Denis Fonvizin's contribution to the development of the Russian literary language - Fonvizin - personal writer's corner - file catalog - literature teacher. Fonvizin's artistic method
Among the Russian writers who had a special gift for seeing and conveying everything absurd in life, the first was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. And readers still feel the full extent of his wit, continuing to repeat the expressions: “Everything is nonsense that Mitrofanushka does not know,” “No I want to study, I want to get married” and others. But it is not so easy to see that Fonvizin’s witticisms were born not of a cheerful disposition, but of the deepest sadness due to the imperfection of man and society.
Fonvizin entered literature as one of the successors of Kantemir and Sumarokov. He was brought up in the belief that the nobility, to which he himself belonged, should be educated, humane, constantly concerned about the interests of the fatherland, and royal power- nominate worthy nobles to high positions for the common benefit. But among the nobles he saw cruel ignoramuses, and at court - “nobles in the case” (to put it simply, the empress’s lovers) who ruled the state according to their whim.
From a long historical distance it is clear that the Fonvizin time, like any other, was neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad. But in Fonvizin’s eyes, evil overshadowed good. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 1745. For a long time, the surname Fonvizin was written in the German manner: “Von Vizin,” and during his lifetime, sometimes even “von Wiesen.” The current form was one of the first to be used by Pushkin with the following comment: “What kind of infidel is he? He is Russian, a pre-Russian Russian.” The spelling “Fonvizin” was finally established only after 1917.
Family of Fonvizins German origin. Denis Ivanovich’s father was a fairly wealthy man, but he never aspired to great ranks and excessive wealth. He lived not at the royal court in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow. Denis’s older brother Pavel wrote some good poetry in his youth and published them in the magazine “Useful Amusement.”
Education future writer received quite a thorough education, although later in his memoirs he described his gymnasium at Moscow University unflatteringly. However, he noticed that he had learned there European languages and Latin, “and most of all... gained a taste for verbal sciences.”
While still at the gymnasium, Fonvizin translated from German one hundred and eighty-three fables of the once famous children's writer L. Golberg, to which he then added forty-two more. He translated a lot later - the translations amount to most all his works.
In 1762, Fonvizin became a student at Moscow University, but soon left it, moved to St. Petersburg and entered the service. Around the same time, his satirical poems began to circulate. Of these, two were later published and have come down to us: the fable “Fox-Koznodey” (preacher) and “Message to my servants Shumilov, Vanka and Petrushka.” Fonvizin's fable is a vicious satire on court flatterers, and "The Message" is a wonderful work, rather unusual for its time.
Fonvizin addresses the most important philosophical question: “Why was this light created?” illiterate people of that time; It is immediately clear that they will not be able to answer it. This is what happens. Honest uncle Shumilov admits that he is not ready to judge such complex things:
I know that we must be servants forever
And we will work forever with our hands and feet.
The coachman Vanka exposes the general deception and in conclusion says:
Everyone understands that this world is bad,
But no one knows why it exists.
Lackey Petrushka is frank in his desire to live for his own pleasure:
The whole world, it seems to me, is a child's toy;
Just need to, believe me, find out
How best to play with that toy, tenacious.
The servants, and with them the reader, are waiting for a reasonable answer from an educated author. But he only says:
And you, my friends, listen to my answer: “And I myself do not know why this light was created!”
This means that the author has nothing to oppose to the opinion of the servants, although he himself does not share it. An enlightened nobleman knows no more about the meaning of life than a lackey. “Message to the Servants” sharply breaks out of the framework of the poetics of classicism, according to which it was required that the work clearly prove some completely certain thought. The meaning of Fonvizin’s work is open to different interpretations.
Having moved to St. Petersburg, Fonvizin began composing comedies - the genre in which he became most famous. In 1764 he wrote verse comedy"Corion", converted from a sentimental drama French writer L. Gresse "Sydney". Written around the same time early edition“Undergrowth”, which remained unpublished. At the end of the sixties it was created and had great success the comedy “Brigadier”, which played an important role in the fate of Fonvizin himself.
