Artistic detail and its role in creating the image of Plyushkin - Essay on literature. Question: artistic detail and its role in creating the image of Plyushkin essay

Plyushkin is the image of a moldy cracker left over from Easter cake. Only he has a life story; Gogol portrays all other landowners statically. These heroes seem to have no past that would be in any way different from their present and explain something about it. Plyushkin's character is much more complex characters other landowners presented in Dead Souls.
Traits of manic stinginess are combined in Plyushkin with morbid suspicion and distrust of people. Saving an old sole, a clay shard, a nail or a horseshoe, he turns all his wealth into dust and ashes: thousands of pounds of bread rot, many canvases, cloth, sheepskins, wood, and dishes are lost. Caring for an insignificant detail, showing penniless stinginess, he loses hundreds and thousands, throwing away his fortune, ruining his family and home, the family estate.
The image of Plyushkin fully corresponds to the picture of his estate, which appears before the reader. The same decay and decomposition, the absolute loss of the human image: the owner noble estate looks like an old housekeeper.
“But there was a time when he was just a thrifty owner!” During this period of its history, it seems to combine the most character traits other landowners: they learned how to manage things from him, like Sobakevich, he was an exemplary family man, like Manilov, and busy, like Korobochka. However, already at this stage of his life, Plyushkin is compared to a spider: “... everywhere, everything included the keen gaze of the owner and, like a hardworking spider, ran... along all ends of his economic web.” Entangled in the networks of the “economic web,” Plyushkin completely forgets about his own soul and that of others. It is not for nothing that the observant Chichikov, in a conversation with him, hastens to replace the words “virtue” and “rare qualities of the soul” with “economy” and “order.”
Plyushkin’s moral degradation occurs not so much due to biographical reasons (the death of his wife, the flight of his eldest daughter, the disobedience of his son, and finally the death of his last daughter), but because “human feelings,” which ... were not deep in him, became shallow every minute, and every Every day something was lost in this worn-out ruin.
Gogol sees the reason for Plyushkin’s spiritual devastation in indifference to his own soul. The author's reasoning about the gradual cooling and hardening of the human soul, with which he opens the chapter about Plyushkin, is sad.
The image of Plyushkin completes the gallery of provincial landowners. He represents the last stage of moral decline. Why is it not Manilov, not Sobakevich, not Korobochka who are called by the terrible Gogolian word “a hole in humanity”, but namely Plyushkin? On the one hand, Gogol considers Plyushkin as a unique phenomenon, exceptional in Russian life. On the other hand, he is similar to the heroes of the poem in his lack of spirituality, pettiness of interests, lack of deep feelings and sublimity of thoughts. Among the “dead inhabitants, terrible with the motionless coldness of their souls and the emptiness of their hearts.” Plyushkin takes his rightful place as the logical conclusion of the process of dehumanization of man. It is known that Gogol cherished the dream of the possibility of “resurrecting” such dead souls through the power of moral preaching. But Gogol’s great Tragedy consisted, according to Yu. Aikhenvald, in the fact that the creation of “beautiful and simple images... the creation of human greatness is not given to him. Here he is not a creator, here he is powerless.”

For Tolstoy, the family is the soil for the formation of the human soul, and at the same time, in War and Peace, the introduction of the family theme is one of the ways of organizing the text. The atmosphere of the house, the family nest, according to the writer, determines the psychology, views and even the fate of the heroes. That is why, in the system of all the main images of the novel, L. N. Tolstoy identifies several families, the example of which clearly expresses the author’s attitude to the ideal of the home - these are the Bolkonskys, Rostovs and Kuragins. At the same time, the Bolkonskys and Rostovs are not just families, they are a whole way of life, a way of life based

The emergence of new directions, trends, styles in art and literature is always associated with an understanding of the place and role of man in the world, in the Universe, with a change in man’s self-awareness. One of these fractures occurred in late XIX– beginning of the twentieth century. Artists of that time advocated a new vision of reality, looking for original artistic media. The outstanding Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev called this short but surprisingly bright period the Silver Age. This definition primarily applies to Russian poetry of the early twentieth century. The Golden Age is the age of Pushkin and Russian classics. He became the basis

