An example of a final essay in the third direction from FIPI.
All victories begin with defeating yourself
Don't be afraid to go wrong -
be afraid not to go anywhere.
Dmitry Emets.
Life is a long, long road, woven of victories and defeats, of ups and downs, on which events of a universal and personal scale take place. How not to get lost and not get lost in the universe of the time given to man? How to resist temptations and fatal mistakes, so that later it would not be bitter and insulting? And how to become the winner of your life?
There are many questions, there are almost no answers, but one thing is clear: it is not easy to do this. The literary world is rich in examples confirming the fact how a person went through thorns to the stars and how he slipped into the world of greed, spiritual emptiness, losing himself, family and friends. My reading and life experience allows me to boldly agree with the statement that "all victories begin with a victory over oneself."
The life of Santiago, an old man whose face is dotted with wrinkles and his hands are deeply scarred from a string, and, moreover, very old, a confirmation of this. When you read the parable of Ernest Hemingway, at first you wonder what kind of victory you can talk about. The deplorable, plight of the ailing old man is eloquently emphasized by one small but weighty detail: a patched sail, reminiscent of the "banner of a completely broken regiment." What feelings could this old man evoke in me? Of course, pity, compassion. It is bitter to look at a lonely, old, hungry man, at his hut open to all the winds. Compounding the impression is the fact that for 84 days in a row he has returned from the sea without a single fish. And this is 3 months of life from hand to mouth.
But! Amazing business! In the midst of all this gloom, we see the cheerful eyes of an old man, "the eyes of a man who does not give up." Regardless of age and streak of bad luck, he is ready to fight and conquer circumstances. I wondered why Santiago was so confident? After all, everyone has long written off this unlucky old man, the parents of the boy who traded with him took their son and put him in a boat to another fisherman. But the devoted little boy is here, taking care of the old man. Maybe it was he, who carefully covered Santiago with a newspaper and brought him food, was the support that is needed in old age? I think it was the warmth of the little boy's soul that warmed old age, softened the failures and the cold attitude of the fishermen. But it is even more important for Santiago himself to convey the experience that a young fisherman needs, to prove that an experienced fisherman can catch a big fish, he just needs to sail further.
And we will see this big fish, or rather, its skeleton - evidence of the extraordinary victory of the old man, which he inherited at a huge price. In this story, you can endlessly ask a number of questions, among which there is one main one: "Was it worth risking yourself and dragging a narwhal accompanied by bloodthirsty sharks?" Many condemn the old man and see in this act his defeat, claiming that he overestimated his strength and underestimated the sharks. I associate such an assessment with the stupid remark of tourists who saw the skeleton of a narwhal and were amazed that a shark (!) Has such a beautiful tail. How can it be considered a defeat if Santiago is over himself, over the narwhal ?! I will not join their voice and tell you what it cost. If he had to repeat this path, he would have chosen it. After all, it was no coincidence that he dreamed of lions after this campaign. This victory was needed not only by Santiago, but also by the boy. He is still a child, he has a lot to learn from life, from such brave and courageous people as Santiago.
If a person does not learn to conquer circumstances, he becomes their slave. For me, Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin is a striking example of a slave to his own destiny. Perhaps my statement will cause a storm of indignation, but how can you live your whole life in fear, obeying everyone and everything, and grumble at the same time: "Leave me, why are you offending me?" The point is not in the overcoat, old, patched, but in the soul, patched up by fears, lack of will, lack of struggle. In the struggle over his weaknesses, a person grows stronger, step by step establishing himself in life, no matter how difficult and unbearable it may be. To be, not to exist! “To be” means to burn, fight, strive to give the warmth of your soul to people. After all, the same little man Maxim Maksimych, who lived in the same period, but in more difficult conditions, found warmth in his heart in order to warm Bela's captive, Pechorin. Whom did Akaky Akakievich caress? Who did you help ?! Whom did you give with your care and attention ?! Nobody ... If he fell in love with someone, he would not have time to feel sorry for himself. I humanly feel sorry for him, but this image in today's reading I associate with lack of will and lack of fortitude. With no life. One must be, not exist. Live, and not vegetate, like a wise gudgeon, like a teacher of the Greek language Belikov and the like.
From all that has been said, I can draw the following conclusion. Life is a long, long road. The wheel of life lifts some over the circumstances, and erases others from the face of the earth. But man himself controls the chariot of his own destiny. He can be wrong, but he must always remember that only a strong person who knows how to win over himself can endure his story. "The falcon rises high when it flies" - wisdom confirming the movement up the stairs of their own destiny.
When we hear the words "victory" and "defeat", images of military action or sports are usually brought to our minds. But these concepts themselves, of course, are much broader and accompany us every day. Victory or defeat always implies confrontation with someone or something. Our life, whether we like it or not, is a struggle with circumstances, problems, competitors. And the more serious the opponent, the more significant the victory over him, the more important for us. To win in a grueling struggle against a powerful enemy means to become better, stronger. But if the enemy is obviously weaker, can such a victory be called real?