Having heard “The Brigadier” performed by the author (Fonvizin was a wonderful reader), Count Nikita Ivanovich Panin noticed the writer. At this time he was the tutor of the heir to the throne, Paul, and a senior member of the board (in fact, minister) of foreign affairs. As a teacher, Panin developed a whole political program- essentially a project Russian constitution. Fonvizin became Panin's personal secretary. They became as close friends as possible between a nobleman and his subordinate.
The young writer found himself at the center of court intrigue and, at the same time, the most serious politics. He took a direct part in the constitutional plans of the Earl. Together they created a kind of “political testament” of Panin, written shortly before his death - “Discourse on the indispensable state laws.” Most likely, Panin owns the main ideas of this work, and Fonvizin owns their design. In the "Discourse", full of formulations remarkable in wit, it is proved, first of all, that the sovereign does not have the right to rule the country according to his own arbitrariness. Without strong laws, Fonvizin believes, “heads are engaged in nothing but thinking about the means to get rich; those who can rob, those who cannot, steal.”
This is exactly the picture Fonvizin saw in Russia at that time. But France, where the writer traveled in 1777-1778 (partly for treatment, partly on some diplomatic assignments), turned out to be no better. He expressed his joyless impressions in letters to his sister and to Field Marshal Pyotr Panin, Nikita Ivanovich’s brother. Here are some excerpts from these letters, which Fonvizin was even going to publish: “Money is the first deity of this land. The corruption of morals has reached such an extent that a vile act is no longer punished with contempt...”, “It’s rare that I meet someone in whom I would be inconspicuous.” one of two extremes: either slavery or insolence of reason.”
Much in Fonvizin’s letters seems to be simply the grumbling of a spoiled master. But in general, the picture he painted is scary precisely because it is true. He saw the state of society, which twelve years later was resolved by revolution.
During his years of service as a secretary, Fonvizin had almost no time left for literature. It appeared in the late seventies, when Panin was already ill and was in undeclared disgrace. Fonvizin, in 1781, completed his best work - the comedy “The Minor”. The displeasure of high authorities delayed its production for several months.
In May 1782, after Panin's death, Fonvizin had to resign. In October of the same year, the premiere of “The Minor” finally took place - the most big success in the life of the author. Some delighted spectators threw full wallets onto the stage - in those days a sign of the highest approval.
In retirement, Fonvizin devoted himself entirely to literature. He was a member Russian Academy, which united the best Russian writers. The Academy worked to create a dictionary of the Russian language; Fonvizin took upon himself the compilation of a dictionary of synonyms, which he, literally translating the word “synonym” from Greek, called “estates”. His “Experience of a Russian Estatesman” was a very serious linguistic work for its time, and not just a screen for satire on Catherine’s court and the Empress’s methods of governing the state (this is how this work is often interpreted). True, Fonvizin tried to come up with sharper examples for his “classes”: “Deception (promising and not doing. - Ed.) is the art of great boyars,” “A madman is very dangerous when in power,” and the like.
"Experience" was published in literary magazine“Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word”, published by the Academy. In it, Catherine II herself published a series of morally descriptive essays, “Things and Fables.” Fonvizin published in the magazine (without a signature) bold, even daring “Questions to the author of “Facts and Fables,” and the Empress answered them. In the answers, irritation was barely contained. True, at that moment the queen did not know the name of the author of the questions, but soon, apparently, she found out.
Since then, Fonvizin’s works began to be banned one after another. In 1789, Fonvizin did not receive permission to publish the satirical magazine Friend honest people, or Starodum." The writer’s articles, already prepared for him, first saw the light only in 1830. The announced publication of his collected works was twice disrupted. During his lifetime he managed to publish only one new work - detailed biography Panina.
All Fonvizin’s hopes were in vain. None of the previous political plans were implemented. The state of society only became worse over time,
And now the banned writer could not enlighten him. In addition, Fonvizin fell on terrible disease. The man, who was not at all old even at that time, turned into a decrepit wreck: half of his body was paralyzed. To add insult to injury, by the end of the writer’s life, almost nothing was left of his considerable wealth.