Turgenev is one of the best writers of the last century. His novel “Fathers and Sons” begins exact date. This allows the reader to remember the events happening at that time. During these years, after Crimean War, Russian has perked up somewhat public life, the crisis of the serfdom system was exposed, the struggle "between democratic revolutionaries and liberals intensified. Turgenev shows the conflict of generations. He appears to us as a master of details, portraits and landscapes. The action of the novel takes place in the summer of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two. The young candidate, Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, arrives

I think: How beautiful the Earth is and the people on it. S. Yesenin In his poetic and journalistic works, Sergei Aleksandrovich Yesenin creates a unique, imaginative concept of man. Often poems are written in the first person, and then the personality of the poet and his lyrical hero merge. The poetry of S. A. Yesenin is very personal, all events are passed through the heart and soul of the author. Hence the incredible kinship with the surrounding world, the inclusion of the Cosmos in the “earthly life” of a peasant village. It's already evening. Dew Glistens on the nettles. I'm standing by the road, leaning against a willow tree. There's a big light from the moon right on our roof. G

Traits of manic stinginess are combined in Plyushkin with morbid suspicion and distrust of people. Saving an old sole, a clay shard, a nail or a horseshoe, he turns all his wealth into dust and ashes: thousands of pounds of bread rot, many canvases, cloth, sheepskins, wood, and dishes are lost. Caring for an insignificant detail, showing penniless stinginess, he loses hundreds and thousands, throwing away his fortune, ruining his family and home, the family estate.
The image of Plyushkin fully corresponds to the picture of his estate, which appears before the reader. The same decay and decomposition, the absolute loss of the human image: the owner of the noble estate looks like an old woman-housekeeper.
“But there was a time when he was just a thrifty owner!” During this period of his history, he seemed to combine the most characteristic features of other landowners: they learned how to manage things from him, like Sobakevich, he was an exemplary family man, like Manilov, and busy, like Korobochka. However, already at this stage of his life, Plyushkin is compared to a spider: “... everywhere, everything included the keen gaze of the owner and, like a hardworking spider, ran... along all ends of his economic web.” Entangled in the networks of the “economic web,” Plyushkin completely forgets about his own soul and that of others. It is not for nothing that the observant Chichikov, in a conversation with him, hastens to replace the words “virtue” and “rare qualities of the soul” with “economy” and “order.”
Plyushkin’s moral degradation occurs not so much due to biographical reasons (the death of his wife, the flight of his eldest daughter, the disobedience of his son, and finally the death of his last daughter), but because “human feelings,” which ... were not deep in him, became shallow every minute, and every Every day something was lost in this worn-out ruin.
Gogol sees the reason for Plyushkin’s spiritual devastation in indifference to his own soul. The author's reasoning about the gradual cooling and hardening of the human soul, with which he opens the chapter about Plyushkin, is sad.
The image of Plyushkin completes the gallery of provincial landowners. He represents the last stage of moral decline. Why is it not Manilov, not Sobakevich, not Korobochka who are called by the terrible Gogolian word “a hole in humanity”, but namely Plyushkin? On the one hand, Gogol considers Plyushkin as a unique phenomenon, exceptional in Russian life. On the other hand, he is similar to the heroes of the poem in his lack of spirituality, pettiness of interests, lack of deep feelings and sublimity of thoughts. Among the “dead inhabitants, terrible with the motionless coldness of their souls and the emptiness of their hearts.” Plyushkin takes his rightful place as the logical conclusion of the process of dehumanization of man. It is known that Gogol cherished the dream of the possibility of “resurrecting” such dead souls through the power of moral preaching. But Gogol’s great Tragedy consisted, according to Yu. Aikhenvald, in the fact that the creation of “beautiful and simple images... the creation of human greatness is not given to him. Here he is not a creator, here he is powerless.”