It seems to me that victory over the weak is still a defeat. Moreover, if a person comes into confrontation with someone who cannot fight back, he shows his moral weakness. This opinion was shared by many Russian writers. So, in the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Dubrovsky" we see the landowner Troyekurov, who out of a sense of resentment deprived the estate of his old friend Andrei Gavrilovich. The imperious tyrant Kirila Petrovich, using his influence and wealth, ruined the Dubrovsky family. As a result, Andrei Gavrilovich, struck by such a betrayal, goes mad and soon dies, and his son Vladimir becomes a noble robber. Can you call Troekurov, who took advantage of his opponent's weakness, a real winner? Of course not. A true moral victory in the novel is won by the younger Dubrovsky, who renounced revenge, falling in love with Masha, the daughter of his enemy.
Material prepared
Probably, there are no people in the world who would not dream of victory. Every day we gain small victories or failures. Striving to achieve success over yourself and your weaknesses, getting up thirty minutes earlier in the morning, doing the sports section, preparing lessons that are poorly given. Sometimes such victories become a step towards success, towards self-affirmation. But this is not always the case. An apparent victory turns into a defeat, and a defeat, in essence, is a victory.
In the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" the main character A.A. Chatsky, after a three-year absence, returns to the society in which he grew up. He is familiar with everything, he has a categorical opinion about every representative of the secular society. “The houses are new, but the prejudices are old,” concludes a young, ardent man about a renovated Moscow. Famus society adheres to strict rules of the times of Catherine:
"Honor for father and son", "be bad, but if there are two thousand family souls, he and the groom", "the door is open for the invited and uninvited, especially from foreign ones", "not that newness was introduced - never", "Judges to everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them."
And only servility, honor, hypocrisy dominate the minds and hearts of the "chosen" representatives of the upper class of the noble class. Chatsky with his views turns out to be out of the court. In his opinion, “ranks are given by people, but people can be deceived,” to seek protection from those in power is low, to achieve success must be done with intelligence, not servility. Famusov, barely hearing his reasoning, plugs his ears, shouts: "... on trial!" He considers the young Chatsky to be a revolutionary, "Carbonari", a dangerous person, when Skalozub appears, he asks not to express his thoughts out loud. And when a young man nevertheless begins to express his views, he quickly leaves, not wanting to be held responsible for his judgments. However, the colonel turns out to be a narrow-minded person and only catches reasoning about uniforms. In general, very few people understand Chatsky at the ball at Famusov: the owner himself, Sophia and Molchalin. But each of them makes his own verdict. Famusov would forbid such people to drive up to the capital for a shot, Sophia says that he is “not a man - a snake,” and Molchalin decides that Chatsky is just a loser. The final verdict of the Moscow world is madness! At the climax, when the hero makes his keynote speech, no one in the audience listens to him. We can say that Chatsky is defeated, but this is not so! IA Goncharov believes that the hero of the comedy is the winner, and one cannot but agree with him. The appearance of this man shook up stagnant Famus society, destroyed Sophia's illusions, shook the position of Molchalin.
In the novel by IS Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" two opponents clash in a heated dispute: a representative of the younger generation - the nihilist Bazarov and the nobleman P.P. Kirsanov. One lived an idle life, spent the lion's share of the allotted time on love for a famous beauty, a socialite - Princess R. But, despite this lifestyle, he gained experience, experienced, probably, the most important feeling that overtook him, washed away everything superficial, arrogance and self-confidence knocked down. This feeling is love. Bazarov boldly judges everything, considering himself "self-styled", a man who made his name only by his own labor, mind. In a dispute with Kirsanov, he is categorical, harsh, but observes external decency, but Pavel Petrovich does not stand up and breaks down, indirectly calling Bazarov a "blockhead":
... before they were just idiots, but now they are suddenly nihilists.
Outward victory of Bazarov in this dispute, then in a duel turns out to be a defeat in the main confrontation. Having met his first and only love, the young man is not able to survive defeat, does not want to admit the failure, but he cannot do anything. Without love, without lovely eyes, such desired hands and lips, life is not needed. He becomes distracted, cannot concentrate, and no amount of denial helps him in this confrontation. Yes, it seems that Bazarov won, because he is so stoically going to death, silently fighting the disease, but in fact he lost, because he lost everything that was worth living and creating.
Courage and determination in any struggle are essential. But sometimes you have to reject self-confidence, look around, re-read the classics, so as not to be mistaken in the right choice. After all, this is your life. And when defeating someone, think if this is an apocalypse!
Total: 608 words
Direction "Honor and dishonor" of the final essay 2016-2017 on literature: examples, samples, analysis of works
Examples of writing essays on literature in the direction of "Honor and dishonor". Each essay contains statistics. Some essays are for school, and it is not recommended to use them as ready-made samples in the final essay.