From a young age, Fonvizin was a freethinker. Now he became religious, but this did not save him from despair. He began writing memoirs entitled " Sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts,” in which I intended to repent of the sins of my youth. But about my inner life he hardly writes there, but again veers into satire, evilly depicting Moscow life in the early sixties of the 18th century. Fonvizin still managed to finish writing the comedy “The Tutor’s Choice,” which has not been completely preserved. The play seems rather boring, but the poet I. I. Dmitriev, who heard the author read the comedy out loud, recalls that he was able to convey the characters unusually vividly characters. The day after this reading, December 1, 1792, Fonvizin died.
Speaking about the historical and literary significance of Fonvizin, it should be especially emphasized big role which he played in the development literary language. It is not without reason that Batyushkov associates the “education” of our prose with him. In this regard great importance have not only Fonvizin’s comedies, but also the beginning of his confessional memoirs “A sincere confession in my deeds and thoughts” and even his private letters from abroad, the language of which is distinguished by remarkable clarity, conciseness and simplicity, significantly ahead in this regard even of “Letters Russian traveler" Karamzin.
Composition
The role of Fonvizin as an artist-playwright and author of satirical essays in the development of Russian literature is enormous, as well as the fruitful influence he had on many Russian writers not only of the 18th century, but also of the first half of the 19th century centuries. Not only the political progressiveness of Fonvizin’s work, but also his artistic progressiveness determined the deep respect and interest in him that Pushkin quite clearly showed.
Elements of realism arose in Russian literature of the 1770–1790s simultaneously in different areas and in different ways. This was the main trend in the development of Russian aesthetic worldview of this time, which prepared - at the first stage - the future Pushkin stage of it. But Fonvizin did more in this direction than others, not to mention Radishchev, who came after him and not without dependence on his creative discoveries, because it was Fonvizin who first raised the question of realism as a principle, as a system of understanding man and society.
On the other hand, realistic moments in Fonvizin’s work were most often limited to his satirical task. Exactly negative phenomena He knew how to understand reality in a realistic sense, and this narrowed not only the scope of the topics he embodied in the new manner he discovered, but also narrowed the very principles of his formulation of the question. Fonvizin is included in this regard in the tradition of the “satirical trend,” as Belinsky called it, which constitutes a characteristic phenomenon of Russian literature XVIII century. This trend is unique and, almost earlier than it could be in the West, prepared the formation of the style critical realism. In itself, it grew in the depths of Russian classicism; it was associated with specific forms which classicism acquired in Russia; it ultimately exploded the principles of classicism, but its origins from it are obvious.
Fonvizin grew up as a writer in literary environment Russian noble classicism of the 1760s, in the school of Sumarokov and Kheraskov. Throughout his life, his artistic thinking retained a clear imprint of the influence of this school. The rationalistic understanding of the world, characteristic of classicism, is strongly reflected in Fonvizin’s work. And for him, a person is most often not so much a specific individual as a unit in a social classification, and for him, a political dreamer, the social, the state can completely absorb the personal in the image of a person. The high pathos of social duty, subordinating in the writer’s mind the interests of the “too human” in a person, forced Fonvizin to see in his hero a pattern of civic virtues and vices; because he, like other classics, understood the state itself and the very duty to the state not historically, but mechanistically, to the extent of the metaphysical limitations of the Enlightenment worldview of the 18th century in general. Hence, Fonvizin was characterized by the great advantages of the classicism of his century: clarity, precision of the analysis of man as a general social concept, and the scientific nature of this analysis is at the level scientific achievements of his time, and the social principle of evaluating human actions and moral categories. But Fonvizin also had the inevitable shortcomings of classicism: the schematism of abstract classifications of people and moral categories, the mechanistic idea of a person as a conglomerate of abstractly conceivable “abilities,” the mechanistic and abstract nature of the very idea of the state as the norm of social existence.
In Fonvizin, many characters are constructed not according to the law of individual character, but according to a pre-given and limited scheme of moral and social norms. We see the quarrel, and only the quarrel of the Advisor; Gallomaniac Ivanushka - and the entire composition of his role is built on one or two notes; martinet Brigadier, but, apart from martinet, there is little in him characteristic features. This is the method of classicism - to show not living people, but individual vices or feelings, to show not everyday life, but a diagram of social relationships. Characters in comedies and satirical essays by Fonvizin are schematized. The very tradition of calling them “meaningful” names grows on the basis of a method that reduces the content of a character’s characteristics primarily to the very trait that is fixed by his name. The bribe-taker Vzyatkin, the fool Slaboumov, the “khalda” Khaldina, the tomboy Sorvantsov, the truth-lover Pravdin, etc. appear. At the same time, the artist’s task is not so much the image individuals, as much as a depiction of social relations, and this task could and was carried out by Fonvizin brilliantly. Social relations, understood as applied to the ideal norm of the state, determined the content of a person only by the criteria of this norm.
