the “dark kingdom.”
DI. Pisarev, another critic, assessed the image of Katerina differently. In the article “Motives of Russian Drama,” he wrote that the life of Ostrovsky’s heroine consists of contradictions that are resolved by a “stupid remedy”—suicide.
The point of view of D.I. is closer to me. Pisareva. Existence in her mother-in-law's house became unbearable for Katerina. As a result, the woman began to experience something like a nervous breakdown. Even her speech, full of exclamations and pauses, testifies to this: “It’s all the same that death comes, that it itself... but you can’t live!”
At the end of the drama, Katerina is in a half-crazed state: life has lost all meaning for her. Boris leaves, leaving the woman to her fate. An unloved husband and a cruel mother-in-law are waiting at home. “Go home? No, I don’t care whether I go home or to the grave,” the heroine admits in her last monologue, shortly before committing terrible sin– suicide.
So did Katerina have another choice? I believe that the heroine could not have acted differently: her life had become too meaningless and unbearable. The only way to get rid of the torment was death.
Valery Kalinovsky
In one movie I heard the phrase: “Life is a whole series of decisions. Great combination of moments. Small ones create big ones that define your essence. And every decision you make will affect your future in one way or another.” Every day of our lives we make a lot of decisions. From the most insignificant in spirit: what to drink in the morning, coffee or tea, to the very global: where to go to study.
And every choice we make determines our future fate. We are always afraid of making mistakes the decision taken, but we still accept it. And when we make mistakes, we still continue to move on.
In Alexander Ostrovsky’s work “The Thunderstorm,” the theme of choice is especially raised. At the end of the play, the main character Katerina makes her difficult choice - she decides to commit suicide. Agree, this is not a decision that can be made in the morning over a cup of coffee or for some simple reason. It must be something deep. Something that can make a person take such a radical step. Many psychologists are trying to find this “something”. Reasons why a person decides to commit suicide.
And they always say that suicide is not a solution. That you can always find a solution to any problem. And I agree with them. But then what happened in the play itself? Let's see what reasons influenced Katerina's last choice.
Russian critic N.A. Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom. And it is no coincidence, because the heroine really was the only bright character in the dark society described in the play. Katerina is sincere and honest, all hypocrisy is alien to her. She stands out for her open character, courage, and directness. Katerina spent her entire childhood in her parents’ home in love and harmony. The parents did not force their daughter to work; they allowed her to do whatever she wanted. She dreamed of a strong family, loving husband and children. Therefore, when her parents chose her husband, Katerina agreed without hesitation. She believed that parents know better what their children need. Her duty is to obey. But she ended up in a very unwelcoming family. She got the weak-willed Tikhon Kabanov as her husband. He truly loved his wife. But Tikhon’s mother, Kabanikha, was a real tyrant. Above all, she placed order and structure. Kabanikha believed that everyone should live only according to her laws. And everyone obeyed. But Katerina, a bright and free person, could not come to terms with such a life. She was striving for something completely different. This desire led the young woman to cheat on her husband. Going on a date with Boris, Katerina already knew that after this she would not be able to live. This sin weighed heavily on the heroine’s soul. Katerina publicly admits to cheating on her husband and, according to Kabanikha, should be punished. There is no doubt that, having returned home, Tikhon’s wife would have received “what she deserved.” However, the heroine prefers a different path, protesting in her own way against the “dark kingdom.
In the play, an image appears repeatedly that helps to understand the main thing in Katerina’s character - the image of a bird. “I lived, didn’t worry about anything, like a bird in the wild,” Katerina recalls about how she lived before her marriage, “... Why do people don't fly like birds? - she says to Varvara. “You know, sometimes I feel like I’m a bird.” And once in the dark kingdom, it began to destroy Katerina from the inside. There was no room for her bright hopes and plans for the future. And there was absolutely no place for a freedom-loving girl. Having decided to cheat on her husband, Katerina did it only in order to try to escape. Try to escape from the place that was destroying her. But the attempt was unsuccessful. Boris leaves, leaving the woman to her fate. An unloved husband and a cruel mother-in-law are waiting at home. “Go home? No, I don’t care whether I go home or go to the grave,” the heroine admits in her last monologue, shortly before committing a terrible sin - suicide. This act can be perceived as her moral victory over the “dark forces” to which she did not want to submit. With this she showed her desperate, albeit powerless, protest against the “dark kingdom.”
