Essay on the topic “Female images of Ostrovsky”

Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky in his works revealed events taking place in the nineteenth century through female images. His heroines most often personify the prism through which a large number of conflicts, both social and public, pass. Women in the plays appear to readers as living personifications of the era and the vices and ideals reigning in it. At the same time, as a rule, heroines are not ready to accept the injustice or dirt of society that is imposed on them by everyone around them. On the contrary, women are ready to fiercely defend their individuality, their own ideals and purity.
If you remember the play “The Thunderstorm” by A.N. Ostrovsky, it contains a large number of colorful female characters, each of which is unique and attractive to the reader in its own way. Katerina is a young girl, inspired by her ideals, who recently got married. In her mind, marriage was a great joy. She passionately wanted to become a wife and mother; for her this would be the greatest happiness. But when her dream came true and she married Tikhon, the harsh reality sobered her up. She does not feel those feelings of love for her husband that she was waiting for. But then Boris appears. In it, Katerina finds a response to her ardent feelings. Finally, what she had dreamed of happened. She met her love. However, the tragedy is that the heroine cannot be with him. Betrayal and remorse lead Katerina to despair. For the sake of love, she sacrificed her previously unshakable principles. But this did not give her happiness either. She sees no point in further existence, and decides to commit suicide.
Varvara appears completely different in the play “The Thunderstorm”. Her image is more resourceful, cunning and far-sighted. For her, marriage is not a sublime and romantic union of two loving hearts, but an excellent deal to get out from under the yoke of a tyrant mother who controls absolutely everything in the house. Varvara is the complete opposite of Katerina. In my opinion, these two images are placed so close to each other in the play specifically to show readers what could have become of Catherine if she had acted differently, more cunningly, and indulged all the whims and desires of Kabanikha. Thus, with such behavior, Catherine would turn into Varvara. This very thoughtful move is used by Ostrovsky not only in the play “The Thunderstorm”.
A slightly different situation is played out in the play "Dowry". The main character in it is Larisa Ogudalova. For her, marriage is also a successful deal that would ensure her a comfortable existence. Her fate is also not very successful. The man she loved abandoned her and disappeared in an unknown direction. Therefore, she decides to marry the first person who wooes her. It turns out that he is not a particularly rich tradesman Karandyshev. He is happy that Larisa finally responded to his advances with consent, because the hero has been trying to get her attention for a long time, but to no avail. The wedding should take place very soon, but all plans are disrupted by the arrival of Paratov, Larisa’s unhappy love. He gives her a lot of promises and hopes for a better future, which he has no intention of fulfilling. But the heroine trusts him again and succumbs to temptation. Karandyshev finds out about this and is going to take terrible revenge. Shooting his beloved girl Larisa ends both her and his own shame. She accepts death with gratitude, because it would be very difficult to survive such a shame.
So, Ostrovsky’s female images are very diverse, but one certainly cannot help but empathize with them and cannot help but admire them.

Vivid female characters in the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"

A.N. Ostrovsky is not only a wonderful playwright, but also a true innovator in the field of plays. No one before him had examined the merchant environment, its characters, types, and destinies in such a multifaceted way.

Ostrovsky introduced the problem of the “dark kingdom” into Russian literature. He showed that behind the walls of handsome merchant houses, lawlessness, tyranny, and cruelty were happening. Here young lives and destinies are ruined, any attempts to bring something new, free, and individual into life are suppressed.

It is especially difficult for women in this atmosphere. One of the most striking and famous female images of A.N. Ostrovsky is Katerina, the main character of the play “The Thunderstorm”. This is a young woman who ended up in the Kabanovs’ house after marrying the weak-willed Tikhon. In her husband’s family, Katerina encountered an abyss of misunderstanding, rejection, and the atmosphere of the “dark kingdom.” All this oppresses her, but Katerina endures it because she considers it her duty and God’s providence.

There is another young woman in the Kabanovs’ house – Tikhon’s sister Varvara. She is also oppressed by the atmosphere in the family, the tyranny of her mother, and the weak-willedness of her brother. But despite all their external similarities, Varvara and Katerina are strikingly different from each other.