The subjectively noble character of the norm of state life, built by the Sumarokov-Panin school, also determined a feature characteristic of Russian classicism: it organically divides all people into nobles and “others.” The characteristics of the nobles include signs of their abilities, moral inclinations, feelings, etc. - Pravdin or Skotinin, Milon or Prostakov, Dobrolyubov or Durykin; the same is the differentiation of their characteristics in the text of the corresponding works. On the contrary, “others”, “ignoble” are characterized primarily by their profession, class, place in the social system - Kuteikin, Tsyfirkin, Tsezurkin, etc. Nobles for this system of thought are still people par excellence; or – according to Fonvizin – vice versa: the best people must be nobles, and the Durykins are nobles only in name; the rest act as carriers common features their social affiliation, assessed positively or negatively depending on the attitude of this social category to the political concept of Fonvizin, or Sumarokov, Kheraskov, etc.
It is typical for a classicist writer to have the same attitude towards tradition, towards established mask roles literary work, to familiar and constantly repeating stylistic formulas, representing the established collective experience of humanity (characteristic here is the author’s anti-individualistic attitude towards creative process). And Fonvizin freely operates with such ready-made formulas and masks given to him by ready-made tradition. Dobrolyubov in “The Brigadier” repeats Sumarokov’s ideal lovers’ comedies. The Clerical Advisor came to Fonvizin from the satirical articles and comedies of the same Sumarokov, just as the petimeter-Counselor had already appeared in plays and articles before Fonvizin’s comedy. Fonvizin, within the limits of his classical method, does not look for new individual themes. The world seems to him to have long been dissected, decomposed into typical features, society as a classified “mind” that has predetermined assessments and frozen configurations of “abilities” and social masks. The genres themselves are established, prescribed by rules and demonstrated by examples. Satirical article, comedy, solemn eulogy high style(Fonvizin’s “Word for Pavel’s recovery”), etc. - everything is unshakable and does not require the author’s invention; his task in this direction is to inform Russian literature best achievements world literature; this task of enriching Russian culture was solved all the more successfully by Fonvizin, since he understood and felt specific features Russian culture itself, which refracted in its own way what came from the West.
One of the writers who played significant role in the development of the Russian literary language at a new stage, was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. In the second half of the 18th century. magnificent verbosity, rhetorical solemnity, metaphorical abstraction and obligatory decoration gradually gave way to brevity, simplicity, and accuracy.
The language of his prose widely uses folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology; various non-free and semi-free colloquial phrases and stable expressions act as the building material of sentences; The unification of “simple Russian” and “Slavic” language resources, which is so important for the subsequent development of the Russian literary language, takes place.
He developed linguistic techniques for reflecting reality in its most diverse manifestations; principles for constructing linguistic structures that characterize the “image of a storyteller” were outlined. Many important properties and trends that have found their way further development and received complete completion in Pushkin’s reform of the Russian literary language.
Fonvizin’s narrative language is not confined to the conversational sphere; in its expressive resources and techniques it is much broader and richer. Of course, focusing on the spoken language, on “living usage” as the basis of the narrative, Fonvizin freely uses “book” elements, Western European borrowings, and philosophical and scientific vocabulary and phraseology. Wealth used linguistic means and the variety of methods of their organization allow Fonvizin to create on a general conversational basis various options narratives.
Fonvizin was the first of the Russian writers who understood, describing the complex relationships and strong feelings people simply, but accurately, you can achieve a greater effect than with the help of certain verbal tricks. It is impossible not to note Fonvizin’s merits in developing techniques for realistic depiction of complex human feelings and life conflicts.
In the comedy "The Minor" inversions are used: "the slave of his vile passions"; rhetorical questions and exclamations: “how can she teach them good behavior?”; complicated syntax: abundance subordinate clauses, common definitions involved and participial phrases and other characteristic means of book speech.