Plyushkin is the image of a moldy cracker left over from Easter cake. Only he has a life story; Gogol portrays all other landowners statically. These heroes seem to have no past that would be in any way different from their present and explain something about it. Plyushkin's character is much more complex than the characters of other landowners presented in Dead Souls.
Traits of manic stinginess are combined in Plyushkin with morbid suspicion and distrust of people. Saving an old sole, a clay shard, a nail or a horseshoe, he turns all his wealth into dust and ashes: thousands of pounds of bread rot, many canvases, cloth, sheepskins, wood, and dishes are lost. Caring for an insignificant detail, showing penniless stinginess, he loses hundreds and thousands, throwing away his fortune, ruining his family and home, the family estate.
The image of Plyushkin fully corresponds to the picture of his estate, which appears before the reader. The same decay and decomposition, the absolute loss of the human image: the owner of the noble estate looks like an old woman-housekeeper.
“But there was a time when he was just a thrifty owner!” During this period of his history, he seemed to combine the most characteristic features of other landowners: they learned how to manage things from him, like Sobakevich, he was an exemplary family man, like Manilov, and busy, like Korobochka. However, already at this stage of his life, Plyushkin is compared to a spider: “... everywhere, everything included the keen gaze of the owner and, like a hardworking spider, ran... along all ends of his economic web.” Entangled in the networks of the “economic web,” Plyushkin completely forgets about his own soul and that of others. It is not for nothing that the observant Chichikov, in a conversation with him, hastens to replace the words “virtue” and “rare qualities of the soul” with “economy” and “order.”
Plyushkin’s moral degradation occurs not so much due to biographical reasons (the death of his wife, the flight of his eldest daughter, the disobedience of his son, and finally the death of his last daughter), but because “human feelings,” which ... were not deep in him, became shallow every minute, and every Every day something was lost in this worn-out ruin.
Gogol sees the reason for Plyushkin’s spiritual devastation in indifference to his own soul. The author's reasoning about the gradual cooling and hardening of the human soul, with which he opens the chapter about Plyushkin, is sad.
The image of Plyushkin completes the gallery of provincial landowners. He represents the last stage of moral decline. Why is it not Manilov, not Sobakevich, not Korobochka who are called by the terrible Gogolian word “a hole in humanity”, but namely Plyushkin? On the one hand, Gogol considers Plyushkin as a unique phenomenon, exceptional in Russian life. On the other hand, he is similar to the heroes of the poem in his lack of spirituality, pettiness of interests, lack of deep feelings and sublimity of thoughts. Among the “dead inhabitants, terrible with the motionless coldness of their souls and the emptiness of their hearts.” Plyushkin takes his rightful place as the logical conclusion of the process of dehumanization of man. It is known that Gogol cherished the dream of the possibility of “resurrecting” such dead souls through the power of moral preaching. But Gogol’s great Tragedy consisted, according to Yu. Aikhenvald, in the fact that the creation of “beautiful and simple images... the creation of human greatness is not given to him. Here he is not a creator, here he is powerless.”

Plyushkin is the image of a moldy cracker left over from Easter cake. Only he has a life story; Gogol portrays all other landowners statically. These heroes seem to have no past that would be in any way different from their present and explain something about it. Plyushkin's character is much more complex than the characters of other landowners presented in Dead Souls. Traits of manic stinginess are combined in Plyushkin with morbid suspicion and distrust of people. Saving an old sole, a clay shard, a nail or a horseshoe, he turns all his wealth into dust and ashes: thousands of pounds of bread rot, many canvases, cloth, sheepskins, wood, and dishes are lost. Caring for an insignificant detail, showing penniless stinginess, he loses hundreds and thousands, throwing away his fortune, ruining his family and home, the family estate. The image of Plyushkin fully corresponds to the picture of his estate, which appears before the reader. The same decay and decomposition, the absolute loss of the human image: the owner of the noble estate looks like an old woman-housekeeper. But there was a time when he was just a thrifty owner! During this period of his history, he seemed to combine the most characteristic features of other landowners: they learned how to manage things from him, like Sobakevich, he was an exemplary family man, like Manilov, and busy, like Korobochka. However, already at this stage of his life, Plyushkin is compared to a spider: ... everywhere, in everything, the keen gaze of the owner entered and, like a hardworking spider, he ran ... along all ends of his economic web. Entangled in the networks of the economic web, Plyushkin completely forgets about his own soul and that of others. It is not for nothing that the observant Chichikov, in a conversation with him, hastens to replace the words virtue and rare qualities of the soul with economy and order. Plyushkin’s moral degradation occurs not so much due to biographical reasons (the death of his wife, the flight of his eldest daughter, the disobedience of his son, and finally the death of his last daughter), but because human feelings, which ... were not deep in him, became shallow every minute, and every day that Something was lost in this worn-out ruin.