These works can be used to prepare for the final essay. They are designed to form the students' understanding of the full or partial disclosure of the topic of the final essay. We recommend using them as an additional source of ideas when forming your own understanding of the disclosure of the topic.
Below are video analyzes of works in the thematic area "Honor and dishonor".
Concepts of honor in our time
In our cruel age, it seems that the concepts of honor and dishonor have died. There is no particular need to preserve the honor of girls - striptease and viciousness are paid dearly, and money is much more attractive than some ephemeral honor. I recall Knurov from Ostrovsky's "Dowry":
There are boundaries beyond which condemnation does not cross: I can offer you such a tremendous content that the most evil critics of someone else's morality will have to shut up and open their mouths in surprise.
Sometimes it seems that men have long ceased to dream of serving for the good of the Fatherland, protecting their honor and dignity, and defending their Motherland. Probably, the literature remains the only evidence of the existence of these concepts.
The most cherished work of A.S. Pushkin begins with the epigraph: "Take care of honor from your youth" - which is part of the Russian proverb. The whole novel "The Captain's Daughter" gives us the best understanding of honor and dishonor. The protagonist Petrusha Grinev is a young man, almost a youth (at the time of his departure for the service he was "eighteen" years old according to the testimony of his mother), but he is so determined that he is ready to die on the gallows, but not tarnish his honor. And this is not only because his father bequeathed to him to serve in this way. Life without honor for a nobleman is like death. But his opponent and envious Shvabrin acts in a completely different way. His decision to go over to Pugachev's side is determined by the fear for his life. He, unlike Grinev, does not want to die. The outcome of the life of each of the heroes is logical. Grinev lives a dignified, albeit not rich life of a landowner and dies with his children and grandchildren. And the fate of Alexei Shvabrin is understandable, although Pushkin does not say anything about this, but most likely death or hard labor will cut off this unworthy life of a traitor, a man who has not retained his honor.
War is a catalyst for the most important human qualities, it shows either courage and courage, or meanness and cowardice. We can find proof of this in V. Bykov's story "Sotnikov". The two heroes are the moral poles of the story. A fisherman - energetic, strong, physically strong, but courageous? Once captured, on pain of death, he betrays his partisan detachment, betrays its deployment, weapons, strength - in short, everything in order to eliminate this hotbed of resistance to the Nazis. But frail, sickly, puny Sotnikov turns out to be courageous, endures torture, and resolutely ascends to the scaffold, not doubting the correctness of his deed for a second. He knows that death is not as terrible as the remorse of betrayal. At the end of the story, Rybak, who escaped from death, tries to hang himself in the outhouse, but cannot, since he cannot find a suitable tool (the belt was taken from him during his arrest). His death is a matter of time, he is not a completely fallen sinner, and living with such a burden is unbearable.
Years pass, in the historical memory of mankind there are still samples of acts of honor and conscience. Will they become an example for my contemporaries? I think yes. The heroes who died in Syria, rescuing people in fires, in disasters, prove that there is honor, dignity, and there are carriers of these noble qualities.
Total: 441 words
Probably, there are no people in the world who would not dream of victory. Every day we gain small victories or failures. Striving to achieve success over yourself and your weaknesses, getting up thirty minutes earlier in the morning, doing the sports section, preparing lessons that are poorly given. Sometimes such victories become a step towards success, towards self-affirmation. But this is not always the case. An apparent victory turns into a defeat, and a defeat, in essence, is a victory.
In the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" the main character A.A. Chatsky, after a three-year absence, returns to the society in which he grew up. He is familiar with everything, he has a categorical opinion about every representative of the secular society. “The houses are new, but the prejudices are old,” concludes a young, ardent man about a renovated Moscow. Famus society adheres to strict rules of the times of Catherine:
"Honor to father and son", "be bad, but if there are two thousand family souls, he and the groom", "the door is open for the invited and uninvited, especially from foreign ones", "not that newness was introduced - never", "Judges to everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them."
And only servility, honor, hypocrisy dominate the minds and hearts of the "chosen" representatives of the upper class of the noble class. Chatsky with his views turns out to be out of the court. In his opinion, “ranks are given by people, but people can be deceived”, it is low to seek protection from those in power, one must achieve success with intelligence, not servility. Famusov, barely hearing his reasoning, plugs his ears, shouts: "... on trial!" He considers the young Chatsky to be a revolutionary, "Carbonari", a dangerous person, when Skalozub appears, he asks not to express his thoughts out loud. And when a young man nevertheless begins to express his views, he quickly leaves, not wanting to be held responsible for his judgments. However, the colonel turns out to be a narrow-minded person and only catches reasoning about uniforms. In general, very few people understand Chatsky at the ball at Famusov: the owner himself, Sophia and Molchalin. But each of them makes their own verdict. Famusov would forbid such people to drive up to the capital for a shot, Sophia says that he is “not a man - a snake,” and Molchalin decides that Chatsky is simply a loser. The final verdict of the Moscow world is madness! At the climax, when the hero makes his keynote speech, no one in the audience listens to him. We can say that Chatsky is defeated, but this is not so! IA Goncharov believes that the hero of the comedy is the winner, and one cannot but agree with him. The appearance of this man shook up stagnant Famus society, destroyed Sophia's illusions, shook the position of Molchalin.
