As in the presented fragment to whom in Russia. Satirical depiction of landowners in Nekrasov's poem who should live well in Russia

Reflections on what a person should be like and what true human happiness should consist of, the first four chapters psychologically prepare the reader for a meeting with Gavrila Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev. In the chapter “The Landowner”, which returns the development of the plot to the narrative scheme outlined by the “Prologue”, in sharp contrast with the high moral ideals of the people (the image of Yermil), the life of one of those who turned the Russian villages into Razutovo and Neelovo, did not give breathe for the peasant (“Nedykhaniev Uyezd”), I saw in him working cattle, a “horse”.

As we remember, already in the 1940s, the landowner and peasant seemed to Nekrasov to be two polar figures, antagonists whose interests were incompatible. In “To whom it is good to live in Russia”, he pitted landowner and peasant Russia against their foreheads and, with his authorial will, forced Obolt to “confess” to the peasants, to talk about his life, submitting it to the people's judgment.

The satirically drawn image of a landowner - a lover of dog hunting - runs through many of Nekrasov's works of the 40s (the vaudeville "You can't hide an awl in a bag ...", "The Moneylender", the poems "Hound Hunting", "Motherland"). It has long been established that the image of the "gloomy ignoramus" in Rodina goes back to the real personality of the poet's father. Aleksey Sergeevich Nekrasov was a very typical and colorful figure of the era of serfdom, and researchers (A. V. Popov, V. A. Arkhipov, A. F. Tarasov) more and more clearly distinguish the features of his appearance in the stingy, gloomy, rude hero of the Dog Hunt ", and in the image of Gavrila Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev. Obolt is related to A. S. Nekrasov by the fist method of reprisal against serfs, a passion for hunting, noble ambition. But, as you know, the type is never equal to the prototype. Obolt-Obolduev is a landowner, an image that synthesizes in himself the features observed by Nekrasov not only in his father, but also in other landowners of the post-reform era.

Obolt's image is drawn satirically. This determines the author's choice of the hero's surname, the features of his portrait characteristics, the meaning and tone of the landowner's story. The work of the author on the name of the hero is very curious. In the Vladimir province there were landowners Abolduevs and Obolduevs. In the time of Nekrasov, the word "stunned" meant: "ignorant, uncouth, blockhead." This satirical shade in the real name of an old noble family attracted the attention of Nekrasov. And then the poet, again using the real names of the Yaroslavl nobles, saturates the surname Obolduev with an additional satirical meaning: Brykovo-Obalduev (= a fool with a temper), Dolgovo-Obalduev (= a ruined fool) and, finally, constructed on the model of real double surnames - Obolt -Obolduev (= double-headed fool, because "boldhead" is a synonym for the word "blockhead").

The image of the landowner Gavrila Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev is built by the author on the identification of a constant discrepancy between what the hero thinks about himself, what meaning he puts into his words, and the impression he himself and his story make on listeners - peasants and on the reader. And this impression of insignificance, insignificance, self-satisfaction, arrogance and comicality of the hero is created already by the first lines that depict Obolt's appearance. Before the wanderers appeared “some round gentleman. / Mustachioed, pot-bellied”, “ruddy. / Possessive, stocky. In his mouth he has not a cigar, but a “cigar”, he pulled out not a pistol, but a “pistol”, the same as the master himself, “plump”. In such a context, the mention of “valiant tricks” acquires an ironic connotation, especially since the hero is clearly not a brave dozen: when he saw the men, he “got scared”, “grabbed a pistol”

And a six-barreled barrel

Pointed at strangers:

- Don `t move! If you touch

Robbers! robbers!

I'll put it on the spot!

Obolt's bellicose cowardice is so dissonant with the intentions of the truth-seekers that it involuntarily causes them to laugh.

Bolt is ridiculous. It is ridiculous when he talks with pathos about the "feats" of his ancestors, who entertained the empress with bears, tried to set fire to Moscow and rob the treasury, when he boasts of his "family tree". Ridiculous when, having forgotten about the “glass of sherry”, “jumping up from the Persian carpet”, in front of seven sharp-sighted observers, in hunting excitement, waves his arms, jumps, shouts in a wild voice “Hey! hoo-hoo! a-tu!”, imagining that he was poisoning a fox.

But Obolt-Obolduev is not only ridiculous to peasants. Internal hostility and distrust of the landowner shine through in every word, in every remark of the wanderers. They do not believe the "honest, noble" word, opposing it to the "Christian", since the word

Noble with a scolding,

With a push and with a poke,

hatefully beginning to realize their human and civil rights to the peasant.

