“A true writer is the same as an ancient prophet.” A. Chekhov

Tale " Dead Souls"can rightfully be called best work Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol. According to V. G. Belinsky, all creative life writer before working on it was only a preface and preparation for this truly brilliant creation. "Dead Souls" are one of the most bright examples Gogol’s manner of depicting reality, because where else can one find such an accurate and truthful biography of Russia at that time. It is not without reason that many writers talk about the “Gogolian” movement in literature, calling N.V. Gogol the founder realistic direction in poetic art. N.V. Gogol’s own opinion about the purpose of a writer, or, in other words, an artist, is expressed in the words: “Who, if not the author, should tell the holy truth?” Let’s try to understand how N. justifies. V. Gogol his ideas about the artist, how he sees his fate and how his satirical heroes from characters in other comedies.

Like many other writers, N.V. Gogol directly addresses the reader through his lyrical digressions, in which he complains about the shortcomings of Russian reality, in particular, the lack of analogues foreign words in the Russian language, and also justifies himself in advance and explains the meaning of all those moments that, in his opinion, may cause him. readers irritation and dissatisfaction. In one of his lyrical digressions Gogol explains his views on the purpose of the artist. Here he writes that: “... it’s not that it’s hard that they will be dissatisfied with the hero, it’s hard that there is an irresistible confidence in the soul that readers would be happy with the same hero, the same Chichikov.” I think that in these words Gogol wanted to say that vice will not be ridiculed and presented to everyone, it will not be noticed. So who, if not a writer, should help people discover these vices, who better than him can ironically expose the reality around us? Perhaps now that so many have appeared critical literature, such a point of view would be very ambiguous.

After all, the opinion may arise that such abundance provokes rather than eradicates shortcomings. However, during the time of N.V. Gogol, who was, in fact, one of the first writers who dared to so directly ridicule the shortcomings of his time and who really succeeded like no one else, such a work as “Dead Souls” was simply invaluable for its its importance and necessity. Therefore, I cannot but agree with the above words of the writer, as well as with his further reasoning about the so-called “patriots”. N.V. Gogol, knowing that attacks from such people may arise, responds to them in advance. All the absurdity and ugliness of such people, “ardent patriots, for the time being calmly engaged in some philosophy or increments at the expense of the sums of their dearly beloved fatherland, thinking not about not doing bad, but about not saying that they are doing something bad,” described by N.V. Gogol in a story about a strange family consisting of a “philosopher” father and a son, half-jokingly, half-seriously called by the author a Russian hero. It seems to me that this small episode, which cannot but cause a smile when read, once again confirms the idea previously expressed by N.V. Gogol.

After all, who else, if not a person who by nature has the gift of seeing what is not visible to others, who has a good sense of humor and knows how to succinctly express his thoughts, can engage in understanding the nature of such people... Now I would like to talk about what distinguishes N. V. Go-gol from other satirical writers. N.V. Gogol does not describe his heroes fluently and superficially, like many of his predecessors, believing that this not only will not help him create his characters, but even on the contrary, with such an image he will not be able to achieve his plans.

This might interest you:

I was called to sing of your suffering, Amazing the people with patience! And throw at least a single ray of consciousness onto the path that God leads you... N. A. Nekrasov V...

Mikhail Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita", on which the author worked before last day of his life, remained in his archive and was published in nineteen hundred...

And why, in fact, shouldn’t Khlestakov be an “auditor”, a boss? After all, an even more incredible event could happen in another work of N. Gogol - the flight of the nose...

What is Pechorin's tragedy? I look sadly at our generation! His future is either empty or dark, Meanwhile, under the burden of knowledge or doubt...

Fonvizin's satirical and dramatic successes are closely related to his social and political activity“Life teaches only those who study it,” wrote V Klyuchevsky and...

Rating entries
- - 15,559 views
- - 11,060 views
- - 10,625 views
- - 9,774 views
- - 8,700 views

News

To the work of the great writer, laureate Nobel Prize, a person about whom much has been said, is scary to touch, but I can’t help but write about his story “Cancer Ward” - a work to which he gave, albeit a small, but part of his life.

They tried to deprive him of it long years. But he clung to life and endured all the hardships concentration camps, all their horror; he cultivated his own views on what was happening around him, not borrowed from anyone; He outlined these views in his story.

One of its themes is that, whatever the person, good or bad, who receives higher education or, conversely, an uneducated person, no matter what position he occupies, when almost incurable disease, ceases to be a high-ranking official, turns into an ordinary person who just wants to live.