Uses words of emotional and evaluative meaning: spiritual, heartfelt, depraved tyrant. Fonvizin avoids the naturalistic extremes of low style, which many contemporary outstanding comedians could not overcome. He refuses rude, unliterary speech means. At the same time, he constantly retains colloquial features in both vocabulary and syntax. The use of realistic typification techniques is also evidenced by colorful speech characteristics created by using words and expressions used in military life; and archaic vocabulary, quotes from spiritual books; and broken Russian vocabulary.
Meanwhile, the language of Fonvizin’s comedies, despite its perfection, still did not go beyond the traditions of classicism and did not represent a fundamentally new stage in the development of the Russian literary language. In Fonvizin's comedies, a clear distinction between the language of negative and positive characters. And if in the construction of linguistic characteristics negative characters on traditional basis While using vernacular language the writer achieved great liveliness and expressiveness, the linguistic characteristics of the positive characters remained pale, coldly rhetorical, divorced from the living element of the spoken language.
In contrast to the language of comedy, the language of Fonvizin’s prose represents a significant step forward in the development of the Russian literary language; here the trends emerging in Novikov’s prose are strengthened and further developed. The work that marked a decisive transition from the traditions of classicism to new principles of constructing the language of prose in Fonvizin’s work was the famous “Letters from France.”
In “Letters from France,” folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology are quite richly presented, especially those groups and categories that are devoid of sharp expressiveness and are more or less close to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer: “Since my arrival here, I have been I don’t hear…”; “We’re doing pretty well”; “Wherever you go, it’s plump everywhere.”
There are also words and expressions that differ from those given above; they are endowed with that specific expressiveness that allows us to qualify them as colloquial: “I won’t take both of these places for nothing”; “When entering the city, we were overwhelmed by a disgusting stench.”
Observations of folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology in “Letters from France” make it possible to draw three main conclusions. Firstly, this vocabulary and phraseology, especially in that part that is closer to the “neutral” lexical and phraseological layer than to vernacular , are freely and quite widely used in letters. Secondly, the use of folk colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is distinguished by a careful selection that was amazing for that time. Even more important and significant is that the vast majority of the colloquial words and expressions used by Fonvizin in “Letters from France” found their own permanent place in the literary language, and with one or another special stylistic “task”, and often simply along with “neutral” lexical and phraseological material, these expressions were widely used in the literature of later times. Thirdly, the careful selection of colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is closely related to the change and transformation of the stylistic functions of this lexical and phraseological layer in the literary language.
Stylistically opposite to the folk-colloquial lexical and phraseological layer - “Slavicisms” - is distinguished by the same main features of use. Firstly, they are also used in letters, secondly, they are subjected to a rather strict selection, thirdly, their role in the language " Letters from France” does not completely coincide with the role assigned to them by the theory of three styles. The selection was manifested in the fact that in “Letters from France” we will not find archaic, “dilapidated” Slavicisms. Slavicisms, contrary to the theory of three styles, are quite freely combined with “neutral” and colloquial elements, losing to a large extent their “high” coloring, “neutralized” and no longer act as a specific sign of “high style”, but simply as elements of a bookish, literary language. Let us give examples: “what it was like for me to hear her exclamations”; “his wife is so greedy for money...”; “the writhing that disturbs the human sense of smell in an unbearable way.”
Folk colloquial words and expressions are freely combined not only with “Slavicisms”, but also with “Europeanisms” and “metaphysical” vocabulary and phraseology: “here everyone is applauded for everything”; “In a word, although war has not been formally declared, this announcement is expected from hour to hour.” The literary language features developed in “Letters from France” were further developed in Fonvizin’s artistic, scientific, journalistic and memoir prose. But two points still deserve attention. Firstly, the syntactical perfection of Fonvizin’s prose should be emphasized. In Fonvizin we find not individual well-constructed phrases, but extensive contexts, distinguished by diversity, flexibility, harmony, logical consistency and clarity of syntactic structures. Secondly, in artistic prose Fonvizin further develops the technique of narration on behalf of the narrator, the technique of creating linguistic structures that serve as a means of revealing the image. Analysis of various works by D. I. Fonvizin allows us to talk about, of course, important role him in the formation and improvement of the Russian literary language.