As you know, a person learns the basis of his nature from childhood. Therefore, it is important to remember that these heroines grew up in completely different families. Katerina grew up in a patriarchal but loving family: “I lived without worrying about anything, like a bird in the wild. Mama doted on me, dressed me up like a doll, and didn’t force me to work; I used to do whatever I want.” An atmosphere of goodness, light, understanding, love for God and people reigned in the heroine’s house. The girl grew up freedom-loving. The ideal of family was firmly established in her head. The heroine dreamed of a loving husband who would become her support and protection. In addition, Katerina could not imagine her life without a large number of children. The main thing in life for her was peace and harmony in the family.

Varvara was born and raised in the Kabanikha family. Their family is one of the most respected and influential in Kalinov. Therefore, the heroine always had to fit in. This meant that in the eyes of the entire city she had to live according to the laws of Domostroy. But for a young girl such a life was tantamount to voluntary slavery. Having a fairly cheerful character, Varvara could not exist like that.

Thus, both heroines are faced with a choice: to live, obeying the laws of the “dark kingdom” and ruining their soul, or to try to live in their own way. Katerina and Varvara each solve this problem in their own way. Katerina tries to obey the laws of Domostroy, because they correspond to her internal laws. She feels obligated to love her husband, please her mother-in-law, and do housework. Therefore, Katerina regards her love for Boris as an irredeemable sin.

Varvara only outwardly observes the laws of the “dark kingdom.” But in fact, these laws do not correspond to her internal ideas about life. Therefore, since childhood, the heroine has become accustomed to lying, dodging, concealing and, ultimately, adapting. She herself speaks about this: “Our house rests on this. And I wasn’t a liar, but I learned when it became necessary.” Varvara will never protest openly. But she will always do what she wants.

So, the heroine indulges her whim to walk with Curly. At night she secretly leaves home and returns only in the morning.

Each of the heroines has a lover. Katerina, unfortunately, is not her husband, but Boris, Dikiy’s nephew. The heroine resists this forbidden feeling for a long time, denies her obvious love for Boris Grigorievich. But when Tikhon leaves home for a long time, Katerina, succumbing to Varvara’s persuasion, goes on a date with Dikiy’s nephew. In this regard, the episode with the key is very important. In this scene, not just two heroines come into confrontation, but their worldviews, their theories regarding truth, honesty, righteousness. Varvara’s theory - do whatever you want, as long as everything is “sealed and covered” - prevails over Katerina’s desire to remain faithful to herself and her moral ideals. Katerina goes on a date with Boris, becomes his mistress and betrays herself. From this moment on, a split occurs in the heroine’s inner world. Now she has no peace anywhere. No one except Varvara knows about her betrayal, there is no one to condemn her, but Katerina condemns and punishes herself. A woman cannot live with such a heavy burden on her heart. Upon her husband’s arrival, she confesses everything to Tikhon and Kabanikha and commits suicide.

I think that Varvara is largely to blame for the death of the heroine, because it was she who pushed Katerina to betrayal. But she proceeded from her life ideas. I think Varvara never loved anyone. She is not capable of sacrificing her life for love. For this heroine, she herself, her desires and whims, come first. Varvara is unfamiliar with life “according to God’s laws”; she even loves for herself, not knowing how to give or sacrifice. Therefore, she will never suffer the same fate as Katerina.

In the play “The Thunderstorm” the reader gets acquainted with two bright female characters. Both heroines suffer in the atmosphere of the “dark kingdom,” but each has their own path in life, because each of them has their own life basis, their own “inner core.” Katerina dies, unable to withstand the internal discord, and Varvara... I think this heroine will sooner or later leave her parents’ home and live simply for herself, for her own pleasure.

