Reviews of the book Dubrovsky
I read the novel back in February, and today, having updated it in my head, watched the film and read several reviews, I wanted to formulate my impressions of the work.
I really liked the novel itself, I read it in one sitting, I was drawn in by the story of a robber with good intentions and the very personality of the main character.
This was one of my first books read from fiction, so I can’t yet judge and compare with other works and talk about the writing style and other points.
But I can tell you about the thoughts and conclusions that came to me while reading:
The first is, of course, the image of the main character Vladimir Dubrovsky, in him I noticed for myself the qualities and actions of a man. He does not allow others to infringe on his dignity; this is especially noticeable in his communication and clashes with Troekurov and his servants. He does not allow anyone to treat him with disrespect and talk badly about himself. He immediately shows that this will not work with him. He acts nobly, first pacifying the peasants who rush at the judges who came to take away the estate. Then interceding for Mary. And even at the end of the novel, after his beloved’s refusal to be free and his “defeat,” he gives the command to release Prince Vereisky and leaves. Although he is considered a robber, his actions are a bright man, they are fair.
And looking at the behavior and actions of Andrei Dubrovsky, I believe that he “goes too far” in defending his honor, and sometimes even acts stupidly, which leads to bad consequences for himself. First, when he snapped at Troekurov and asked to send a slave to him to punish him, which is why the whole scandal began. Then when he kicked out Kirill Petrovich, who came to him sick, to improve relations. If we analyze his actions and the consequences of these actions, we can conclude that we need to defend our honor, but we also need to think about the consequences and our benefits. And before taking any action, think carefully about what it might lead to.
You can also notice the protagonist’s amazing feeling of love for Maria, which, as we see, turns out to be stronger than the feelings of revenge and anger.
Kirill Troekurov is a traditional example of a snickering gentleman. He is greedy, arrogant, disrespectful to people. He has only one thing on his mind: money and entertainment. He acts vilely, taking away the estate from Dubrovsky in a dishonest way, throwing the French teacher to the bear, for the amusement of the guests, giving his daughter in marriage to Prince Vereisky only for his own benefit, contrary to his daughter’s happiness.
I also don’t really understand the action of Maria, who refuses to run away with Dubrovsky, saying that he didn’t have time, which means it’s “God’s will,” and she herself chooses to make the rest of her life doomed and miserable, instead of choosing a different path and running.
Conclusions: * Noble deeds, the quality of a real man * You need to defend your honor and dignity, but at the same time not be vindictive and not “go too far” * True love is stronger than feelings of revenge and anger * Do not be a victim of circumstances, thinking that unpleasant situations are “will” God”, and decide your own destiny and cling to opportunities
I would rate this book a 6, it's definitely interesting and exciting, but I can't say it's very deep or has a lot of meaning. Well, or I couldn’t find anything like that in her.
Write what you think about the book and the conclusions you made while reading it? It will also be interesting to receive feedback on my essay about the book.
What I liked about Dubrovsky’s novel briefly. Why did I like Dubrovsky’s work?
“Dubrovsky” has long been included in school curricula. It was transferred from class to class, but was not removed from the number of works to be studied. The methodological tradition in the study of “Dubrovsky” is diverse in its interpretations of the novel and methods of studying it 1 . And this is explained primarily by the fact that “Dubrovsky” is read by schoolchildren with captivating interest. The schoolchildren’s enthusiasm for the novel, the desire to think and talk about it, makes it easier for the teacher to find out the reader’s perception. The methods for doing this can be quite varied. In a class where students are more likely to express their judgments in direct conversation, you can ask them to answer a few questions orally. If children do not want to directly talk about their reading impressions and assessments, you can invite the class to look at the illustrations to “Dubrovsky” by Kustodiev and Shmarinov, think about whether this is how the artists imagined the characters, what scenes they would select for illustrations, what what these drawings would look like. In the course of such work, what is liked and what is rejected is revealed, the “focuses of attention” of students are revealed, and those parts of the work that were not noticed or were poorly perceived during the first reading are identified. However, in the fifth grade, in relation to “Dubrovsky,” there is usually no need to resort to indirect forms of clarifying perception. Fifth graders are not yet shy about their emotions. “Dubrovsky” arouses reader enthusiasm in them. For a more accurate and complete picture of the perception of the novel, a written questionnaire or essay is given immediately after reading. However, students in grades 4-6 are not always able to adequately express their thoughts and feelings as a reader in written form. Therefore, the data from questionnaires and essays can be clarified in an oral conversation, where an additional question from the teacher will help clarify the motivation for the opinion. When in ten classes of a rural and city school we asked to answer the first question of the questionnaire: “Was it interesting to read Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”? - Many students greeted him with bewilderment. “Strange people, these adults,” the students’ eyes and the subtext of their answers seemed to say. “Well, how can you read Dubrovsky without interest!” Among the 380 works collected by us, there was only one case when a student remained indifferent to Pushkin’s novel. Fifth-graders embrace the novel no less enthusiastically than 6th-graders. Declarations of love for “Dubrovsky” are passionate and decisive. In several classes, we also asked whether children stopped reading a novel or put it aside. As a rule, reading went in one breath.