Solzhenitsyn described life in cancer building, in the most terrible of hospitals, where people doomed to die lie. Along with describing a person’s struggle for life, for the desire to simply coexist without pain, without torment, Solzhenitsyn, always and under any circumstances, distinguished by his thirst for life, raised many problems. Their circle is quite wide: from thoughts about life, about the relationship between a man and a woman, to the purpose of literature.

Solzhenitsyn pushes people together in one of the wards different nationalities, professions, adherents of various ideas. One of these patients was Oleg Kostoglotov - an exile, a former prisoner, and the other was Rusanov, the complete opposite of Kostoglotov: a party leader, “a valuable worker, an honored person,” devoted to the party.

By showing the events of the story first through the eyes of Rusanov, and then through the perception of Kostoglotov, Solzhenitsyn made it clear that power would gradually change, that the Rusanovs with their “questionnaire management”, with their methods of various warnings, would cease to exist, and the Kostoglotovs would live, who did not accept such concepts as “remains of bourgeois consciousness” and “social origin”.

Solzhenitsyn wrote a story trying to show different views to life: both from the point of view of Vega, and from the point of view of Asya, Dema, Vadim and many others. In some ways their views are similar, in others they diverge. But mainly Solzhenitsyn wants to show the wrongness of those who think, like Rusanov’s daughter, Rusanov himself. They are used to looking for people somewhere downstairs, thinking only about themselves, not thinking about others.

Kostoglotov is an exponent of Solzhenitsyn’s ideas; through Oleg’s arguments with the ward, through his conversations in the camps, he reveals the paradoxical nature of life, or rather, that there was no meaning in such a life, just as there is no meaning in the literature that Avieta extols. According to her, sincerity in literature is harmful. “Literature is to entertain us when we are in a bad mood,” says Avieta, not realizing that literature is truly a teacher of life. If you have to write about what should be, then it means there will never be truth, since no one can say exactly what will happen. But not everyone can see and describe what there is, and it is unlikely that Avieta will be able to imagine even a hundredth part of the horror when a woman ceases to be a woman, but becomes a work horse, which subsequently cannot have children.

Zoya reveals to Kostoglotov the full horror of hormone therapy, and the fact that he is being deprived of the right to continue living horrifies him: “First, I was deprived of my own life. Now they are depriving them of the right...to continue themselves. To whom and why will I be now?.. The worst of freaks! For mercy?.. For alms?..” And no matter how much Efrem, Vadim, Rusanov argue about the meaning of life, no matter how much they talk about it, for everyone it will remain the same - to leave someone behind. Kostoglotov went through everything, and it left its mark on his value system, on his concept of life.

That Solzhenitsyn for a long time spent in the camps also influenced his language and style of writing the story. But the work only benefits from this, since everything that he writes about becomes accessible to the person, he is, as it were, transported to the hospital and he himself takes part in everything that happens. But it is unlikely that any of us will be able to fully understand Kostoglotov, who sees a prison everywhere, tries to find and finds a camp approach in everything, even in the zoo.

The camp has crippled his life, and he understands that he is unlikely to be able to start old life that the way back is closed to him. And millions more of the same lost people are thrown into the vastness of the country, people who, communicating with those who did not touch the camp, understand that there will always be a wall of misunderstanding between them, just as Lyudmila Afanasyevna Kostoglotova did not understand.

We mourn that these people, who were crippled by life, disfigured by the regime, who showed such an insatiable thirst for life, endured terrible suffering, are now forced to endure rejection from society. They have to give up the life to which they have strived for so long, which they deserve.

Essays on literature: A real writer- the same as the ancient prophet. A.P. Chekhov. Perhaps one of the most important questions facing artists, writers, and poets is their understanding of the role of art and literature in the life of society. Do people need poetry? What is her role? Is it enough to have a gift for poetry to become a poet? These questions deeply worried A. S. Pushkin.

His thoughts on this topic were fully and deeply embodied in his poems. Seeing the imperfection of the world, the poet wondered whether it was possible to change it through artistic word, to whom “the fate of revolution gives a formidable gift.” Your idea of perfect image Pushkin embodied the poet in the poem "Prophet". But the poet is not born a prophet, but becomes one. This path is full of painful trials and suffering, which are preceded by the sorrowful thoughts of the Pushkin hero about the evil that is firmly rooted in human society and which he cannot come to terms with. The poet’s state suggests that he is not indifferent to what is happening around him and at the same time is powerless to change anything. It is to such a person who is “languished with spiritual thirst” that the messenger of God - the “six-winged seraphim” - appears. Pushkin dwells in detail on how the hero is reborn into a prophet, and at what cruel price he acquires the qualities necessary for a true poet.