In the novel by IS Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" two opponents clash in a heated dispute: a representative of the younger generation - the nihilist Bazarov and the nobleman P.P. Kirsanov. One lived an idle life, spent the lion's share of the allotted time on love for a famous beauty, a socialite - Princess R. But, despite this lifestyle, he gained experience, experienced, probably, the most important feeling that overtook him, washed away everything superficial, arrogance and self-confidence knocked down. This feeling is love. Bazarov boldly judges everything, considering himself "self-styled", a man who made his name only by his own labor, mind. In a dispute with Kirsanov, he is categorical, harsh, but observes external decency, but Pavel Petrovich does not stand up and breaks down, indirectly calling Bazarov a "blockhead":
... before they were just idiots, but now they are suddenly nihilists.
Outward victory of Bazarov in this dispute, then in a duel turns out to be a defeat in the main confrontation. Having met his first and only love, the young man is not able to survive defeat, does not want to admit the failure, but he cannot do anything. Without love, without lovely eyes, such desired hands and lips, life is not needed. He becomes distracted, cannot concentrate, and no amount of denial helps him in this confrontation. Yes, it seems that Bazarov won, because he is so stoically going to death, silently fighting the disease, but in fact he lost, because he lost everything that was worth living and creating.
Courage and determination in any struggle are essential. But sometimes you have to reject self-confidence, look around, re-read the classics, so as not to be mistaken in the right choice. After all, this is your life. And when defeating someone, think about whether this is a victory!
"Victory and Defeat"
Official comment:
The direction allows you to reflect on victory and defeat in different aspects:socio-historical, moral-philosophical, psychological. Reasoning may be relatedboth with external conflict events in the life of a person, country, world, and with the internal struggle of a person with himself, its causes and results. In literary works, the ambiguity and relativity of the concepts of "victory" and "defeat" in different historical conditions and life situations are often shown.
The opposition of the concepts "victory" and "defeat" is already inherent in their interpretation. In Ozhegov we read: "Victory is success in battle, war, complete defeat of the enemy." That is, the victory of one assumes the complete defeat of the other. However, both history and literature provide us with examples of how victory turns out to be defeat and defeat is victory. It is about the relativity of these concepts that graduates are invited to speculate, relying on their reading experience. Of course, it is impossible to limit ourselves to the concept of victory as defeating the enemy in battle. Therefore, it is advisable to consider this thematic area in different aspects.
Aphorisms and sayings of famous people:
The greatest victory is victory over oneself. Cicero
The possibility that we might be defeated in battle should not prevent us from fighting for a cause that we believe is just. A. Lincoln
Man was not created to suffer defeat ... Man can be destroyed, but he cannot be defeated. E. Hemingway
Be proud only of the victories you have won over yourself. Tungsten
List of literature in the direction of "Victory and defeat"
L. N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"
A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"
A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"
I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"
F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"
"Word about Igor's regiment"
A. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter"
I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov"
M. A. Sholokhov "The Fate of a Man"
V.P. Astafiev "Tsar-fish"
Materials for literary arguments.
L. N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace"
The key battles of the epic novel areShengrabenskoe, Austerlitskoe, Borodinskoe. The author clearly divides the military environment into careerists who only want ranks and awards, and modest war workers, soldiers, peasants, and militias. It is they who decide the outcome of the battle, every minute performing an unknown feat.
First battle of Shengraben we observe through the eyes of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Field Marshal Kutuzov was heading with his troops on the road from Krems to Olmins. Napolene wanted to surround him in the middle of the way, in Znaim. To save the lives of soldiers, Kutuzov makes a wise decision. He sends a detachment of Bagration to Znaim by a detour mountain route and gives the order to keep the huge army of the French. Bagration managed to do the incredible. In the morning his troops approached the village of Schöngraben earlier than Napoleon's army. General Murat was frightened and took a small detachment of Bagration for the entire Russian army.
The center of the battle itself is the Tushin battery. Before the battle, Prince Andrew drew a battle plan, pondering the best steps. But at the scene of the hostilities, I realized that everything was not happening at all as planned. During the battle, it is simply impossible to organize leadership, complete control over events. Therefore, Bagration achieves only one thing - to raise the spirit of the army. It is the spirit, the attitude of each soldier that determines the entire battle.
In the midst of the general chaos, Prince Andrey sees the battery of the modest Tushin. Until recently, in the tent of the martenant, he looked like an ordinary, peaceful person, standing with his shoes off. And now, occupying the most disadvantageous disposition, being under continuous fire, he is showing miracles of courage. Tushin seems big and strong to himself. But instead of a reward or praise, he is reprimanded at the council after the battle for daring to speak out without an order. If not for the words of Prince Andrey, no one would have known about his feat.