“I couldn’t tear myself away, but when I had to eat or sleep, I had to.” “I was angry at everything that made me put the book down.” “The novel “Dubrovsky,” in my opinion, was written very lively and enticingly, so I did not stop out of boredom” 1 .
Mentions of re-reading also speak of attachment to Dubrovsky:
“When I first read the novel, I really liked it, I reread it many times. But after I watched the film “Dubrovsky,” my admiration diminished. I imagined heroes completely differently.”
The film adaptation of “Dubrovsky” indeed suffers from many deviations from Pushkin’s thought and plot. And how important it is that the result of the school analysis is not similar to this reaction after watching the film! The girl did not find in the film what was dear to her in the novel, and the work faded for her. The analysis should not disappoint the students' expectations. The success of the study, prepared by a passionate interest in Dubrovsky, largely depends on how the students’ reading impressions will participate in the analysis, develop and be enriched in it. In order to understand what was discovered in the novel by children during their first reading, let us take a closer look at the motives for the enthusiastic approval that accompanied the reading of Dubrovsky.
These motives are varied, and 35 percent of fifth-graders are not even aware of them, conveying the content of the novel in an indivisible manner, in the most general form. For 90 percent of students, the interest in reading is dictated by the fascination of the plot.
“It’s interesting to know the future fate of the heroes,” “the twists and turns excite me,” the actions and events captivate me.”
There are many such replicas. However, the impressions are not limited to interest in the eventful side of the work. Many people are interested in Dubrovsky because it was written by Pushkin. Students talk about the naturalness, truth of relationships and descriptions, about the expressiveness of the paintings, many of which they seemed to have seen with their own eyes.
Students are interested in the social relationships of people from a time distant from them. Although ignorance of the era makes the students’ answers naive, Pushkin’s novel for them is the discovery of unknown, “strange” social orders.
“The novel “Dubrovsky” was interesting to read. This work tells about a poor man and a rich man. Unlimited power of the rich. If a rich man wants to get something, then he can take possession of it without the right. But not all poor people are afraid of the rich; there are also brave people who value their honor more than their lives.”
“I liked that Pushkin revealed people here, on the one hand, poor, but with good traits of soul, nobility, impeccable love.”
These remarks indicate that the social issues of the novel are somehow noticed by children. At the same time, it is interesting that “Dubrovsky” enters into polemics with ideas that had previously developed on the basis of folklore works. Some students (first answer) have a noticeable desire to reduce the novel to an abstract parable about the poor and the rich. But, as a rule, opinions arise that are more specific in the historical sense. Social and moral principles are difficult to combine in Pushkin's novel. And this discovery made during the reading process needs to be supported in the upcoming analysis. Children feel, albeit vaguely and unconsciously, the tragic tone of the novel, the contradictory nature of life depicted by Pushkin 1 .
“I liked the novel Dubrovsky. At least in the style of his writing. I liked the fact that it doesn’t end, as many stories often end: “Good conquers evil,” and everything is fine. The novel reflects all the qualities of the Russian people: kindness, dedication, and most importantly, devotion.”
