A review of the book "Woe from Wit". "Woe from Wit" by Griboedov: feedback

Griboyedov's play "Woe from Wit" was written long ago, but still does not lose its relevance, which, in fact, is a rare thing, especially for political satire. Typically, such books are relevant exactly until the moment when there is a criticized regime. This is evident in the example of the most popular at the time sharp, clever, caustic works of outstanding Soviet dissidents. Were these good, useful books? Of course yes. Are they interesting now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union? No. No more.

The secret of relevance

To ensure that political satire does not resemble a black and white photograph of a long-forgotten relative, there must be something more in it, not just a simple indication of the shortcomings of society. References to universal human problems and values, recognizable, close at any time and to everyone.

And Griboedov, creating his play, put much more into it than just criticizing the existing political and social system. This is noted almost any, taken at random, a review, the work "Woe from Wit", touching at least casually. The exact picture of morals - and not only the times of Alexander I. These same people live now. Yes, they are differently dressed, smoking cigarettes, and not sniffing tobacco, discussing the last speech of Putin at the summit, and not the king before the noble assembly. But people are the same. Absolutely recognizable types.

Characters of the comedy

Careerist and conformist. Rough, brave campaigner. An influential philistine with ideologically correct views. Old people are splinters of past times. Sisters, concerned only with their own matrimonial plans. A romantic girl who imagines life only from books. Finally, the main character is a fiery liberal and a fighter. Everyone will probably be able to name one or two of their friends who fully comply with these definitions. No review of the book "Woe from Wit" will not do without an analysis of these recognizable types, whether it was written in the 19th century or in the 21st. Just the relationship between these, such different people, the constant conflict of innovation and retrograde, liberalism and conservatism is one of the two semantic core of the play.

Criticism of Goncharov

Two years Griboyedov wrote "Woe from Wit". Review Goncharov IA - one of the best critics of his time - attributed this work to the masterpieces of Russian literature. His review to this day is one of the best analyzes of the play. This is a complete, detailed, thorough study of both the plot of the work and its characters, a comparison with other contemporary Griboyedov authors. This critical article was written almost 50 years after the publication of the comedy. For literature, even 50 years is a long time, two generations. During this time, the work either becomes obsolete - or become a classic.

Goncharov himself noted that the images of the lyrical heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov-Onegin and Pecherin, occupying incomparably higher place in the literary hierarchy than Griboyedov-are no longer very interesting to the public. They are unrecognizable. This type has become a thing of the past along with the time that gave birth to them. Their thoughts, their feelings, their troubles and hopes are gone in the past along with the brilliant 18th century.

The image of the main character

Chatsky is still recognizable - both in his virtues, and in his shortcomings. He is resolute, often rash and sincere. Perhaps, even excessively sincere - many of his cues are not even sarcastic, but frankly cruel, to which Sofya blames him. However, if you remember about the age (Chatsky, after all, just over twenty), this is quite expected and natural. Youths are characterized by maximalism and cruelty. His speech is aphoristic - in many ways this is what ensured the success of the play. Quotes from the monologues of Chatsky in the course still, people often do not even know that the favorite is a line from the comedy of Griboyedov.

A rare review of the book "Woe from Wit" dispenses with no comments about Chatsky's mind and his desire for change. Much less pay attention to the moment that he talks a lot, but does nothing.

Chatsky and his liberalism

This point for some reason eludes the attention of most critics. They do not compare the theses declared by Chatsky with his way of life. He considers serfdom a monstrous remnant of the past - but he lives quietly at the expense of serfs. Pride does not allow him to grovel before the powers that be - but at the same time Chatsky quietly exists for money, not earned by him. He reproaches Skalozub for the proximity and martial arts - but he completely ignores the fact that he is a combat officer with combat awards, not a "parquet warrior".

Chatsky's liberal work begins and ends with the most extensive monologues spoken before the public, which certainly can not be changed.

The comedy is called "Woe from Wit". The meaning of the title is quite transparent. But is the grief of Chatsky from the mind? As, however, and the greater part of the liberal trend of Russia, which is so consonant with the mood of the protagonist. If you think about it, it turns out that it's not the excess of the mind, but the inability to apply it.

Critics and Characters

What is a Critical Review? This is just a detailed, reasoned view of the reader about the work. True, the critic is not just a reader, but a professional, prepared reader, but still. And, as LaBruyer rightly noted, the book is like a mirror. If it looks like a monkey, you can not expect that the reflection will show the apostle. That is, any critical review is, first of all, a reflection of the world view of the reader, and not of the writer. And any review of the book "Woe from Wit" - that vivid confirmation. Literators are rarely active people. For them, talking is already work. Perhaps, that is why such a dramatic discrepancy between the declared intentions and actual behavior eludes their attention.

Prototypes of Chatsky

In this regard, the composition of the play itself is indicative enough - it was not ignored by a single review of the book "Woe from Wit". The work is divided into two equivalent storylines. The first - love, the relationship of Sophia and Chatsky, in any other play, it would be the main one. But not here. In this play, the romantic line is just a plot engine, canvas, canvas. Any action, any act of characters - just an excuse for another monologue Chatsky. He really is extraordinarily talkative. The amount of text that accounts for Chatsky, several times the volume of replicas of any other character. He talks to other heroes, himself, with the audience. It seems that the characters of the play go on stage for this, so that Chatsky can give them his extensive assessment. Actually, it was this feature that gave reason to suspect in the main character the alter ego of the author - a kind of shout, the ability to loudly, from the stage, declare your own position, but by someone else's lips. Often among the possible prototypes of the character is called the cleverest, most talented Chaadaev. Here and the distant similarity of the name, and the reputation of a madman. Perhaps, he really served as a prototype of the main character of the play "Woe from Wit". The meaning of the name in this case is obvious - indeed, Chaadayev was known for a deep, philosophical mindset, and nothing but troubles brought him.

Unusual view of Chatsky

Although there is just the opposite theory, let it be and not spread. A number of literary scholars believe that the satire of Griboyedov is thinner and deeper. Its subject is not only the unhappy Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov and Skalozub, but Chatsky himself. Perhaps his irresistible talkativeness with total inactivity is just another joke by the author. And the image of the protagonist is a parody of a liberal talker, incapable of acting and not wanting it.

Of course, this kind of review looks very unusual on the general background. Comedy "Woe from Wit" has long been prescribed a standard, generally accepted interpretation. It is set out in the literature classes, it can be read in any directory. But an innovative approach to learning a work also has a right to exist. Although still the design of the play makes such an assumption unlikely. If the parody of the liberal is Chatsky himself, then why introduce Repetilov's plot? Then they occupy the same logical niche. The only difference is that Chatsky is smart, and Repetilov is frankly stupid.