The Shengraben victory became a guarantee of victory at Borodino.
On the eve of the Battle of Austerlitz Prince Andrew was looking for laurels, dreamed of leading an army. The commanders had no doubt that the enemy's forces were weakened. But the people were tired of the senseless bloodshed, were indifferent to the benefits of the headquarters and the two emperors. They were annoyed at the dominance of the Germans in their ranks. As a result, it turned into chaos and confusion on the battlefield. Prince Andrey accomplished the long-awaited feat in full view of everyone, with the flag staff led the fleeing soldiers, but this heroism did not bring him happiness. Even Napoleon's praise seemed insignificant to him in comparison with the endless and calm sky.
Tolstoy succeeded in surprisingly accurately, psychologically reflecting the state of the wounded person. The last thing that Prince Andrey saw in front of the exploding shell was a fight between a Frenchman and a Russian over a bathhouse. It seemed to him that the shell would fly by and not hit him, but that was an illusion. It seemed to the hero that something heavy and soft had been thrust into his body. But the main thing is that Prince Andrei realized the insignificance of war and destruction in comparison with the vast world. On the Borodino field he will tell Pierre the truth that he realized after participating in these events: "The battle is won by the one who is determined to win it."
Russian troops won a moral victory in the Battle of Borodino. They could not retreat, further was only Moscow. Napoleon was amazed: usually, if the battle was not won within eight hours, one could speak of its defeat. For the first time, the French emperor saw the unprecedented courage of Russian soldiers. Although at least half of the army was killed, the remaining soldiers continued to fight as hard as in the beginning.
The "club of the people's war" also fell on the French.
The whole battle is conveyed through the eyes of Pierre, a non-military man. It is located in the most dangerous place - at the Rayevsky battery. An unprecedented uplift arises in his soul. Pierre sees with his own eyes that people are going to die, but they overcome their fear, stay in line, and fulfill their duty to the end.
Prince Andrey accomplishes his main feat. Even being in reserve, he sets an example of courage to his officers, does not bow his head. Here Prince Andrey is mortally wounded.
The collective image of the people acts in the battle. Each participant in the battle is guided and warmed by that "latent warmth of patriotism", which is the main feature of the Russian national character. Kutuzov managed to subtly feel the spirit and strength of the Russian army. He knew the outcome of battles in many ways, but never doubted the victory of his soldiers.
In his novel, L.N. Tolstoy managed to masterfully combine reviews of large-scale historical battles and a description of the emotional experiences of a person in the war. It was in this feature that the author's humanism manifested itself.
A. S. Griboyedov play "Woe from Wit"
The play's conflict is a unity of two principles: public and personal. Being an honest, noble, progressive-minded, freedom-loving man, the main character Chatsky opposes the Famus society. He condemns the inhumanity of serfdom, recalling "Nestor of the noble villains," who exchanged his faithful servants for three greyhounds; he is sickened by the lack of freedom of thought in the noble society: "And who in Moscow has not stopped eating lunches, dinners and dances?" He does not recognize respect for rank and sycophancy: "Who needs it: those arrogance, they lie in the dust, and for those who are higher, flattery, like lace, weaved." Chatsky is full of sincere patriotism: “Shall we rise again from the foreign rule of fashions? So that our smart, vigorous people, although by language, do not consider us as Germans. " He seeks to serve "the cause", not individuals, he "would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve." Society is offended and, defensively, declares Chatsky crazy. His drama is aggravated by a feeling of ardent but unrequited love for Sophia Famusov's daughter. Chatsky makes no attempt to understand Sophia, it is difficult for him to understand why Sophia does not love him, because his love for her accelerates "every heartbeat", although "the whole world seemed to him ashes and vanity." Chatsky can be justified by his blindness with passion: he has "a mind with a heart out of tune." The psychological conflict turns into a public conflict. Society unanimously comes to the conclusion: "crazy in everything ...". The madman is not afraid of society. Chatsky makes the decision "to look around the world where the offended feeling has a corner."
I.A. Goncharov assessed the finale of the play as follows: "Chatsky is broken by the amount of the old force, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of the new force." Chatsky does not abandon his ideals, he only frees himself from illusions. Chatsky's stay at Famusov's house shook the inviolability of the foundations of Famusov's society. Sophia says: "I myself am ashamed of the walls!"
Therefore, Chatsky's defeat is only a temporary defeat and only his personal drama. On a social scale, "the victory of the Chatskys is inevitable." The “past century” will be replaced by the “present century”, and the views of the comedy hero Griboyedov will triumph.
Chatsky did nothing, but he spoke, and for this he was declared insane. The old world fights against the free speech of Chatsky, using slander. Chatsky's struggle with accusatory words corresponds to that early period of the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved by words, and were limited to oral statements. However, fighting by word does not lead to victory. The old world is still so strong that it defeats Chatsky, who fled from Famusov's house and from Moscow. But Chatsky's flight from Moscow cannot be taken as a defeat. The irreconcilability of views between Chatsky and Famusovsky society puts our hero in a tragic situation. According to Goncharov, his role is "passive": at the same time he is a "vanguard warrior", a "skirmisher", and at the same time he is "always a victim." "Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh power," - this is how I.A. Goncharov.