Being in many ways a turning point for Russian society as a whole, the 19th century brought many fundamental changes to all areas of public life. Since this process could not but be very significant for the Russian people, there was a need to attract public attention to it. Literature took on this function. To raise the most pressing issues of our time, many bright, colorful characters were created. It should be noted that the works were traditionally dominated by male images, reflecting the most socially active representatives of society of that time. However, if you pay attention to the works of many Russian classics, starting with Fonvizin and Griboyedov, it is impossible not to notice their interest in depicting female images. Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky was no exception. On the contrary, he created a whole series of very expressive female characters, capable, according to Goncharov, of “thinking, speaking and acting as they think, speak and act themselves,” each of which is deeply typical and at the same time individual and valuable in itself.
It is not difficult to note that in general, family and everyday conflicts predominate in Ostrovsky’s work, in which the dominant role is played not by a man, but by a woman. The underlying motive here is often the confrontation between old and new. Usually it is expressed by a conflict between a strong, despotic woman of the older generation and a young, socially helpless girl (a kind of motive for the relationship between the “executioner and the victim”). This situation is typical for both Ostrovsky’s comedy “The Forest” and his drama “The Thunderstorm”.
It should be emphasized that in the comedy “Forest” this conflict is revealed in a more simplified form (compared to “The Thunderstorm”). The older generation is represented here by Gurmyzhskaya. Ostrovsky creates a very colorful image of a wealthy landowner, who once shone in the world, now living in the provinces. As one of the most eloquent characteristics, the author cites her imaginary penchant for charity. According to her, she is only “a clerk with her money, and the owner of it is every poor, every unfortunate person.” Gurmyzhskaya is a characteristic type of heroine, representing a noble version of the “tyrant” principle, so fully revealed by Ostrovsky in “The Thunderstorm”. In the comedy “The Forest” this motive is not expressed so clearly. Gurmyzhskaya lives with the knowledge of her former life and does not want to part with it. To do this, she discharges a dropout high school student, Bulanov, from St. Petersburg. Ostrovsky very clearly paints a grotesque-comedy image of a careerist and “survivor”. Gurmyzhskaya falls in love with him, and Aksyusha becomes her “opponent,” according to Strakhov, “an honest and mentally strong girl,” but in many ways inferior to Katerina from “The Thunderstorm,” despite the fact that parallels in the construction of the image are clearly visible. For example, she also lives under the patronage of a strong, powerful woman, and also falls in love with a young man who is under the command of her father and completely dependent on him (it’s hard not to remember Boris and Dikiy from “The Thunderstorm”); finally, she also strives for personal freedom, for independent self-determination. However, despite some deeply meaningful psychological sketches (for example, her conversation with Peter, in which she admits: “I have no tears, and there is no great melancholy, but, I tell you, my heart is empty here”), the image is much more simplified, devoid of the deep psychological analysis characteristic of Ostrovsky in “The Thunderstorm”. N.A. Dobrolyubov points out that “he does not punish either the villain or the victim.” Indeed, neither Gurmyzhskaya with Bulanov, nor Aksyusha with Peter and other heroes receive a harsh assessment: Ostrovsky draws the readers’ attention not to specific heroes, but to the social types that they represent.
The same situation can be seen in “The Thunderstorm”, but here a much more detailed construction of the psychological portrait is evident. The local nobility gives way in this case to the merchants. The role of Gurmyzhskaya is played by Kabanikha, “a typical tyrant of Russian life.”
This is a very colorful figure, symbolizing one of the most significant parts of the “dark kingdom” and speaking on behalf of patriarchal principles. She represents the impersonal “we”, the old order, doomed to destruction even in such a “backwater” city of Kalinov, where it still has sufficient strength. The new time frightens Kabanikha, she senses the changes, notices that “they don’t really respect elders these days,” and tries in every way to support Her authority. Ostrovsky emphasizes that she is not doing this out of malice, that her trouble is that she sincerely believes that young people “don’t know anything, have no order” and that “it’s good that those who have elders in the house, they the house lasts as long as you live.” Just like Gurmyzhskaya, Kabanikha has a strongly developed motive of imaginary charity, she welcomes “strangers, shows them favors,” listens to their words, while at the same time keeping her family in strictness and obedience.