In the remarks exchanged between the landowner and the peasants, one can see through mutual contempt, mockery, poorly hidden by Obolt:

Sit down, LORD!...

Please sit down, CITIZENS! —

hidden in sly irony - among the peasants. With ironic remarks, they expose the absurdity of Obolt's estate arrogance:

White bone, black bone

And look, so different...

They evaluate the "exploits" of his ancestors:

Not a few of them stagger

Prokhvostov and now...

According to the proverb “an apple does not fall far from an apple tree,” Gavrila Afanasyevich himself is also evaluated:

And you're like an apple

Are you coming out of that tree?

The hidden, but now and then breaking through hostility of the peasants to the landowner is justified by the whole meaning of his story about a free life in pre-reform times, when the landowners in Russia lived "like in Christ's bosom."

The basis of the feeling of happiness in life for Obolt is the consciousness of owning property: “your villages”, “your forests”, “your fields”, “your fat turkeys”, “your juicy liqueurs”, “your actors, music”, every weed whispers the word “ yours." This self-satisfied intoxication with one's happiness is not only insignificant in comparison with the "concern" of the truth-seekers, but is infinitely cynical, for it is affirmed "from positions of strength":

None of the contradictions

Whom I want - I have mercy

Whoever I want, I will execute.

And although Obolt immediately tries to present his relationship with the serfs in patriarchal-idyllic tones (joint prayers in the manor house, Christ-giving on Easter), the peasants, not believing a single word of his, ironically think:

Kolom knocked them down, or what, you

Pray in the manor house?

Before those who are torn from immeasurable labor ("the peasant's navel cracks"), Obolt arrogantly declares his inability and unwillingness to work, his contempt for labor:

Noble estates

We don't learn how to work...

I smoked the sky of God ...

But the "chest of the landlord" breathed "freely and easily" during the days of serfdom, until the "great chain broke"... At the very moment of the meeting with the truth-seekers, Obolt-Obolduev is full of bitterness:

And everything is gone! everything is over!

Chu! Death knell!

... Through life according to the landlord

They're calling!..

Gavrila Afanasyevich notices the changes that have taken place in the public life of Russia. This is the decline of the landowners' economy ("estates are being transferred", "dismantled brick by brick / Beautiful landowner's house", "fields are unfinished", the "robber" peasant ax sounds in the master's forest), this is the growth of bourgeois entrepreneurship ("drinking houses are spreading") . But most of all, Obolt-Obolduev is angered by the peasants, in whom there is no former respectfulness, who "play pranks" in the landowner's forests, or even worse - rise to revolt. The landowner perceives these changes with a feeling of bitter hostility, since they are connected with the destruction of the patriarchal landowner Russia, which is so dear to his heart.

With all the certainty of the satirical coloring of the image, Obolt, however, is not a mask, but a living person. The author does not deprive his story of subjective lyricism. Gavrila Afanasyevich almost with inspiration draws pictures of dog hunting, family life of "noble nests". In his speech, pictures of Russian nature appear, high vocabulary, lyrical images appear:

Oh mother, oh motherland!

We are not sad about ourselves

You, dear, sorry.

Obolt repeats the words twice: "we do not grieve for ourselves." He, in frustration of feelings, perhaps, really believes that he is sad not about himself, but about the fate of his homeland. But the pronouns “I” and “mine” sounded too often in the speech of the landowner, so that one could believe at least for a minute in his filial love for the Motherland. Obolt-Obolduev is bitter for himself, he weeps because the broken chain of serfdom has hit him too, the reform heralded the beginning of the end of the landlords.

Marx once wrote that "mankind laughingly says goodbye to its past, to obsolete forms of life." Obolt just embodies those obsolete forms of life that Russia was saying goodbye to. And although Gavrila Afanasyevich is going through hard times, his subjective drama is not an objective historical drama. And Nekrasov, whose gaze is fixed on the Russia of the future, teaches us to part with the ghosts of the past, laughing, which is what the satirical and humorous coloring of the chapter "The Landowner" serves for.

The crowning achievement of N. A. Nekrasov is the folk epic poem “Who should live well in Russia”. In this monumental work, the poet sought to show as fully as possible the main features of contemporary Russian reality and reveal the deep contradictions between the interests of the people and the exploitative essence of the ruling classes, and above all the local nobility, which in the 20-70s of the XIX century had already completely outlived itself as an advanced class. and began to hinder the further development of the country.

In a dispute between men

About “who lives happily, freely in Russia,” the landowner was declared the first contender for the right to call himself happy. However, Nekrasov significantly expanded the plot framework outlined by the plot of the work, as a result of which the image of the landowner appears in the poem only in the fifth chapter, which is called “The Landowner”.