A. N. Ostrovsky play "The Thunderstorm"
Graduates can reflect on the question of whether Katherine's death is a victory or a defeat. It is difficult to give an unambiguous answer to this question. Too many reasons led to a terrible ending. The playwright sees the tragedy of Katerina's position in the fact that she comes into conflict not only with Kalinov's family morals, but also with herself. The straightforwardness of Ostrovsky's heroine is one of the sources of her tragedy. Katerina is pure at heart - lies and debauchery are alien and disgusting to her. She understands that, having fallen in love with Boris, she broke the moral law. “Ah, Varya,” she complains, “sin is on my mind! How much I, poor, cried, what I really did not do on myself! I cannot get away from this sin. Can't go anywhere. It's not good, it's a terrible sin, Varenka, that I love someone else? " Throughout the play, there is a painful struggle in Katerina's mind between the understanding of her wrongness, her sinfulness and a vague, but more and more powerful feeling of her right to human life. But the play ends with Katerina's moral victory over the dark forces that torment her. She redeems her guilt immeasurably, and leaves bondage and humiliation in the only way that has opened to her. Her decision to die so as not to remain a slave expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, "the need for the emerging movement of Russian life." And this decision comes to Katerina along with inner self-justification. She dies because she considers death to be the only worthy outcome, the only way to preserve the higher that lived in her. The thought that the death of Katerina is in fact a moral victory, the triumph of a real Russian soul over the forces of the "dark kingdom" of the Wild and Kabanovs, is also strengthened by the reaction to her death of the other characters in the play. For example, Tikhon, the husband of Katerina, for the first time in his life expressed his own opinion, for the first time decided to protest against the suffocating foundations of his family, having entered (albeit just for a moment) in the struggle with the "dark kingdom." “You ruined her, you, you ...”, he exclaims, addressing his mother, before whom he trembled all his life.
The death of the main character ends Ostrovsky's play "The Thunderstorm", the genre of which could be safely designated as a tragedy. The death of Katerina in "The Thunderstorm" is the denouement of the work and carries a special semantic load. The suicide scene of Katerina gave rise to many questions and interpretations of this plot twist. For example, Dobrolyubov considered this act noble, and Pisarev adhered to the point of view that such an outcome was “completely unexpected for her (Katerina) herself”. Dostoevsky believed that the death of Katerina in the play "The Thunderstorm" would have occurred without despotism: "this is a victim of his own purity and his beliefs." It's easy to see that the opinions of critics vary, but each is partly true. What made the girl make such a decision, to make a desperate step on the table? What does the death of Katerina - the heroine of the play "The Thunderstorm" mean?
However, as mentioned above, there are several different points of view on Katerina's suicide. On the other hand, couldn't Katya just run away without making such desperate decisions? The fact of the matter is that I could not. It was not for her. To be honest with yourself, to be free - this is what the girl so passionately desired. Unfortunately, all this could only be obtained at the cost of one's own life. Is the death of Katerina a defeat or a victory over the "dark kingdom"? Katerina did not win, but she did not remain defeated either.
I. S. Turgenev novel "Fathers and Sons"
The writer shows in his novel the struggle between the worldviews of two political directions. The plot of the novel is based on the opposition of the views of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov and Yevgeny Bazarov, who are the outstanding representatives of two generations who do not find mutual understanding. Disagreements on various issues have always existed between young people and elders. So here too, a representative of the younger generation, Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov, cannot, and does not want to understand the “fathers”, their credo, principles. He is convinced that their views on the world, on life, on relations between people are hopelessly outdated. "Yes, I will pamper them ... After all, this is all pride, lion habits, fadness ...". In his opinion, the main purpose of life is to work, to produce something material. That is why Bazarov has a disrespectful attitude towards art, towards sciences that have no practical basis. He believes that it is much more useful to deny what, from his point of view, deserves denial, than to indifferently observe from the outside, not daring to do anything. “At the present time, denial is most useful - we deny,” says Bazarov. And Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is sure that there are things that cannot be doubted ("Aristocracy ... liberalism, progress, principles ... art ..."). He appreciates habits and traditions more and does not want to notice the changes taking place in society.
Bazarov is a tragic figure. It cannot be said that he defeats Kirsanov in an argument. Even when Pavel Petrovich is ready to admit his defeat, Bazarov suddenly loses faith in his teaching and doubts his personal need for society. "Does Russia need me? No, apparently, it is not needed," he muses.
Of course, most of all a person manifests itself not in conversations, but in deeds and in his life. Therefore, Turgenev, as it were, leads his heroes through various trials. And the strongest of them is the test of love. Indeed, it is in love that a person's soul is revealed fully and sincerely.