The main character of “The Thunderstorm,” Katerina, finds herself in such conditions. This is an incomparably more complex (compared to Aksyusha) image, causing a lot of controversy in Russian criticism. Due to its deep internal contradictions, modern critics tend to highlight the “light and dark sides of Katerina’s soul.” The “bright side” includes her poetry and romanticism, sincere religiosity, as well as her “complete opposition to all tyrant principles.” Ostrovsky draws an example of a “female energetic character.” Although not particularly educated and striving for high ideals, Katerina has a strong sense of inner freedom. Any attempts to impose any restrictions on her turn all her strength and energy into protest. And here the “dark side” of her soul is revealed, indicating her connection with the “dark kingdom”. Although, according to Dobrolyubov, “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, never dissatisfied, loving to destroy at any cost,” she nevertheless becomes a slave to her emotions. Her wounded pride and offended self-esteem come to the fore, pushing her onto the sinful path of adultery. It should be noted that, despite her great social dependence, in Ostrovsky it is the woman who plays the leading role in the love triangle, and the lover does not always correspond to the deep inner decency of the heroine. This situation is observed both in “The Thunderstorm” and in “The Forest”. Actually, Katerina’s love for Boris is part of a protest against the growing oppression of the “dark kingdom”, a short-term consolation for her. However, having become completely confused in the current situation, she acutely feels the need for liberation and, being an idealist at heart, sees it only in death. Ostrovsky emphasizes that this is the only way out in this case, emphasizing this with the words of Boris: “Only one thing should be asked of God, that she die as soon as possible, so that she does not suffer for a long time!”, and also with a short but expressive remark from Tikhon, pronounced over the dead Katerina: “Good for you, Katya!”
Speaking about the image of Katerina, one cannot fail to mention the figure of Varvara, who here performs the function of a carefree, flighty soubrette. Ostrovsky deliberately pushes the reader to compare these two images, focusing even more on the positive traits of the main character. “You’re kind of tricky, God be with you!” - says Varvara, favorably highlighting this “wisdom” with her frivolity and, although practical, but superficial “grip”. If we turn to the comedy “The Forest”, here the role of the soubrette is played by Julitta, Turmyzhskaya’s housekeeper, but she is by no means an antipode, but, on the contrary, a double of her ardent and amorous mistress, she is also possessed by dreams (“So sometimes she finds something like a cloud,” - admitted). Gurmyzhskaya’s love affair with Bulanov is emphasized by Ulita’s love for Schastlivtsev.
Quite a few female images in Ostrovsky are satirical and grotesque in nature. In the comedy “The Forest”, according to the laws of the genre, this applies to all characters; As for “The Thunderstorm,” here it was the satirical female images that were one of the expressions of the comedy principle. This includes the wanderer Feklusha and the “girl” Glasha. Both images can be safely called grotesque-comedy. Feklusha seems to be a storyteller of folk tales and legends, pleasing those around her with her stories about how “the Saltans rule the earth” and “no matter what they judge, everything is wrong,” and about the lands “where all the people have dog heads.” Glasha is a typical reflection of ordinary “Kalinovites” who listen with reverence to such Feklush, confident that “it’s still good that there are good people; no, no, and you’ll hear what’s going on in this world, otherwise you’d die like a fool.” Both Feklusha and Glasha belong to the “dark kingdom,” dividing this world into “theirs” and “theirs,” into patriarchal “virtue,” where everything is “cool and orderly,” and into external vanity, from which the old order and time begin “to come into humiliation.” With these characters, Ostrovsky introduces the problem of the absurd ignorance and lack of enlightenment of the old conservative way of life, its inconsistency with modern trends.
Thus, summing up all of the above, it should be emphasized that, firmly aware of all the changes and trends in society, Ostrovsky was nevertheless opposed to the ideas of violent changes and saw his educational activities in a rather traditional aspect: in moral re-education, exposing vice, the discovery of the virtue of simple and eternal values ​​of life. And an important role in revealing this topic was played by the characters so precisely selected and “written out” by him, including female ones, as dominant in many of his plays, including “The Thunderstorm” and “The Forest.” It was their presence that made possible such plot devices as the conflict between the old and new generations, the confrontation or, on the contrary, the union of a strong, thoughtful personality and carefree but practical staff, the introduction of comedic and grotesque images and much more, which ultimately ensured the completion of the task and made Ostrovsky one of the most outstanding Russian playwrights of the 19th century.