For the first time, the landowner appears to the reader as the peasants saw him: "Some gentleman is round, mustachioed, pot-bellied, with a cigar in his mouth." With the help of diminutive forms, Nekrasov conveys the condescending, contemptuous attitude of the peasants towards the former owner of living souls.

The following author's description of the appearance of the landowner Obolt-Obolduev (Nekrasov uses the meaning of a surname) and his own story about his "noble" origin further enhances the ironic tone of the narration.

The basis of the satirical image of Obolduev is a striking contrast between the significance of life, nobility, learning and patriotism, which he attributes to himself with “dignity”, and the actual insignificance of existence, extreme ignorance, emptiness of thoughts, baseness of feelings. Grieving about the pre-reform time dear to his heart, with “every luxury”, endless holidays, hunting and drunken revelry, Obolt-Obolduev takes the absurd pose of the son of the fatherland, the father of the peasantry, who cares about the future of Russia. But let us remember his confession: "He littered the people's treasury." He makes ridiculous "patriotic" speeches: "Mother Russia, willingly lost her chivalrous, warlike, majestic appearance." The enthusiastic story of Obolt-Obolduev about the life of a landowner under serfdom is perceived by the reader as an unconscious self-exposure of the insignificance and meaninglessness of the existence of former serfs.

For all his comicality, Obolt-Obolduev is not so harmlessly funny. In the past, a convinced serf-owner, even after the reform he hopes, as before, to "live by the labor of others", in which he sees the purpose of his life.

However, the times of such landlords are over. This is felt both by the feudal lords themselves and by the peasants. Although Obolt-Obolduev speaks to the peasants in a condescending, patronizing tone, he must endure the unequivocal peasant mockery. Nekrasov also feels this: Obolt-Obolduev is simply unworthy of the author's hatred and deserves only contempt and unfriendly ridicule.

But if Nekrasov speaks of Obolt-Obolduev with irony, then the image of another landowner in the poem - Prince Utyatin - is described in the chapter "Last Child" with obvious sarcasm. The very title of the chapter is symbolic, in which the author, sharply sarcastically using to some extent the technique of hyperbolization, tells the story of a tyrant - a "last child" who does not want to part with the feudal orders of landlord Russia.

If Obolt-Obolduev nevertheless feels that there is no return to the old, then the old man Utyatin, who has gone out of his mind, even in whose appearance there is little human left, over the years of lordship and despotic power, has become so imbued with the conviction that he is “by divine grace” a master who “on it is written to the family to watch over the stupid peasantry”, that the peasant reform seems to this despot something unnatural. That is why it was not difficult for relatives to assure him that "the peasants were ordered to turn back the landowners."

Talking about the wild antics of the "last child" - the last feudal lord Utyatin (which seem especially wild in the changed conditions), Nekrasov warns of the need for a decisive and final eradication of all remnants of serfdom. After all, it was they, preserved in the minds of not only former slaves, who ultimately killed the “intractable” peasant Agap Petrov: “If it were not for such an opportunity, Agap would not have died.” Indeed, unlike Obolt-Obolduev, Prince Utyatin, even after serfdom, remained in fact the master of life (“It is known that it was not self-interest, but arrogance that cut him off, he lost Mote”). Ducks are also feared by wanderers: “Yes, the master is stupid: sue later ...” And although Posledysh himself, the “holy fool landowner,” as the peasants call him, is more ridiculous than scary, Nekrasov’s ending of the chapter reminds the reader that the peasant reform did not bring genuine liberation to the people and real power still remains in the hands of the nobility. The prince's heirs shamelessly deceive the peasants, who eventually lose their water meadows.

The whole work is imbued with a sense of the inevitable death of the autocratic system. The support of this system - the landowners - are depicted in the poem as "last-born", living out their lives. The ferocious Shalashnikov has long been gone from the world, Prince Utyatin died a "landowner", the insignificant Obolt-Obolduev has no future. The picture of the deserted manor estate, which is taken away brick by brick by the servants, has a symbolic character (chapter "Peasant Woman").

Thus, opposing in the poem two worlds, two spheres of life: the world of the gentlemen of the landowners and the world of the peasantry. Nekrasov, with the help of satirical images of landowners, leads readers to the conclusion that the happiness of the people is possible without Obolt-Obolduev and the Utyatins, and only when the people themselves become the true masters of their lives.