Gogol sees the reason for Plyushkin’s spiritual devastation in indifference to his own soul. The author's reasoning about the gradual cooling and hardening of the human soul, with which he opens the chapter about Plyushkin, is sad.

The image of Plyushkin completes the gallery of provincial landowners. He represents the last stage of moral decline. Why is it not Manilov, not Sobakevich, not Korobochka who are called by Gogol’s terrible word, a hole in humanity, but Plyushkin? On the one hand, Gogol considers Plyushkin as a unique phenomenon, exceptional in Russian life. On the other hand, he is similar to the heroes of the poem in his lack of spirituality, pettiness of interests, lack of deep feelings and sublimity of thoughts. In a row of dead inhabitants, terrible with the motionless coldness of their souls and the emptiness of their hearts. Plyushkin takes his rightful place as the logical conclusion of the process of dehumanization of man. It is known that Gogol cherished the dream of the possibility of resurrecting such dead souls through the power of moral preaching. But Gogol’s great Tragedy consisted, according to Yu. Aikhenvald, in the fact that the creation of beautiful and simple images... the creation of human greatness was not given to him. Here he is not a creator, here he is powerless.

« Artistic detail and her role in creating the image of Plyushkin"

Composition

Plyushkin is the image of a moldy cracker left over from Easter cake. Only he has a life story; Gogol portrays all other landowners statically. These heroes seem to have no past that would be in any way different from their present and explain something about it. Plyushkin's character is much more complex than the characters of other landowners presented in Dead Souls.
Traits of manic stinginess are combined in Plyushkin with morbid suspicion and distrust of people. Saving an old sole, a clay shard, a nail or a horseshoe, he turns all his wealth into dust and ashes: thousands of pounds of bread rot, many canvases, cloth, sheepskins, wood, and dishes are lost. Caring for an insignificant detail, showing penniless stinginess, he loses hundreds and thousands, throwing away his fortune, ruining his family and home, the family estate.
The image of Plyushkin fully corresponds to the picture of his estate, which appears before the reader. The same decay and decomposition, the absolute loss of the human image: the owner of the noble estate looks like an old woman-housekeeper.
“But there was a time when he was just a thrifty owner!” During this period of his history, he seemed to combine the most characteristic features of other landowners: they learned how to manage things from him, like Sobakevich, he was an exemplary family man, like Manilov, and busy, like Korobochka. However, already at this stage of his life, Plyushkin is compared to a spider: “... everywhere, everything included the keen gaze of the owner and, like a hardworking spider, ran... along all ends of his economic web.” Entangled in the networks of the “economic web,” Plyushkin completely forgets about his own soul and that of others. It is not for nothing that the observant Chichikov, in a conversation with him, hastens to replace the words “virtue” and “rare qualities of the soul” with “economy” and “order.”
Plyushkin’s moral degradation occurs not so much due to biographical reasons (the death of his wife, the flight of his eldest daughter, the disobedience of his son, and finally the death of his last daughter), but because “human feelings,” which ... were not deep in him, became shallow every minute, and every Every day something was lost in this worn-out ruin.
Gogol sees the reason for Plyushkin’s spiritual devastation in indifference to his own soul. The author's reasoning about the gradual cooling and hardening of the human soul, with which he opens the chapter about Plyushkin, is sad.
The image of Plyushkin completes the gallery of provincial landowners. He represents the last stage of moral decline. Why is it not Manilov, not Sobakevich, not Korobochka who are called by the terrible Gogolian word “a hole in humanity”, but namely Plyushkin? On the one hand, Gogol considers Plyushkin as a unique phenomenon, exceptional in Russian life. On the other hand, he is similar to the heroes of the poem in his lack of spirituality, pettiness of interests, lack of deep feelings and sublimity of thoughts. Among the “dead inhabitants, terrible with the motionless coldness of their souls and the emptiness of their hearts.” Plyushkin takes his rightful place as the logical conclusion of the process of dehumanization of man. It is known that Gogol cherished the dream of the possibility of “resurrecting” such dead souls through the power of moral preaching. But Gogol’s great Tragedy consisted, according to Yu. Aikhenvald, in the fact that the creation of “beautiful and simple images... the creation of human greatness is not given to him. Here he is not a creator, here he is powerless.”