You can ask the question: "Why did she do this?" The heroine could have left home like Varvara, which would have annoyed Kabanikha even more. But Katerina was ready to do it. She was not afraid of distant Siberia, where her beloved Boris Grigorievich was sent. She wanted to run away with her lover and start everything from scratch. With new hopes and plans for life. Boris, the only one among everyone, really understood Katerina, but he was unable to help her: he did not have the determination to fight for his love. Another alternative option could be for Katerina to go to a monastery. But how could she do this when at that time the marriage was concluded in the church, and it was impossible to dissolve it. And if the girl tried to run away from her husband, she would still be returned back to him. The last option for Katerina was to return home and endure. To experience your shame and further oppression by Kabanikha, to return to your worst nightmare. So what do we have? The path to a free life is closed for Katerina, and she does not want to go home, because “home or grave.” She sees no other way than suicide.
So was there another way out for Katerina? What could she change? I think it's nothing. The destroyed personality could no longer continue to live as it had lived. She no longer saw any meaning in her further existence. She simply didn't care anymore. You know what they say: “Indifference is the worst thing that can happen to a person,” because when people don’t care, they stop living. Yes, suicide is not a solution and never will be. Yes, you can find a way out of any situation. But if you put yourself in Katerina’s place, what would you do? You would do the same. Because there are cases when you will no longer be able to get up. When you really stop living and just exist. When you've been dead inside for a long time. Maybe then suicide is the only way out?
Every day we make a lot of decisions that then define us. And every choice we make has its consequences. But there are decisions independent of us. Perhaps this is what they call fate, and fate can be cruel. Many people always say that a person is the creator of his own happiness. But perhaps life is not just a series of decisions. Maybe there is something big behind this? What is already destined from above? And maybe all our lives have been planned out for a long time? There are too many unanswered questions. The only thing I know for sure, and what the work “The Thunderstorm” only confirmed, is that life does not always depend on us. But we can at least try to make it the way we want to see it.
The Thunderstorm" by A. N. Ostrovsky is a folk social and everyday tragedy, the first in Russian literature. It expresses democratic ideas that were advanced for its time, depicts heroes closely related to the way of life, morals and interests of the people. The main conflict in “The Thunderstorm” is the struggle between old traditions and new trends. It is solved using the example of social and everyday life, family relations and morals. Representatives of two worlds, old and new, are Katerina and Varvara in the play. Varvara is spiritually primitive. She does not bother herself with remorse or moral suffering. Her primitivism is born of her environment, the whole way of her life. Varvara is guided in all her actions by the instinct of self-preservation, worldly benefit: “do what you want, as long as everything is sewn and covered.” The merchant environment surrounding her since childhood instilled in the heroine traits of rudeness and swagger. But for all her cunning, adaptability and moral wretchedness, Varvara could not endure domestic tyranny. In the finale, she runs away from her mother's house. The path to both good and evil is open to Varvara. There are undoubtedly good inclinations in her. The heroine is no stranger to kindness and compassion. Freed from her mother's influence, she may develop best sides of her nature. The image of Katerina is covered with the finest poetry. She is characterized by deep spontaneity, naivety, tenderness and, at the same time, enormous willpower. In this image, Ostrovsky showed the moral purity and beauty of a Russian woman from the people, her hatred of despotism and desire for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her human rights - decisively, consistently, to the end. Therefore, Katerina chooses another life path. She cannot live hidden, “on the quiet.” Katerina’s open and truthful nature tells her to act according to her conscience and the word of God, because the heroine is also very pious. And if she committed a crime, then she must be punished for it. That is why Katerina publicly repents and admits her betrayal to her husband. Varvara would never do that. This heroine would not even be tormented by her conscience. Katerina’s death is a passionate call of her soul to life on new principles, a protest movement. She doesn’t want to reconcile, doesn’t want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that Kabanikha prepared for her after confessing to treason. Katerina felt with all her being that “living in the dark kingdom is worse than death,” and chose to free herself from the oppression of the dark kingdom by her death. The main difference between these heroines is that Varvara is mainly concerned with the external - so that people do not find out about her sins. This heroine does not think about her soul. Katerina, first of all, is concerned about the inner - her relationship with God, with her inner world. This fundamental difference determines the lives and destinies of both heroines, who are also radically different from each other.