He must see and hear what is inaccessible to sight and hearing ordinary people. And these qualities are endowed by the “six-winged seraphim”, touching him with “fingers as light as a dream.” But such careful, gentle movements open up the whole world to the hero, tearing away the veil of secrecy from him. And I heard the trembling of the sky, And the flight of angels from above, And the underwater passage of the sea creatures, And the vegetation of the valley of the vine. You need to have considerable courage to absorb all the suffering and all the diversity of the world. But if the first actions of the seraphim cause the poet only moral pain, then gradually physical torment is added to it.

And he came to my lips and tore out my sinful tongue, both idle and wicked, and put the sting of a wise snake into my frozen lips with his bloody right hand. This means that the new quality acquired by the poet - wisdom - is given to him through suffering. And this is no coincidence. After all, to become wise, a person must go through hard way quests, mistakes, disappointments, having experienced numerous blows of fate.

Therefore, probably, the extension in time is equated in the poem to physical suffering. Can a poet become a prophet, possessing, in addition to poetic talent, only knowledge and wisdom? No, because the tremulous human heart is capable of being doubted, it can shrink from fear or pain and thereby prevent him from fulfilling a great and noble mission. Therefore, the seraphim performs the last and most cruel act, placing “a coal blazing with fire” into the poet’s cut chest. It is symbolic that only now the prophet hears the voice of the Almighty, giving him the purpose and meaning of life. And God’s voice cried out to me: “Arise, prophet, and see, and heed, Be fulfilled by my will, And, going around the seas and lands, Burn the hearts of people with the Verb.”

Thus, poetry, in Pushkin’s view, does not exist to please the chosen few, it is a powerful means of transforming society, because it brings people the ideals of goodness, justice and love. The entire creative life of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was clear evidence of the correctness of his thoughts. His bold, free poetry protested against the oppression of the people and called for a fight for their freedom. She supported the spirit of her exiled Decembrist friends, instilling in them courage and perseverance. Pushkin saw his main merit in the fact that, like a poet-prophet, he awakened in people kindness, mercy, and the desire for freedom and justice. Therefore, having come into contact with Pushkin’s humanistic poetry, we feel the need to become better, cleaner, we learn to see beauty and harmony around us. This means that poetry really has the power to transform the world.

M. A. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” undoubtedly belongs to the best in the writer’s work. The determining factor in the story “Heart of a Dog” is satirical pathos (by the mid-20s, M. Bulgakov had already shown himself to be talented satirist in stories, feuilletons, stories “Diaboliad” and “Fatal Eggs”).

IN " Heart of a Dog“The writer uses satire to expose the complacency, ignorance and blind dogmatism of other government officials, the possibility of a comfortable existence for “labor” elements of dubious origin, their impudence and sense of complete permissiveness. The writer’s views fell out of line with those generally accepted then, in the 20s. However, ultimately, M. Bulgakov’s satire, through ridicule and denial of certain social vices, carried within itself the affirmation of enduring moral values. Why did M. Bulgakov need to introduce metamorphosis into the story, to make the transformation of a dog into a man the spring of intrigue? If in Sharikov only the qualities of Klim Chugunkin are manifested, then why shouldn’t the author “resurrect” Klim himself? But before our eyes, the “gray-haired Faust”, busy searching for means to restore youth, creates a man not in a test tube, but by transforming himself from a dog. Dr. Bormenthal is a student and assistant to the professor, and, as befits an assistant, he takes notes, recording all stages of the experiment. We have before us a strict medical document that contains only facts. However, soon the emotions overwhelming the young scientist will begin to be reflected in changes in his handwriting. The doctor's guesses about what is happening appear in the diary. But, being a professional, Bormenthal is young and full of optimism, he does not have the experience and insight of a teacher.