Among the Russian writers who had a special gift for seeing and conveying everything absurd in life, the first was Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin. And readers still feel the full extent of his wit, continuing to repeat the expressions: “Everything is nonsense that Mitrofanushka does not know,” “No I want, I want to get married” and others. But it is not so easy to see that Fonvizin’s witticisms were born not of a cheerful disposition, but of the deepest sadness due to the imperfection of man and society.
Fonvizin entered literature as one of the successors of Kantemir and Sumarokov. He was brought up in the belief that the nobility, to which he himself belonged, should be educated, humane, constantly concerned about the interests of the fatherland, and that the royal government should promote worthy nobles to high positions for the common benefit. But among the nobles he saw cruel ignoramuses, and at court - “nobles in the case” (simply put, the empress’s lovers) who ruled the state according to their whim.
From a long historical distance, it is clear that the von-Visin time, like any other, was neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad. But in Fonvizin’s eyes, evil overshadowed him.
Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin was born on April 3, 174 5. For a long time, the surname Fonvizin was written in the German manner: “Von Vizin,” and during his lifetime, sometimes even “von Wiesen.” The current form was one of the first to be used by Pushkin with the following comment: “What kind of infidel is he? He is Russian, one of the pre-Russian Russians.” The spelling “Fonvizin” was finally established only after 1917.
The Fonvizin family is of German origin. Denis Ivanovich’s father was a fairly wealthy man, but he never aspired to great ranks and excessive wealth. He lived not at the royal court in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow. Denis’s older brother Pavel in his youth wrote good poetry and published them in the magazine “Useful Amusement”.
/ / / What is the role of positive characters in Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor”?
The comedy by Denis Fonvizin has a vivid gallery of images, both negative and positive. The role of the first in exposing the vices of 18th century society. Mrs. Prostakova and Skotinin personify the ignorance and cruelty of the serf owners, Mitrofanushka - laziness and reluctance to learn. The author helps us judge the qualities of the character, starting with their first and last names. If we read about Skotinin, we understand that this hero behaves like an animal. Prostakova is a simple ignoramus whose plans, although vile, are not far off. And Mitrofanushka - “revealed by the mother” - really looks like his mother, Prostakova.
The main idea of the comedy is in depicting the far from comedic problems of society: inhumane serfdom, autocracy and evil education. Negative characters help readers understand these problems more deeply, while positive characters show that these problems can still be dealt with.
The fact that the hero is positive can also be learned from his name. There are several such characters in the comedy: Starodum, Sophia, Pravdin, Milon. Each of them has its own important role.
- nobleman, uncle main character Sophia. He is the girl's guardian, but leaves for Siberia for long time, leaving her in the care of the Prostakovs. The surname Starodum comes from the phrase “old thoughts.” That is, the writer hints that this hero thinks in the old way. One might think that this is bad, because you need to live with the times. However, the time of action in the play was a time of self-will of cruel serf owners who worried only about their estates and did not think about the development of culture. Starodum received his education and upbringing under Peter, the tsar who was for enlightenment. And therefore the “old” time was precisely more progressive than the “new” one. The hero cannot accept the fact that the nobles care only about their own benefit and have forgotten about their duty to their homeland. Therefore, he leaves his villages and goes to Siberia, where he can honestly earn a fortune.
- a wise girl, which is clear from the meaning of her name. She got a good education, therefore he looks at the Prostakovs with irony, seeing their ignorance and greed. The heroine is not a rebel, but she fights for her love. She does not agree to marry Mitrofan or Skotinin because she is in love with Milon.
- a nobleman, a member of the governorship, who is vested with the right to conduct audits in villages. He stops at the Prostakovs’ estate for a couple of days and little by little realizes that they are cruel serf owners. He is asked to read Starodum's letter, but he replies that he does not read letters intended for others. Pravdin lives up to his name because he always tells the truth and despises lies.
And after Prostakova acts badly towards Sophia, she decides to excommunicate her family from managing their villages. Pravdin is the embodiment of harsh justice in comedy.
Milon is a brave officer, Sophia's lover. He is a worthy person.
Positive characters play the role of a noble force that opposes ignorance and cruelty in the guise of negative characters.