1. Features of Ostrovsky’s creativity.
2. The image of Kabanikha in the play “The Thunderstorm”.
3. Varvara, daughter of Kabanikha.
4. Katerina, Kabanikha’s daughter-in-law.

A. N. Ostrovsky wrote several dozen plays during his life, and in all these works, as in a mirror, certain aspects of life contemporary with the author were reflected. But did Ostrovsky write only about his time? Undoubtedly, the flavor of his plays belongs to a certain time, but the characters of the people fundamentally remain unchanged. Is this why the playwright’s plays sound so modern today? The formidable figure of the tyrant owner (or mistress), towering over the trembling household members, calculation, equally reigning both in the business sphere and in the field of feelings, human relationships, the suffering of an exalted soul and the torment of petty egoism... All this eternal flickering of human life is watched closely the gaze of a master who was sometimes able to convey the features of a particular character with a few strokes.

Many of Ostrovsky’s works are dedicated to the life of the merchant class, whose life the playwright recreated with amazing accuracy and brightness. In other plays, Ostrovsky showed the life of a noble estate, the vicissitudes of an actor's existence. The playwright's attention was also attracted by the description of women's destinies - in his plays he showed many memorable, unique female characters. As an example of a bright female image in Ostrovsky’s work, the image of Katerina from the play “The Thunderstorm” is often cited. However, in this play there are other bright female characters - these are Katerina’s mother-in-law, Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova, the formidable Kabanikha, and Kabanikha’s daughter, Varvara.

When analyzing these images, we must remember that they are all products of the same environment. To better understand the essence of each character, it is advisable to compare them. From the text of the play it is clear that life in Kabanova’s house and in Katerina’s parental home was practically no different. When Katerina talks about her childhood, Varvara remarks: “But it’s the same with us.” It is easy to imagine that the stern Kabanikha herself in her youth, just like Katerina, endured her mother-in-law’s barbs. The tyrannical rule that Kabanikha established in her house, remaining a widow and becoming a full-fledged mistress, is the embodiment of her desire for freedom. Kabanikha herself most likely does not even suspect this - she is sincerely convinced that she cares about the happiness of her son and daughter-in-law, that everything goes as usual for them, as it should be with good people. Kabanikha is not without positive traits when it comes to communicating with people who are not members of her family. She cordially welcomes wanderers and pilgrims into her home, and talks judiciously with the tyrant Dikiy, whom almost all of his household are afraid of. Kabanikha can rightfully be called an integral nature - she is devoid of painful internal contradictions, on the contrary, she is convinced that her way of behavior is the only correct one. It would seem that the life of Kabanikha, who does not encounter open resistance to her power, enjoys the advantages of wealth and external manifestations of respect and obedience of others, can be called an enviable fate. But the indestructible power of Kabanikha is overshadowed by the shadows of the future - the apocalyptic ghosts of an inevitable catastrophe.

Fantastic stories of wanderers about the machinations of evil spirits are intertwined in the imagination of a rich merchant's wife with obvious signs of weakening Domostroevsky traditions. A departure from antiquity, according to Kabanikha, is the first step towards the abyss. “But they, too, are stupid, want to do their own thing,” Kabanikha laments, thinking about her son and daughter-in-law. In essence, Kabanikha’s idea is not without meaning - living with your own mind is also not so easy, and Tikhon, Kabanikha’s son, does not have the necessary skills for this. But daughter Varvara turns out to be able to independently make significant decisions and implement her plans. Varvara, despite her youth, had a good understanding of how to behave in her parents’ house in order to avoid unnecessary troubles: “...Do whatever you want, as long as it’s sewn and covered.” Varvara’s prudence and practicality are constantly evident. She, like her mother, is an integral nature, and her reaction to events is manifested primarily in action, and not in reflection. Varvara is able to sensibly evaluate the people around her, primarily her loved ones and their relationships. The girl understands how hard life is for Katerina and tries to support her in her own way. sympathizes with her. Varvara understood without words that Katerina does not love Tikhon, “... and there’s no reason to,” the girl impartially notes, knowing what her brother is like. Varvara is very observant - by subtle signs she guessed who Katerina loved.

So, the lively participation that Varvara shows towards Katerina manifests itself in an active way. It is interesting to note: Katerina is trying to tell the girl about her doubts, but the interlocutor does not take them too seriously: “What a desire to dry up! Even if you die of melancholy, they will feel sorry for you! Well, just wait. So what a shame it is to torture yourself!” Varvara’s active nature quickly finds an opportunity to arrange dates without interference - both hers with Kudryash, and with Katerina and Boris. In practical matters, Varvara is an indispensable assistant. But as for the internal contradictions tearing apart Katerina’s soul, Varvara cannot help here simply because she herself is devoid of such hesitations. Having determined her line of behavior, Varvara confidently follows her chosen path. Her escape with Curly is only one of the steps. Having walked “at their own free will,” they will most likely get married and live happily ever after. It is quite possible that over time Varvara will reproduce some of her mother's behavior. Kabanikha’s imperious spirit can already be discerned in her daughter. But Varvara acts differently: she does not rudely force, but cleverly takes advantage of the human weaknesses of those around her - this is how she forced Katerina to take the key to the garden gate, this is how she lured the weak-willed Boris to the meeting place.