What stages of development does it go through? new person", who recently was not only a nobody, but a dog? Even before the complete transformation, on January 2, the creature cursed its creator for his mother, and by Christmas his vocabulary was replenished with all kinds of swear words. A person’s first meaningful reaction to the creator’s comments is “get off, you nit.” Dr. Bormenthal puts forward the hypothesis that “we have Sharik’s brain unfolding before us,” but we know thanks to the first part of the story that there was no swearing in dog brain, and we accept skeptically the possibility of “developing Sharik into a very high mental personality” expressed by Professor Preobrazhensky. Smoking is added to the swearing (Sharik did not like tobacco smoke); seeds; balalaika (and Sharik did not approve of music) - and balalaika at any time of the day (evidence of attitude towards others); untidiness and bad taste in clothing. Sharikov's development is rapid: Philip Philipovich loses the title of deity and turns into a “daddy.” These qualities of Sharikov are accompanied by a certain morality, more precisely, immorality (“I’ll register, but fighting is a piece of cake”), drunkenness, and theft. This process of transformation is crowned sweetest dog into scum”, a denunciation of the professor, and then an attempt on his life.

Talking about Sharikov's development, the author emphasizes the remaining dog traits in him: attachment to the kitchen, hatred of cats, love for a well-fed, idle life. A man catches fleas with his teeth, barks and yelps indignantly in conversations. But it is not the external manifestations of canine nature that disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistenka. Insolence, which seemed sweet and harmless in a dog, becomes unbearable in a man who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, with no intention of “learning and becoming at least somewhat acceptable member of society.” His morality is different: he is not a NEPman, therefore, he is a hard worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: thus Sharikov shares the idea of “dividing everything,” which is captivating for the mob. Sharikov took the worst, most terrible qualities from both the dog and the person. The experiment led to the creation of a monster who, in his baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, betrayal, or murder; who understands only power, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything he has submitted to at the first opportunity. A dog must remain a dog, and a person must remain a person.

Another participant in the dramatic events in the house on Prechistenka is Professor Preobrazhensky. The famous European scientist is searching for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the old principles of life. Everyone, according to Philip Philipovich, in this world should do his own thing: sing in the theater, operate in the hospital, and then there will be no devastation. He rightly believes that achieving material well-being, the benefits of life, and a position in society can only be achieved through labor, knowledge and skills. It is not origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. The conviction is not driven into the enemy’s head with a club: “Nothing can be done with terror.” The professor does not hide his dislike for the new order, which has turned the country upside down and brought it to the brink of disaster. He cannot accept new rules (“to divide everything”, “who was nobody will become everything”), depriving true workers normal conditions labor and life. But the European luminary still compromises with the new government: he returns her youth, and she provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. Stand in open opposition to new government- to lose both an apartment, and the opportunity to work, and maybe even life. The professor made his choice. In some ways this choice is reminiscent of Sharik’s choice. The image of the professor is given by Bulgakov in an extremely ironic manner. In order to provide for himself, Philip Philipovich, similar to French knight and the king, is forced to serve scum and libertines, although he tells Dr. Bormenthal that he is doing this not for money, but out of scientific interests. But, thinking about improving the human race, Professor Preobrazhensky is so far only transforming depraved old men and prolonging their opportunity to lead dissolute lives.

The professor is omnipotent only for Sharik. The scientist is guaranteed security as long as he serves those in power, as long as the representatives of power need him, he can afford to openly express his dislike for the proletariat, he is protected from the libels and denunciations of Sharikov and Shvonder. But his fate, like the fate of the entire intelligentsia, trying to fight against the stick with words, was guessed by Bulgakov and predicted in Vyazemskaya’s story: “If you were not a European luminary and people who, I am sure, we still would not stand up for you in the most outrageous way Let’s make it clear, you should have been arrested.” The professor is worried about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov House), in work and leading to devastation. Alas, Philip Philipovich’s remarks are too modern that the devastation is in the minds, that when everyone goes about their business, “the devastation will end by itself.” Having received an unexpected result from the experiment (“changing the pituitary gland does not give rejuvenation, but complete humanization”), Philip Philipovich reaps its consequences. Trying to educate Sharikov with words, he often loses his temper from his unheard-of rudeness, breaks into a scream (he looks helpless and comical - he no longer convinces, but orders, which causes even greater resistance from the pupil), for which he reproaches himself: “We must still restrain myself... A little more, he will begin to teach me and he will be absolutely right. I can’t control myself.” The professor cannot work, his nerves are frayed, and the author's irony is increasingly replaced by sympathy.

It turns out that it is easier to carry out a very complex operation than to re-educate (and not educate) an already formed “person” when he does not want, does not feel internal needs to live as he is offered. And again, one involuntarily recalls the fate of the Russian intelligentsia, who prepared and practically carried out the socialist revolution, but somehow forgot that they had to not educate, but re-educate millions of people, who tried to defend culture, morality and paid with their lives for the illusions embodied in reality.

