The article in the article “The Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” is about the work of Ostrovsky “The Thunderstorm”, which undoubtedly became a classic in Russian literature. In the first part, the author speaks of a deep understanding of the life of the Russian people by Ostrovsky himself. Further he tries to conduct an in-depth analysis of articles written by other critics about Ostrovsky’s personality, while noting the fact that in these articles there is no direct view of many things that are basic. Field author carries out some comparison of the work “Storm” to the accepted standards of drama. Dobrolyubov considers the principle established in the literature about the subject of a dramatic work expressed by the main event itself, as well as the description of the struggle of duty with passion, summing the unfortunate end in the event of a victory of passion in the final, and vice versa – a happy one, if it has long been stronger.
Dobrolyubov, notes the fact that the “Thunderstorm” does not fit the goal set out in it under the notion of drama, which must certainly make one feel a respect for duty in all its moral sense when exposing a harmful passion for passion. In “Groza” we can see her main character not in dark enough tones and gloomy colors, although according to all the rules established for the drama, she is a “criminal”, but we have to feel compassion for Ostrovsky, and this shade of martyrdom that arises in the reader, is considered in detail in the article of Dobrolyubov. Ostrovsky was able to express vividly how Katerina is suffering and beautiful, we see her in the darkest surroundings and unwittingly begin to justify the vice by rallying against her tormentors. Consequently, drama does not carry its main semantic load, does not fulfill its purpose. The action itself in “Thunderstorm” flows somehow slowly and insecurely. There are no stormy and bright scenes, and a heap of many actors leads to a “lethargic” of the whole work. The very language does not stand up to criticism, because it does not allow to withstand even one, even the most patient, well-mannered reader.
Dobrolyubov specifically cites this comparative analysis of “Thunderstorms” for compliance with established standards, since he comes to the conclusion that a ready, standard idea of what should be in a work does not allow creating a true
reflection of things. What would you say about a man who met a pretty girl and begins to say that her mill is not so good in comparison with Venus of Milo? – This is how Dobrolyubov questions the question, speaking of the standardization of the approach to a literary work. Truth in truth and life, and not in dialectical attitudes. It is impossible to say that a person is angry from his nature and, therefore, one can not say that in a book one must always win good or lose a vice.
Dobrolyubov notes that writers have for a long time been assigned a very small role in the movement of man to his roots – the original beginnings. He recalls the great Shakespeare and says that it was he who was the first to raise mankind to a new level, which before him was simply inaccessible. After that the author proceeds to other critical articles about the “Thunderstorm”. He mentions Apollon Grigoriev, who speaks of Ostrovsky’s main achievement in the nationality of his work. Dobrolyubov asks himself the question, and what is this “nationality” itself? The author himself answers the question posed and says that Mr. Grigoriev does not give us an explanation of this concept, but because this very statement can only be considered as amusing, but no more.
In the following part of the article Dobrolyubov says that the works of Ostrovsky are “plays of life”. He considers life as a whole and does not try to knowingly punish the villain or make the righteous happy. He looks at the state of things and forces either to sympathize or to deny, but does not leave anyone indifferent. It is impossible to consider superfluous those who do not take part in the intrigue, for it would be impossible without them.
Dobrolyubov analyzes the utterances of the so-called secondary persons: Glasha, Curly, and many others. He tries to understand their inner state, their world and how they see the reality surrounding them. He considers all the subtleties of the “dark kingdom” itself. He says that the lives of these people are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality around. We see the author’s analysis of Kabanov’s concern about the future of old traditions and order.
Further, Dobrolyubov notes the fact that “Thunderstorm” is the most decisive work of all written by Ostrovsky. The very relationships and tyranny of the dark kingdom, brought to the most tragic consequences of all possible. However, almost all those familiar with the work noticed that there is some kind of a whiff of novelty in it – the author decides that it is hidden in the background of the play, in “unnecessary” people on the stage, in everything that suggests the imminent end of the old order and tyranny. Yes, and the death of Catherine – it opens a certain new beginning on the background we have designated.
There could not be an article by Dobrolyubov without analyzing the image of the most important heroine, Katerina. He describes this given image as a kind of shaky, yet decisive “step forward” in all Russian literature. The life of Russian people requires the emergence of more resolute and active ones, says Dobrolyubov. The very image of Katerina is imbued with a natural understanding and intuitive perception of the truth, he is selfless, since Katerina will choose death better than life under the old orders. It is in the very harmony of integrity that the mighty strength of the character of the heroine lies.
In addition to the image of Katerina, Dobrolyubov examines in detail her actions, their motives. He notes that it is not a rebel by nature, it does not require destruction and does not show biased discontent. She is more like a creator, willing to love. It is these makings that explain her desire in her own mind to somehow ennoble everything. She is young and the desire for tenderness and love for her is natural. However, Tikhon is so obsessed and hammered that he will not be able to understand these feelings and desires of Katerina. He himself says about this: “Something Katya I do not understand.”
Ultimately, in considering the image of Katerina Dobrolyubov, she finds that in her Ostrovsky embodied the very idea of the Russian people, which he talks about rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with an even and wide river, which has a flat bottom, and it meets the stones smoothly. This river itself makes noises only because it is necessary in the natural nature of things and no more.
In the analysis of Katerina’s actions, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the very escape of her and Boris is the only true solution. Katerina can run, but Boris’s dependence on his relative shows that he himself is the same as Tikhon, only more educated. The final of the play is tragic and joyful at the same time. Getting rid of the shackles of the dark kingdom, although in this way – the main idea of the work itself. Life itself in this gloomy realm is not possible. Even Tikhon, when they pull out the corpse of his wife, screams about what’s good for her now, and asks: “But what about me?”. This very cry and the finale of the play give an unambiguous understanding of all the strength and truth of the finale. Tikhon’s words are forced to think not about the usual love intrigue and gloominess of the finale, but about a world in which the living envy the dead. In the final part of the article,