And then Bazarov's hot and passionate nature swept away all his theories. He fell in love with a woman whom he valued highly. "In conversations with Anna Sergeevna, he even more than before showed his indifferent contempt for everything romantic, and when left alone, he was indignantly aware of the romantic in himself." The hero is going through a strong mental breakdown. "... Something ... possessed him, which he did not allow in any way, about which he always mocked, which outraged all his pride." Anna Sergeevna Odintsova rejected him. But Bazarov found the strength to accept defeat with honor, without losing his dignity.
So, did the nihilist Bazarov win or lose?
It seems that in the test of love Bazarov is defeated. First, his feelings and himself are rejected. Secondly, he falls into the power of the sides of life that he himself denies, loses the ground under his feet, begins to doubt his views on life. His position in life turns out to be a pose in which, however, he sincerely believed. Bazarov begins to lose the meaning of life, and soon loses life itself. But this is also a victory: love made Bazarov look at himself and the world differently, he begins to understand that in nothing life does not want to fit into a nihilistic scheme.
And Anna Sergeevna formally remains the winner. She managed to cope with her feelings, which strengthened her self-confidence. In the future, she will find a good place for her sister, and she herself will marry successfully. But will she be happy?
The central figure of the novel is the nihilist Yevgeny Bazarov. On the pages of the novel, he acts as an opponent of all the experience of previous generations. Bazarov denies simple human feelings, moral values \u200b\u200band so on. He only recognizes the natural sciences. We can say that the hero strives for destruction. In this he sees the purpose of his life: to clear the ground for future generations. But, in the course of the novel, the hero is severely disappointed in his views and values \u200b\u200bin life. Love becomes the main blow for him.
Thus, it seems to me that the love of Bazarov and Odintsova was doomed from the very beginning. Bazarov's views on love, his stubborn and proud character, combined with the views of Anna Sergeevna, from the very beginning created difficulties in their relationship. On the pages of his novel, Turgenev brought these heroes together to show the collapse of Bazarov's views, to prove that every person is capable of love, but not everyone can keep it.
F. M. Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment"
Crime and Punishment is an ideological novel in which inhuman theory collides with human feelings. Dostoevsky, a great connoisseur of human psychology, a sensitive and attentive artist, tried to understand modern reality, to determine the degree of influence on a person of the ideas of the revolutionary reconstruction of life and individualistic theories popular at that time. Entering into polemics with democrats and socialists, the writer tried to show in his novel how the delusion of immature minds leads to murder, shedding of blood, maiming and breaking young lives.
Raskolnikov's ideas were generated by abnormal, humiliating living conditions. In addition, the post-reform breakup destroyed the age-old foundations of society, depriving the human individuality of the connection with the long-standing cultural traditions of society, historical memory. Raskolnikov sees a violation of universal human moral norms at every step. It is impossible to feed a family with honest labor, so the minor official Marmeladov finally gets drunk, and his daughter Sonechka is forced to sell herself, because otherwise her family will die of hunger. If unbearable living conditions push a person to violate moral principles, then these principles are nonsense, that is, they can be disregarded. Raskolnikov comes to approximately this conclusion when a theory is born in his inflamed brain, according to which he divides all of humanity into two unequal parts. On the one hand, these are strong personalities, "superhumans" such as Mohammed and Napoleon, and on the other, a gray, faceless and obedient crowd, which the hero awards the contemptuous name - "trembling creature" and "anthill".
The correctness of any theory must be confirmed by practice. And Rodion Raskolnikov conceives and carries out murder, lifting himself from a moral prohibition. His life after the murder turns into a real hell. A painful suspicion develops in Rodion, which gradually turns into a feeling of loneliness, alienation from everyone. The writer finds a surprisingly accurate expression characterizing the inner state of Raskolnikov: he "seemed to cut himself off from everyone and everything with scissors." The hero is disappointed in himself, believing that he has not passed the test for the role of the ruler, which means, alas, belongs to the "trembling creatures."
Surprisingly, Raskolnikov himself would not want to be the winner now. After all, to win means to perish morally, to remain with your spiritual chaos forever, to pervert in people, yourself and life. Raskolnikov's defeat was his victory - a victory over himself, over his theory, over the Devil, who took possession of his soul, but failed to permanently oust God in it.
"Word about Igor's regiment" - a famous monument. At the heart of - the Russians, organized by the prince V. The main idea is the idea. The princely feuds, weakening the Russian land and leading to ruin by its enemies, make the author bitterly grieve and lament; the victory over the enemies fills his soul with ardent delight. However, this work tells about defeat, not victory, because it is defeat that contributes to rethinking previous behavior, gaining a new look at the world and at oneself. That is, defeat stimulates Russian soldiers to victories and feats.