A correct general assessment of a novel does not always develop consistently in answers to more specific questions. The combination of the general assessment of the novel and the characteristics of episodes, persons, and author's descriptions is not immediately given to fifth graders. Finding this connection is one of the tasks of the upcoming analysis.
Answering the second question of the questionnaire: “Which of the characters in the novel did you fall in love with and why? Who caused the hostility? — children very actively and definitely express their likes and dislikes. Vladimir Dubrovsky and his father, Masha, Egorovna, Arkhip and in general “Dubrovsky’s people” - these are the heroes, almost flawless in the eyes of fifth graders. Troekurov, Shabashkin, Spitsyn, Para-moshka, “landowners” in general, much less often Vereisky, evoke in children hatred, contempt, and bewilderment at how people can be so cruel, low, and petty. The grouping of characters determined in the conflict of the novel thus does not make it difficult for students.
“I liked Vladimir Dubrovsky most of all. He was honest, although it still sounds “vague” in the first responses. However, the basis for an accessible formulation of these problems is created by the sensitivity of the reader's perception. Without in any way taking away the children's protest against Troekurov's cruelty, tyranny, rudeness, against his arrogant omnipotence, it is worth trying to show that Pushkin portrays him not as a bloodthirsty villain, but as a person in whom bad qualities flourish thanks to his social position. The students directly contrast Troyekurov with A.G. Dubrovsky: “I liked the proud Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. Even when dying, he remained true to himself and kicked Troekurov out.” It is probably necessary to characterize the old man Dubrovsky in a more complex manner in the analysis, revealing his authority, intolerance and harsh disposition. For the guys, Vladimir Dubrovsky is a hero “without fear or reproach,” a knight. Why is he praised? “A brave young man, loves music and books, inquisitive.” Some people really like that Dubrovsky knew French very well. Someone praises Dubrovsky for being “simple-minded” with the peasants, “considering them his friends, although he was their master.” The hero’s motives for approving are often naive: “It’s a good thing that he advises the robbers to stop robbing, because they have already become rich and can live the rest of their lives in honest work.”
But it's not a matter of naivety. Many fifth-graders fell in love with Dubrovsky for his real merits: openness, honesty, loyalty to duty and word, courage, resourcefulness and determination, tenderness, nobility not only of manners, but also of soul. However, the children’s categorical approval of Dubrovsky is not entirely consistent with Pushkin’s assessment of the hero. Therefore, in the analysis it is necessary to show the reasons for Dubrovsky’s defeat. The reason for discovering internal contradictions in Dubrovsky’s character is given by the fifth-graders themselves. Some of them appreciate Dubrovsky’s audacity and uncompromisingness:
“Vladimir Dubrovsky was a proud and intelligent man. He took revenge on Troekurov for taking away his father’s estate and wanted to dishonor him.” Others, on the contrary, welcome the victory of humanity over revenge: “What I liked most in the novel was Vladimir Dubrovsky. He followed the same path as his father, he hated Troekurov, because he was responsible for the death of his father. But he did not take revenge because he loved Masha.”
The question about Vladimir Dubrovsky’s protest, about the reasons for his avoidance of revenge, will help, during the analysis, to deepen our understanding of the hero of the novel.
The question of which episodes of the novel were remembered especially vividly did not bother the students. The first reading leaves in memory events filled with sharp dramatic action, scenes that decide the fate of the heroes: the fire in Kistenevka, the story with the bear, the quarrel in the kennel, the story with the ring, the trial, the robbery of Spitsyn (we list the episodes according to the degree of decreasing attention to them). However, students with a higher level of literary development name among the memorable scenes full of psychological tension and complex emotional movements: Dubrovsky’s confession to Masha, Vladimir in the grove after his father’s funeral, the last meeting of Masha and Dubrovsky, Marya Kirilovna’s engagement to Prince Vereisky. It is characteristic that the active work of imaginative thinking is associated with the episodes that most excited the students and were imprinted in their consciousness. The strength of the reader's emotions leads to the concretization of literary images. This is noticeable in the selection of visual details that accompany the mention of memorable scenes.
“I remember the moment when Dubrovsky the father in court, seeing his powerlessness, throws the inkwell.”