Varvara’s character combines various qualities; she has many truly good traits. However, it should be noted that the false atmosphere of her parents’ home forever left its mark on her soul. “...Do whatever you want, as long as it’s done well”—this is Varvara’s hypocritical worldly wisdom, unconsciously borrowed from her mother, who “out of the appearance of piety” tyrannizes her family.

The tragedy of Katerina, who, following Dobrolyubov, is often called “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” lies not only in the fact that she fell under the power of her mother-in-law. Katerina’s main problem is that, unlike Kabanikha and Varvara, she is not able to choose for herself a line of behavior that she herself would consider correct. Katerina believes that she must remain faithful to her husband, and does not have enough fortitude for this, she longs for a meeting with Boris, but instead of joy, these meetings bring her new torment. Oddly enough, upon closer examination one can detect some similarities between Katerina and Kabanikha, primarily in their premonitions, full of drama. But if Kabanikha’s gloomy forebodings concern the fate of the world and are directed outward, then Katerina’s forebodings concern her own fate and are directed inward. The thought is material: Kabanikha’s premonitions are embodied by the collapse of the values ​​of “Domostroy” and the “shame” that Katerina brought upon the family. Katerina’s premonitions also come true - after all, she herself actively contributed to this.

* This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualification work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information intended for use as a source of material for independent preparation of educational works.

A.N. Ostrovsky spent a very long time looking for the main characters of his plays “The Thunderstorm” and “Dowry.” He went through many options, he needed a hero who would at the same time evoke in the reader: contempt, pity, delight and sympathy. And as they say, “those who seek will always find,” so Ostrovsky found what he wanted. And it seems to me that it was not for nothing that he chose the main characters so carefully, since they really fit these roles, even if it was the main character of the story “thunderstorm” - Katerina, or the main character of the story “dowry” - Larisa. They are both very interesting characters, to some extent they are even very similar, but it is impossible to say that they are the same, because they are not.

In the story “Thunderstorm,” the main character Katerina had a hard time taking into account. Yes, at the beginning we see a faithful wife who loves her husband, one might even say daughter-in-law, who is trying to find have a common language with my husband’s mother, i.e. with my mother-in-law. But then, when we begin to learn more and more new things about Katerina, we begin to understand that she does not love her husband at all, she remains faithful only because she knows that it is her duty. And she tries not to conflict with her mother-in-law just so that it will be at least a little easier for her to live in a house where there are only scandals, and which, of course, did not pass without the presence of her grumpy mother-in-law Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova.

And so we see that Katerina seems to find her happiness and fall in love. But even here she cannot be happy, since she is married and there can be no talk of anything like that. But still she goes against the rules and cheats on her husband with a young man, Boris Grigorievich. We also see that Katerina could not live with such a sin in her soul, and publicly admitted her betrayal. Of course, almost no one understood her and treated her with contempt. Out of shame, she wants to leave with Boris, whom she loves, but he refuses her and leaves alone. And Katerina decides to commit suicide and jumps off a cliff.

As for the story “The Dowry,” it is easier for the main character Larisa, since she is not married and is a completely free girl. But for some reason this does not stop her from ruining her life, at least by the fact that she gives consent to marriage to someone whom she does not love at all. And she loves her ex-fiancé Paratov, who left her and left. And he returned only when Larisa was almost a married girl. And as you might guess, of course it ruins the lives of both Larisa and her fiancé Karandyshev. Paratov deceives the naive Larisa, one might even say he simply uses her as a toy. And of course he leaves her and is not at all going to marry her, as he promised her earlier. And she remains alone, unhappy and deceived. Since Larisa cheated on her fiancé, she now cannot return to him, and besides, Karandyshev himself already knows about everything and is in anger looking for Paratov and Larisa. A Larisa, meanwhile, in despair approaches the cliff and wants to commit suicide, but does not dare to do so, and exclaims: “As if someone would kill me now...” And some minutes pass and her desire comes true. Or more precisely, Larisa dies at the hands of her deceived fiancé Karandyshev.

And so, personally, I think that the plays “THE STORM” and “THE MESS” are not so similar, or rather similar only in that both main characters die tragically at the end of the plays. And so, in their very essence, these two plays are completely different and the fates of Katerina and Larisa are not at all similar.

Of course, if these events took place in our time, then perhaps the endings of plays “D” and “B” would have turned out completely differently.