Having received an extract of the sex hormone from the pituitary gland, the professor did not assume that there were many hormones in the pituitary gland. An oversight and miscalculation led to the birth of Sharikov. And the crime that the scientist Dr. Bormenthal warned against was nevertheless committed, contrary to the views and beliefs of the teacher. Sharikov, clearing a place for himself in the sun, does not stop either at denunciation or at the physical elimination of the “benefactors.” Scientists are no longer forced to defend their beliefs, but their lives: “Sharikov himself invited his death. He raised left hand and showed Philip Philipovich a bitten shisha with an unbearable cat smell. And then right hand at the address of the dangerous Bormental, he took a revolver out of his pocket.” Forced self-defense, of course, somewhat softens in the eyes of the author and the reader the scientists’ responsibility for Sharikov’s death, but we are once again convinced that life does not fit into any theoretical postulates. The genre of a fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to safely resolve the dramatic situation. But the author’s thought about the scientist’s responsibility for the right to experiment sounds cautionary. Any experiment must be thought through to the end, otherwise its consequences can lead to disaster.

Perhaps one of the most important questions facing artists, writers, and poets is their understanding of the role of art and literature in the life of society. Do people need poetry? What is her role? Is it enough to have a gift for poetry to become a poet? These questions deeply worried A. S. Pushkin. His thoughts on this topic were fully and deeply embodied in his poems. Seeing the imperfection of the world, the poet wondered whether it was possible to change it through the means of artistic expression, to whom “the fate of orbit is given a formidable gift.”
Pushkin embodied his idea of the ideal image of a poet in the poem “Prophet”. But the poet is not born a prophet, but becomes one. This path is full of painful trials and suffering, which are preceded by the sad thoughts of the Pushkin hero about the evil that is firmly rooted in human society and with which he cannot come to terms. The poet’s state suggests that he is not indifferent to what is happening around him and at the same time is powerless to change anything. It is to such a person who is “languished with spiritual thirst” that the messenger of God, the “six-winged seraphim,” comes. Pushkin dwells in detail on how the hero is reborn into a prophet, and at what cruel price he acquires the qualities necessary for a true poet. He must see and hear what is inaccessible to the sight and hearing of ordinary people. And the “six-winged seraphim” endows him with these qualities, touching him with “fingers as light as a dream.” But such careful, gentle movements open up the whole world to the hero, tearing away the veil of secrecy from him.
And I heard the sky tremble,
And the heavenly flight of angels,
And the reptile of the sea underwater,
And the valley of the vine is vegetated.
You need to have considerable courage to absorb all the suffering and all the diversity of the world. But if the first actions of the seraphim cause the poet only moral pain, then they gradually join in...
and physical torment.
And he came to my lips
And my sinner tore out my tongue,
And idle and crafty,
And the sting of the wise snake
My frozen lips
He put it with his bloody right hand.
This means that the new quality acquired by the poet - wisdom - is given to him through suffering. And this is no coincidence. After all, in order to become wise, a person must go through a difficult path of quest, mistakes, disappointments, experiencing numerous blows of fate. Therefore, probably, the length of time is equated in the poem to physical suffering.
Can a poet become a prophet, possessing, in addition to poetic talent, only knowledge and wisdom? No, because the tremulous human heart is capable of being doubted, it can shrink from fear or pain and thereby prevent him from fulfilling a great and noble mission. Therefore, the seraphim performs the last and most cruel act, placing “a coal blazing with fire” into the poet’s cut chest. It is symbolic that only now the prophet hears the voice of the Almighty, giving him the purpose and meaning of life.
And God’s voice cried out to me:
“Rise up, prophet, and see and listen,
Be fulfilled by my will
And, bypassing the seas and lands,
Burn the hearts of people with the verb."
Thus, poetry, in Pushkin’s view, does not exist to please the chosen few, it is a powerful means of transforming society, because it brings people the ideals of goodness, justice and love.
The entire creative life of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was clear evidence of the correctness of his thoughts. His bold, free poetry protested against the oppression of the people and called for a fight for their freedom. She supported the spirit of her exiled Decembrist friends, instilling in them courage and perseverance.
Pushkin saw his main merit in the fact that, like a poet-prophet, he awakened in people kindness, mercy, and the desire for freedom and justice. Therefore, having come into contact with Pushkin’s humanistic poetry, we feel the need to become better, cleaner, we learn to see beauty and harmony around us. This means that poetry really has the power to transform the world.

“A true writer is the same as an ancient prophet.” A. Chekhov

This might interest you:

Rating entries

News

Popular Essays

Exam essays