The pinnacle of N.A. Nekrasov is the poem "To whom in Russia it is good to live." All his life, Nekrasov nurtured the idea of ​​​​a work that would become a folk book, that is, a book “useful, understandable to the people and truthful”, reflecting the most important aspects of his life. Nekrasov gave the poem many years of his life, investing in it all the information about the Russian people, accumulated, as the poet said, “by word of mouth” for twenty years. Serious illness and death interrupted Nekrasov's work, but what he managed to create puts the poem "Who Lives Well in Russia" on a par with the most remarkable works of Russian literature.

With all the variety of types derived in the poem, its main character is the people. “The people are free. But are the people happy? - this main question, which worried the poet all his life, stood before him when creating the poem. Truly depicting the plight of the people in post-reform Russia, Nekrasov posed and resolved the most important questions of his time: who is to blame for the people's grief, what should be done to make the people free and happy? The reform of 1861 did not improve the situation of the people, and it is not for nothing that the peasants say about it:

You are good, royal letter,

Yes, you are not written about us ...

Some gentleman round;

mustachioed, pot-bellied,

With a cigar in your mouth...

Diminutive suffixes, traditional in folk poetry, here enhance the ironic sound of the story, emphasize the insignificance of the “round” little man. He speaks with pride about the antiquity of his kind. The landowner recalls the blessed old times, when "not only Russian people, Russian nature itself subdued us." Recalling his life under serfdom - "like in Christ's bosom", he proudly says:

You used to be in a circle

Alone like the sun in the sky

Your villages are humble,

Your forests are dense

Your fields are all around!

The inhabitants of the “modest villages” fed and watered the gentleman, provided with their labor his wild life, “holidays, not a day, not two - a month”, and he, ruling unlimitedly, established his own laws:

Whom I want - have mercy,

Whomever I want, I will execute.

The landowner Obolt-Obolduv recalls his heavenly life: luxurious feasts, fat turkeys, juicy liqueurs, his own actors and “a whole regiment of servants”. According to the landowner, the peasants brought them "voluntary gifts" from everywhere. Now everything has fallen into decay - "the noble class seems to have hidden everything, died out!" Landowner houses are broken down into bricks, gardens are cut down, timber is stolen:

Fields - unfinished,

Crops - undersown,

There is no order!

Peasants greet Obolt-Obolduev's boastful story about the antiquity of his family with frank mockery. He's not good for anything on his own. The irony of Nekrasov sounds with particular force when he forces Obolt-Obolduev to confess his complete inability to work:

I smoked the sky of God

He wore the livery of the king.

Littered the people's treasury

And I thought to live like this for a century ...

The peasants sympathize with the landowner and think to themselves:

The great chain is broken

Torn - jumped:

One end on the master,

Others for a man! ..

Contempt is caused by the feeble-minded "last child" Prince Utyatin. The very title of the chapter "Last Child" has a deep meaning. We are talking not only about Prince Utyatin, but also the last landowner-serf. Before us is a slave owner who has lost his mind, and little human remains even in his appearance:

Nose with a beak, like a hawk,

Mustache gray, long

And different eyes

One healthy - glows,

And the left one is cloudy, cloudy,

Like a pewter!

The steward Vlas tells about the landowner Utyatin. He says that their landowner is “special” - “he has been acting weird all his life, fooling around, and then suddenly a thunderstorm broke out.” When he learned about the abolition of serfdom, he did not believe at first, and then he fell ill with grief - the left half of his body was taken away from him. The heirs, fearing that he would deprive them of their inheritance, begin to indulge him in everything. When the old man felt better, he was told that the peasants had been ordered to return to the landowner. The old man was delighted, ordered to serve a prayer service, to ring the bells. Since then, the peasants begin to play a comedy: to pretend that serfdom has not been abolished. The old order went on in the estate: the prince gives stupid orders, orders, gives orders to marry a widow of seventy years old to his neighbor Gavril, who was only six years old. The peasants laugh at the prince behind his back. Only one peasant, Agap Petrov, did not want to obey the old rules, and when his landowner caught him stealing wood, he told Utyatin everything directly, calling him a pea jester. The duckling took the second blow. The old gentleman can no longer walk - he sits in an armchair on the porch. But he still shows his noble arrogance. After a hearty meal, Utyatin dies. The latter is not only scary, but also ridiculous. After all, he has already been deprived of his former power over the peasant souls. The peasants agreed only to "play serfs" until the "last child" dies. The intractable peasant Agap Petrov was right when he revealed the truth to Prince Utyatin:

... You are the last one! By grace

Peasant our stupidity

Today you are in charge

And tomorrow we will follow

Pink - and the ball is over!

Satirical depiction of landlords. In the poem “To whom it is good to live in Russia”, Nekrasov, as if on behalf of millions of peasants, acted as an angry exposer of the socio-political system of Russia and pronounced a severe sentence on him. The poet painfully experienced the humility of the people, their downtroddenness, darkness.