It seems that the analysis of the central scenes of the novel, which is so widespread in school, as well as the characteristics of individual characters, only confirms what was obtained by the first reading. As we see, students are able to do this themselves, even if not in detail, even if sometimes straightforwardly. It is more difficult for them to imagine the novel as a chain of events, to separate external reasons from significant reasons, to see the natural in the accidental. The need to realize the “space” between the central scenes of the novel and the desire to understand the author’s assessment of events and persons prompts us to choose a holistic path of analyzing “Dubrovsky” in the 5th grade, complicating it in many lessons by creating problematic situations. The material for their organization is, first of all, the inconsistency of the reader's perception, which we have already encountered when noting the difference in assessment of the behavior of Vladimir Dubrovsky. But the possibility of creating problematic situations based on the reader’s perception appears especially clearly in the answers to the following questions in the questionnaire.
The fourth question of the questionnaire was formulated as follows: “When is the hero of the novel most attractive to you: in the role of Deforge or under his own name?
The majority of students (67 percent) prefer the hero without a mask.
“I liked the hero of the story better in the role of Dubrovsky. Here he is a more determined and noble person.”
“I liked the hero better when he is Dubrovsky. When he was in the role of Desforges, he did not deal with the landowners, but only taught music lessons. He went to Troekurov for Masha's sake. In the role of Dubrovsky, he takes revenge for the death of his father and for the fact that he himself was expelled from the house in which
was born".
“I liked the hero in the role of Dubrovsky because he struggled with
by their enemies openly, without hiding their name.”
Thus, students are captivated by the hero’s activity, sincerity, and uncompromising nature. They demand social action from him, and this is a noticeable manifestation of their own value orientations.
Deforge's approval is usually associated with the promotion of individual private merits, and not with a general assessment of the hero's behavior.
“I liked the hero of the novel most of all in the role of Deforge. Dubrovsky, who hated Troekurov after the death of his father, needed great restraint in order to live peacefully in Troekurov’s house.”
“In Deforges I like the manners and education.”
“I liked Dubrovsky most in the role of Deforge. After all, here he had the most difficult role. He had to speak French all the time, although his native language is Russian. In the role of a robber before, he was himself, but here he was the Frenchman Desforges.”
“Deforge, because during his stay in Troekurov’s house he showed risk and courage.”
Dividing the opinions of students leads to the possibility of creating a problematic situation. Students feel already at the first reading of the novel that the role of Deforge narrows Dubrovsky’s life, but opens up for him the possibilities of “the life of the heart.”
“I liked him in the role of a robber, because he took revenge for the death of his father and for his estate.”
“I liked Dubrovsky in the role of Deforge. For the sake of his love, he did not spare his life.”
The last question of the questionnaire drew attention to the tragic ending of the novel: “Why didn’t Masha accept freedom from the hands of Dubrovsky?”
The majority of students (53 percent) see only one reason for Marya Kirilovna’s refusal to leave with Dubrovsky - loyalty to the wedding vow.
“Masha refused to leave Vereisky and go with Dubrovsky, because after the wedding ceremony she considered herself bound forever to her hated husband, she was religious. She considered it her duty to follow him, to keep her word. So Masha ruined herself. She was a victim of a noble upbringing.”
Some believe that chance is to blame for everything: “The ring did not get to Dubrovsky in time, and Masha was married to the prince.” Some children write on this basis about Masha’s religiosity, others believe that everything is explained by fear of their father or resentment.
“Masha waited a long time for Dubrovsky’s help and, in despair, decided to marry Prince Vereisky. She felt betrayed."
“Previously, at a wedding, children went under the blessing of their parents. And here Masha was blessed by her father, and if she had left with Dubrovsky, she would have disobeyed her father, whom she loved very much. And this was considered a great sin. But Masha didn’t have the willpower to go against her father, and she married the prince.”
However, a significant group of answers (39 percent) is not limited to one motive for Marya Kirilovna’s action and tries to explain the outcome of the relationship between Vladimir and Masha throughout the heroine’s life. At the same time, many answers contain the idea of class as the reason for the separation of heroes. A girl from a rural school writes:
“It seems to me that Masha Troekurova did not accept freedom because she was afraid. The fear arose because regular guests always spoke very badly about Dubrovsky, they talked about his raids, robberies, and never said anything good about him. Masha was afraid of him and his robber life. “I believe that Masha did the wrong thing, for which she was punished for life.”
