Question: artistic detail and its role in creating the image of Plyushkin, essay. § Artistic detail and its role in creating the image of Plyushkin “Dead Souls”

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 painful suspicion and distrust of people. Saving old soles, 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 trifle, 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 its history, it seems to combine the most characteristic features 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, his son’s disobedience, and finally the death of his last daughter), but because human feelings, which... were not deep in it, became shallow every minute, and 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 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 logical conclusion 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.

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 trifle, 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 properties 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 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 its 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.”

Currently watching:

Folklore motifs occupy their own special niche in Lermontov’s work, although they are not talked about so often. However, in his main poem dedicated to Russia, Lermontov most “ dear to my heart» names specifically people's Russia, with its difficult, harsh, but truly Russian way of life. To antiquity and folk rituals Lermontov had a special attitude. It will be enough to note that he was brought up in the village, with his grandmother, and from then on

The most wonderful gift given to people after wisdom is friendship. La Rochefoucauld Each of us sees a good person as our friend. How do I see a true friend? First of all, he must be friendly, affable, responsive - after all, people so need kindness, unselfishness, and attention. A true friend should be a master of his word, have modern views on life, and be able to defend his point of view. I also want a person

During this summer I visited different cities and even countries! But most of all I liked it in the south in Turkey. This sound of the sea and the reflection of water in the sun... Hot sand, blue sky... The taste of salt water in your mouth... And small bulls that gently touch your feet... In the evenings when the sun set, the sky looked like the flame of a dragon. And in the evenings it was strewn with stars... Once during the day there was a downpour, but even that was beautiful. I've never seen a taco

In “The Enchanted Wanderer,” like no other work by Leskov, the intricate attitude to the world characteristic of Russian people is highlighted. The simple speech of Ivan Severyanovich Flyagin hides the powerful life-affirming nature of the daring wanderer. All his life he autocratically tests his fate, with God's help overcoming his autocracy, humbling his pride, but without losing his self-esteem, spiritual

“... One of the most powerful impulses leading to art and science is the desire to get away from everyday life with its painful cruelty and inconsolable emptiness, to get away from the bonds of the ever-changing whims of one's own... But to this negative reason is added a positive one. A person strives... to create in himself a simple and clear picture of the world; and this is not only in order to overcome the world in which he lives, but also in order to, to a certain extent, try

Roman F.M. Dostoevsky is a “psychological report of a crime,” a crime committed by the poor student Radion Raskolnikov, who killed an old pawnbroker. However, the novel is about an unusual criminal crime. This, so to speak, is an ideological crime, and the perpetrator his is a criminal-thinker, a killer-philosopher. He killed the moneylender not in the name of enrichment and not even in order to help his loved ones

Lermontov's creativity is usually divided into two stages: early (1829 - 1836) and mature (1837 - 1841). A sharp turning point in Lermontov’s work and fate was determined by the poem “The Death of a Poet” (1837) - an angry response to the death of A.S. Pushkin in January 1837. Poems condemning not only the murderer, but also the court nobility - the culprit of the tragedy - were distributed throughout Russia. Lermontov was ill when news of Pushkin's death became known. Do neg

Text. According to Yu. Bondarev (1) We were then twenty years old and forty at the same time. (2) We dreamed of returning to that pre-war world where the sun seemed to us like a festive sun, rising on the earth every day according to its own pattern; grass was grass meant to grow, to be green; lanterns - in order to illuminate the dry April sidewalk, the evening crowd of people walking, in which you, eighteen years old, tanned, walk,

A brilliant artist, one of the founders of Russian realism, the author of the most remarkable work of Russian verse drama - the immortal comedy “Woe from Wit”, A. S. Griboyedov is near and dear to us as a leading figure and thinker of his time, who had a deep and fruitful influence on the development of national Russian culture. As a truly great national and people's writer, Griboyedov set and allowed in his work

Alexander Ivanovich Kuprin is one of the most talented Russian writers. The author has a very ambiguous attitude towards this work, since he perceived many topics in a special way, completely different from others. Kuprin had his own unique perception of love. He believed that true feeling is very rare in our lives, and not many lucky people can experience this love. I think that Kuprin was to some extent an idealist and

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 trifle, 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 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 its role in creating the image of Plyushkin essay

Answers:

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 painful 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 trifle, 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 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 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.