The author of the Lay addresses all the Russian princes in turn, as if calling them to account and demandingly reminding them of their duty to their homeland. He calls them to defend the Russian land, to "block the gates of the field" with his sharp arrows. And therefore, although the author writes about defeat, there is not even a shadow of despondency in the Lay. "The Word" is as laconic and laconic as Igor's appeals to his squad. This is the call before the fight. The whole poem is, as it were, turned to the future, permeated with concern for this future. A poem about victory would be a poem of triumph and joy. Victory is the end of the battle, while defeat for the author of the Lay is only the beginning of the battle. The battle with the steppe enemy was not over yet. The defeat should unite the Russians. The author of the Lay is not calling for a feast of celebration, but for a feast-battle. Writes about this in the article "The Word about the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich" D.S. Likhachev.
The "Word" ends with joy - Igor's return to the Russian land and the singing of glory to him upon entering Kiev. So, despite the fact that the Lay is dedicated to Igor's defeat, it is full of confidence in the power of the Russians, full of faith in the glorious future of the Russian land, in victory over the enemy.
V.P. Astafiev "Tsar-fish"
Ignatyich is the protagonist of the novel. This person is respected by fellow villagers for the fact that he is always happy to help with advice and deed, for his skill in fishing, for his intelligence and sharpness. This is the most prosperous person in the village, he does everything “okay” and reasonably. Often he helps people, but there is no sincerity in his actions.
In the village of Ignatyich he is known as the most successful and skillful fisherman. It is felt that he has an abundance of fishing flair, the experience of his ancestors and his own, acquired over the years. Greed forced Ignatyich to fish more than he needed, greed, thirst for profit at any cost. This played a fatal role for him when he met the king-fish.
The fish looked like a "prehistoric lizard", "eyes without eyelids, without eyelashes, naked, looking with a snake coldness, concealed something in themselves." Ignatyich is amazed by the size of the sturgeon, which grew up on some "boogers" and "loaches", he with surprise calls it "a mystery of nature." From the very beginning, from the moment Ignatyich saw the king-fish, something "sinister" seemed to him in her, and later he realized that "one cannot cope with such a monster."
The desire to call his brother and the mechanic for help was supplanted by an all-consuming greed: “To divide the sturgeon? .. There are two buckets of caviar in the sturgeon, if not more. Caviar for three too ?! " At that moment Ignatyitch was even himself ashamed of his feelings. But after a while, “he considered greed as passion,” and the desire to catch a sturgeon turned out to be stronger than the voice of reason. In addition to greed for profit, there was another reason that forced Ignatyich to measure his strength with a mysterious creature. This is fishing prowess. “Oh, it was not! - thought the protagonist of the novel. - The Tsar-fish comes across once in a lifetime, and even then not "every Yakov."
Throwing aside doubts, "it was successful, with all the blunder Ignatyich shook the king-fish on the forehead with the butt of an ax ..." Soon, the unlucky fisherman found himself in the water, entangled with his own hooks with hooks, which dug into the bodies of Ignatyich and the fish. "The king of the river and the king of all nature are in the same trap," the author writes. Then the fisherman realized that the huge sturgeon was "beyond his hand." Yes, he knew this from the very beginning of their struggle, but "because of such a reptile, a man was forgotten in a man." Ignatyich and the Tsar-fish "tied in one share." Both of them will die. The passionate desire to live makes a person break off the hooks, in despair he even speaks to the sturgeon. "Well what do you want! .. I'm waiting for my brother, and who are you?" - Ignatyich begs. The lust for life pushes the hero to overcome his own pride. He shouts: "Bra-ate-fir-trees-and-and-hik! .."
Ignatich feels that he is dying. The fish "tightly and carefully pressed against him with a thick and tender belly." The hero of the novel experienced a superstitious horror from this almost feminine tenderness of a cold fish. He understood: the sturgeon is pressing against him because both of them will die. At this moment, a person begins to remember his childhood, youth, maturity. In addition to pleasant memories, thoughts come that his failures in life were associated with poaching. Ignatyich begins to understand that brutal fishing will always be a heavy burden on his conscience. The hero of the novel also remembered the old grandfather, who instructed the young fishermen: "And if you, timid, have something for your soul, a grave sin, what a shame, barnacle - do not get involved with the king-fish, if you get codes, you must push it right away."
The words of the grandfather make the Astafiev hero think about his past. What sin did Ignatyich commit? It turned out that the grave fault lies with the conscience of the fisherman. Having outraged the feelings of the bride, he committed an offense that has no justification. Ignatyich realized that this incident with the tsar-fish is a punishment for his bad deeds.
Turning to God, Ignatyich asks: “Lord! Divorce us! Let this creature free! She is not on my hand! " He asks for forgiveness from the girl whom he once offended: "Pros-st-iteeee ... her-eeeee ... Gla-a-asha-ah, forgive-and-and." After that, the king-fish is freed from the hooks and floats away into its native element, carrying away "tens of deadly ouds" in the body. Ignatich immediately becomes easier: the body - because the fish did not hang on him as a dead weight, the soul - because nature forgave him, gave him another chance to atone for all sins and start a new life.
Defeat led to victory, Ignatyich rethought his life.