In children's, very naive, outwardly awkward motivations, one can notice an understanding of Pushkin's thought, or rather, those feelings that can lead to its understanding.
“In my opinion, the main reason is that Masha was brought up in the house of a rich landowner, lived in abundance and was not used to hardships and was afraid of them. Therefore, she did not connect her fate with Dubrovsky. And, perhaps, also because, having given her word to be faithful to her husband, Prince Vereisky, she was afraid to break it.”
“Because she was raised in the house of a rich nobleman and could not accept freedom from a poor nobleman, besides, she believed in God and took an oath in the church that she would be faithful to her husband.”
An interesting point of perception leading to a problematic situation is not only the multi-motivational explanations of the hero’s action, but also the different moral assessment of it. The multi-motivation is explained by the artistic nature of art, especially Pushkin’s, where the outwardly simple-minded first explanations hide the diversity of other, more profound ones. This Pushkinian ability to make the reader guess many of the causes of events is born of a poetic sense of life as a complex, multidimensional, infinite phenomenon.
The difference in the moral assessment of the hero is born of the historical evolution of morality. Children feel the complexity of this phenomenon, but sometimes do not know how to react to it.
“Masha did not accept freedom from Dubrovsky because, it seems to me, she was afraid of her father. She did something very wrong. I don’t know, maybe she did the right thing, because in ancient times, if a person got married, it was impossible to move on to someone else. Masha did exactly the same thing.”
“Masha did not accept freedom from Dubrovsky’s hands, saying that she was already engaged and gave her consent. She acted according to the law. But if she loved Dubrovsky, then she could renounce the law and accept freedom from Dubrovsky’s hands.”
“Masha was really looking forward to Dubrovsky before the wedding. She had so much hope for him, but he was late. Masha could no longer refuse the oath she had given. She considered this unacceptable. I think that Masha did partly right and partly wrong. She could not imagine life with Dubrovsky. He didn't have his own home. Living with Dubrovsky, she would not live in luxury. She greatly offended and shocked Dubrovsky with her refusal.”
As we see, the sympathy of young readers for Masha Troekurova coexists with disapproval of her decision. Children understand that the feeling of the hero collides with the “law” to which she is subject. The complexity of the reader’s emotional assessment is reflected in the contradictory image of the novel’s heroine.
Despite all the oddities, irregularities and distortions in the understanding of the author’s thought, the reader’s perception reveals the sensitivity and strength of the students’ emotions, the ability to think deeply about what they read. Further analysis should contribute to understanding the correct and sensitive reader reactions that arise during initial reading, and liberation from everything arbitrary, from what is falsely and primitively understood due to cultural unpreparedness or age-related naivety of students.
NOVEL ANALYSIS PLAN
The path of the reader to the writer, which students will make in the process of analysis, will be fruitful only if we combine the methods of literary study of works of art and methods of enhancing the co-creation of the reader. The literary concept proposed in the book cannot be fully realized when studying “Dubrovsky” in the 5th grade. However, not only by the content, but by the very methodology of analyzing the work, we can bring the student closer to understanding the author’s thought, and deduce the school analysis from the scheme of contrasting the “evil” Troekurov and the noble Dubrovskys. The direction imparted to school analysis by the literary concept will also be reflected in the choice of working methods that clarify the author’s thought: compositional analysis (comparison of the episodes “At the Kennel” and “Shabashkin at Troekurov”), stylistic analysis (draft edition of the first chapter, speech of Dubrovsky, peasants), comparison of the plan of the novel and its implementation (why doesn’t V. Dubrovsky “knit” the court? Why doesn’t the teacher “run away with the young lady” in the final version of the novel?), discovering the logic of the characters’ actions (why did Dubrovsky open up to Spitsyn and Masha?), etc.
In school analysis, techniques are also used to identify the movement of the reader’s perception, awaken co-creation, and bring them into interaction with the author’s thought. To this kind of techniques we include a correspondence tour (“The Master’s Estate”), oral verbal drawing (“Dubrovsky and Troekurov in court”), drawing up a film script (“Fire in Kistenevka”), retelling with a change in the narrator’s face (“Lunch in Pokrovsky” from faces of V. Dubrovsky), debate (“Vereisky and Troekurov”), expressive reading.
Thus, the general plan for studying “Dubrovsky” in the 5th grade is as follows.
1st lesson.
"The Manor's Estate". A correspondence excursion introducing students to the historical era reflected in the novel.
2nd lesson.
"Friends Quarrel" A conversation during which the destinies and characters of A.G. Dubrovsky and Troekurov are compared and the episodes “At the Kennel” and “Shabashkin at Troekurov” are compared.
3rd lesson.
"Father and son". Oral verbal drawing of a scene in court. Analysis of the episodes “Vladimir Dubrovsky’s Arrival to Kistenevka” and Troekurov’s “Visit of Friendship.” Family and class relations.
Lesson 4
. "Fire in Kistenevka." Drawing up a film script for Chapter VI.
Lesson 5
. "Teacher". Work on creative retellings of “The Case of the Bear” and “Lunch at Pokrovsky” on behalf of Vladimir Dubrovsky.
Lesson 6
. "Love and Escape." Compiling editing and expressive reading of scenes related to the relationship between Masha and Vladimir Dubrovsky.
Lesson 7
"Vereisky and Troekurov." Dispute.
8th lesson.
"The Fate of a Hero" A conversation comparing the plan of the novel and its implementation.
The interaction of the reader's perception and the author's thought, the development of the student's creative abilities and his feasible introduction to the polysemantic content of the novel, discovered by the science of literature, the formation of ethical and aesthetic ideas and feelings in the course of school analysis - these are the methodological principles underlying the system of lessons for the study of "Dubrovsky" " At school.
At first glance, this system may seem difficult for fifth graders. But it is necessary to take into account that now the 5th grade is the second year of studying the literature course, that physical acceleration is accompanied by accelerated mental development. It is impossible not to take into account the fact that modern schoolchildren receive many times more information than before.
The abundance of information can become ballast, an obstacle to personal development, and even have a destructive effect if this process occurs chaotically, if the knowledge does not add up to a worldview. It is dangerous to overload a child’s consciousness with “unchildish” questions that are beyond his level. But it is no less dangerous to leave the student defenseless, unoriented in the complex collisions that life offers him. Personal harmony is not based on ignorance of life and playing hide and seek with it, but on a deep awareness of it and overcoming contradictions that can turn out to be catastrophic and disastrous if they are not noticed for a long time or brushed aside.
The recommended system of lessons for studying “Dubrovsky” has been tested by us many times in schools of different types (rural, urban, general education, special). Let us now try to trace its concrete implementation, based on the data obtained during experiment 1.
Answers:
1)
The plot of the novel “Dubrovsky” was a real story told to A.S. Pushkin by his friend P.V. Nashchokin. The poor nobleman Ostrovsky, having lost his estate and was left with only servants, became a robber. The fate of a well-born but poor nobleman, like the author himself by birth, did not leave Pushkin indifferent. This is how the image of the romantic rebel nobleman Vladimir Dubrovsky was born. The son of a retired lieutenant of the guard, who lost his mother early, Dubrovsky, in the eighth year of his life, was sent to St. Petersburg to a cadet school. His father spared nothing for his maintenance, and the young man allowed himself “luxurious whims,” “without worrying about the future.” But the unexpected news of his father’s serious illness changed Vladimir’s whole life. Having received leave, Dubrovsky hurries home. Soon after his arrival, his father dies. By order of the court, Vladimir is deprived of his estate. To prevent the desecration of his home, he sets the estate on fire. The clerks who spend the night in the house die in the fire. Dubrovsky is forced to hide. His peasants, who did not want “another master,” leave with him. So Dubrovsky becomes the leader of a gang of robbers. He decides to take revenge on the main culprit of his misfortunes, Troekurov. Having accidentally met a Frenchman who was going to Troekurov as a teacher, Dubrovsky buys documents from him and appears to his partner under the name of Deforge. But love for Masha, Troekurov’s daughter, forces Dubrovsky to change his plans. He forgives Kirila Petrovich, who is connected with Masha by “ties of blood.” Before us appears the image of a romantic hero, endowed with many positive traits. Dubrovsky is brave, smart, active. He is characterized by conscientiousness and decency. Vladimir is capable of strong, deep feelings: love for his parents, for Marya Kirilovna, hatred for Troekurov. The ability to control himself in difficult situations, honesty, and loyalty to his word add to Vladimir’s charm. The nobility of his feelings and actions transforms him from a robber into a hero in the eyes of many around him. Dubrovsky does not give in to the blows of fate, but his rebellion has personal reasons. He is not a peasant leader. Vladimir takes the servants with him, on the one hand, out of a sense of responsibility for them as the owner, and, on the other hand, hoping to use them in his own interests. I believe that Pushkin, a friend of the Decembrists who hated serfdom, is very sympathetic to his hero. Vladimir fights for justice, defends his rights. In every person, even a serf, he sees first of all a person, and not an object. I like Dubrovsky too. But I feel sorry for him. He failed in either revenge or love. I believe that you need to fight for your happiness and the happiness of your beloved girl, and not leave everything to chance.
The plot of the novel “Dubrovsky” was a real story told to A. S. Pushkin by his friend P. V. Nashchokin. The poor nobleman Ostrovsky, having lost his estate and was left with only servants, became a robber. The fate of a well-born but poor nobleman, like the author himself by birth, did not leave Pushkin indifferent. This is how the image of the romantic rebel nobleman Vladimir Dubrovsky was born.
The son of a retired lieutenant of the guard, who lost his mother early, Dubrovsky, in the eighth year of his life, was sent to St. Petersburg to a cadet school. His father spared nothing for his maintenance, and the young man allowed himself “luxurious whims,” “without worrying about the future.” But the unexpected news of his father’s serious illness changed Vladimir’s whole life.
Having received leave, Dubrovsky hurries home. Soon after his arrival, his father dies. By order of the court, Vladimir is deprived of his estate. To prevent the desecration of his home, he sets the estate on fire. The clerks who spend the night in the house die in the fire. Dubrovsky is forced to hide. His peasants, who did not want “another master,” leave with him. So Dubrovsky becomes the leader of a gang of robbers. He decides to take revenge on the main culprit of his misfortunes, Troekurov. Having accidentally met a Frenchman who was going to Troekurov as a teacher, Dubrovsky buys documents from him and appears to his partner under the name of Deforge. But love for Masha, Troekurov’s daughter, forces Dubrovsky to change his plans. He forgives Kirila Petrovich, who is connected with Masha by “ties of blood.”
Before us appears the image of a romantic hero, endowed with many positive traits. Dubrovsky is brave, smart, active. He is characterized by conscientiousness and decency. Vladimir is capable of strong, deep feelings: love for his parents, for Marya Kirilovna, hatred for Troekurov. The ability to control himself in difficult situations, honesty, and loyalty to his word add to Vladimir’s charm. The nobility of his feelings and actions transforms him from a robber into a hero in the eyes of many around him. Dubrovsky does not give in to the blows of fate, but his rebellion has personal reasons. He is not a peasant leader. Vladimir takes the servants with him, on the one hand, out of a sense of responsibility for them as the owner, and, on the other hand, hoping to use them in his own interests.
I believe that Pushkin, a friend of the Decembrists who hated serfdom, is very sympathetic to his hero. Vladimir fights for justice, defends his rights. In every person, even a serf, he sees first of all a person, and not an object.
I like Dubrovsky too. But I feel sorry for him. He failed in either revenge or love. I believe that you need to fight for your happiness and the happiness of your beloved girl, and not leave everything to chance.
The main character of the story “Dubrovsky” is a young officer Vladimir Dubrovsky. His father, a retired lieutenant, owned a small estate. The elder Dubrovsky was friends with a wealthy neighbor, landowner Troekurov, with whom he once served together. But there was a quarrel between the friends. Then the wayward Troekurov decided to take revenge on his neighbor and sue him for his estate. The idea was a success, and the elder Dubrovsky became seriously ill after this. Vladimir Dubrovsky had to leave his service and go to his sick father.
Vladimir managed to find his father alive, but he was in very bad condition. The situation was involuntarily aggravated by Troekurov, who decided to make peace with his old friend and for this purpose came to the Kistenevka estate he had won. However, the elder Dubrovsky became so agitated at the sight of the offender that he suffered a blow. Vladimir Dubrovsky angrily refused to receive Troekurov and he left in a state of embitterment. After some time, Vladimir informed all the inhabitants of the estate that his father had died.
An angry Troekurov sent officials to take away the Dubrovsky estate right on the day of the funeral of his former friend. The peasants, who learned that they were passing to another owner, tried to rebel, but Vladimir calmed them down as best he could. The frightened officials stayed overnight on the estate, fearing an attack from the peasants.
At night, Vladimir decided to burn down his home so that Troekurov would not get it. He sent the blacksmith Arkhip to open the door to the house so that the officials could get out of it. Dubrovsky himself, with his faithful peasants, left the estate, hiding in an unknown direction. But Arkhip, on the contrary, locked the door, and when the house caught fire, no one could get out of it. The officials died in the fire.
Soon, robbers appeared in the surrounding areas, and robberies began on the roads and on estates. Popular rumor attributed all these attacks to the young Dubrovsky. Only Troekurov was not touched by the robbers, and the reason for this was unclear.
Troekurov had a daughter named Masha. In early childhood she played with little Volodya Dubrovsky, but after that she did not meet him for many years. In addition, Troekurov still had a small son, for whom he decided to hire a French teacher. Soon a young man named Deforge appeared in the house. Neither Troekurov nor Masha paid much attention to the young teacher until he became the object of the owner of the house’s favorite joke. Deforge was pushed into a room where a hungry bear was tied. This is how Troekurov usually liked to joke. However, Deforge was not afraid and shot the bear, which earned Troekurov’s respect. Masha also began to pay more attention to the young Frenchman and gradually fell in love with him.
But what was Masha’s surprise when one day Deforge made a date with her and admitted that he was actually Vladimir Dubrovsky. Dubrovsky explained to Masha that his love for her forced him to abandon his plans for revenge on Troekurov. After a meeting with Masha, Deforge-Dubrovsky left the Troyekurovs’ house.
After some time, Troekurov’s rich neighbor, Prince Vereisky, wooed Masha. Masha's father was very pleased with this matchmaking, but she herself did not want to marry a fifty-year-old man. Raised at home and therefore naive, Masha wrote a letter to the prince asking him to refuse matchmaking. But Vereisky did not heed her persuasion, and reported Masha’s letter to her father. It was decided to speed up the wedding, and the bride was locked up. Masha managed to inform Dubrovsky about the upcoming wedding, which was so unwanted for her. But Dubrovsky was late. When he overtook the carriage with the prince and Masha, it was already too late - the wedding had taken place. Masha could not break the obligations she had given before the church altar, and she refused to leave with Dubrovsky.
And soon, due to constant persecution and clashes with government soldiers, Dubrovsky had to disband the people loyal to him and leave his native land. This is the summary of the story.
The main idea of the story “Dubrovsky” is that ardor and haste in action never led to anything good. Just as Vladimir’s father quarreled with Troekurov in his hearts, which is why he soon lost his health and property, so his son, in a fit of ardor, decided to burn down his home so that it would not go to Troekurov. The consequence of his incontinence was the death of people, and Dubrovsky himself became a lawbreaker, a robber. A.S. Pushkin’s story “Dubrovsky” teaches you to be thoughtful and calm in making important decisions and not to give in to emotions that may contribute to the wrong choice of ways to solve a problem.
I liked the main character in the story, Vladimir Dubrovsky. He made a lot of mistakes, but at the same time he had an open soul. When one day he stopped a messenger with money that one woman had sent to her son, Dubrovsky did not take the money and let the messenger go. Vladimir Dubrovsky is also characterized by generosity. When he realized that he had fallen in love with Masha Troekurova, the daughter of the man who killed his father, he managed to find the strength in himself to forgive Troekurov and abandon his plans for revenge.
What proverbs are suitable for the story “Dubrovsky”?
Everyone has their own bitter grievances. Love is not a fire, but once it catches fire, you can’t put it out. Learn to forgive and your power will increase.