Nekrasov looks at the landlords through the eyes of the peasants, without any idealization and sympathy, drawing their images.

Nekrasov satirically angrily talks about the parasitic life of the landowners in the recent past, when the landlord's chest breathed freely and easily.

The master, who owned "baptized property", was a sovereign king in his patrimony, where everything "subdued" him:

None of the contradictions

Whom I want - have mercy,

Whomever I want, I will execute.

The landowner Obolt-Obolduev recalls the past. In conditions of complete impunity and uncontrolled arbitrariness, the rules of behavior of the landlords, their habits and views were formed:

Law is my wish!

The fist is my police!

sparkling blow,

The blow is furious,

Cheekbone blow! ..

The abolition of serfdom struck "one end at the master, / with the other at the peasant." The master cannot and does not want to adapt to the conditions of life of growing capitalism - the desolation of estates and the ruin of masters becomes inevitable.

Without any regret, the poet talks about how the master's houses are sorted out "brick by brick". Nekrasov's satirical attitude towards bars is also reflected in the names he gives them: Obolt-Obolduev, Utyatin ("Last Child"). Particularly expressive in the poem is the image of Prince Utyatin - the Last. This is a gentleman who "has been acting weird all his life, fooling around." He remained a cruel feudal despot even after 1861.

Completely unaware of his peasants, the Last gives ridiculous orders on the patrimony, orders “to marry Gavrila Zhokhov to the widow Terentyeva, to fix the hut again so that they live in it, multiply and rule the tax!”

The men greet this order with laughter, as “that widow is under seventy, and the groom is six years old!”

The latter appoints the deaf-mute fool as a watchman, orders the shepherds to calm the herd so that the cows do not wake up the master with their mooing.

Not only the orders of the Last One are absurd, even more absurd and strange is he himself, stubbornly refusing to come to terms with the abolition of serfdom. Caricature and his appearance:

Nose with a beak, like a hawk,

Mustache gray, long And - different eyes:

One healthy glows

And the left one is cloudy, cloudy,

Like a pewter!

The landowner Shalashnikov is also shown as a cruel tyrant-oppressor, who subjugated his own peasants by "military force".

Saveliy says that the German manager Vogel is even more cruel. Under him, “penal servitude came to the Korez peasant - he ruined it to the skin!”

The peasants and the master are irreconcilable, eternal enemies. “Praise the grass in a haystack, and the master in a coffin,” says the poet. As long as gentlemen exist, there is no and cannot be happiness for the peasant - this is the conclusion to which Nekrasov leads the reader of the poem with iron consistency.

Passing through the crucible battles, the hero undergoes a change. He finds out who he really is. This knowledge either destroys him or makes him stronger. self-exposure is significant if:

• happens suddenly
• crushing for hero
• hero receives previously unknown information about himself
• hero understands how and in what he was wrong in relation to others

The effectiveness of a story depends to a large extent on the quality self-disclosure. Attention: Make sure that hero gets a really important experience, and not just beautiful words or platitudes.

Possible mistakes:

• Hero does not reach self-disclosure.

• self-exposure comes too soon in history

• self-exposure is not a moral act: hero does not realize his mistakes in the past and does not understand how to live with dignity in the future.

• The character changes, but it is not a character change. (For example: achieved personal success, cured a disease)

Test questions:

• Does he study hero understand people as individuals, and not just as tools for their game?

• Is not it hero receives a new piece of information?

Step 21: Moral Choice

When as a result self-revealing hero understands how to proceed further, he must do and moral choice. moral choice happens at the moment when hero stands at a fork, where each of the roads denotes a certain system of values ​​and a way of life.

moral choice is an expression that hero learned in the process self-disclosure. His actions show what he has become.

Possible mistakes:

• you don't give hero do at the end of the story moral choice. A character who does not choose between two courses of action at the end of the story will not tell the audience which way of life (that you believe in) is the right one.

• You're giving hero false choice. Choice between good and evil. The right choice is between two positives or avoiding two negatives.

Test questions:

• Final moral choice Is it a choice between two positive values?

• Can the audience make this choice in everyday life?

Step 22: New Balance

After flaw the hero has been overcome, and the hero's wish has been granted, everything returns to normal. But there is one big difference. because of self-disclosure the hero is currently either at a higher or lower level.

Possible mistakes:

• There is no sense of the end of the story.

• The ending doesn't follow logically (far-fetched)

Security Question:

• Does the ending give an understanding of the deeper problem on which the story is based?

Possible errors on other aspects of the story

Character Composition

• You have too many characters in your story

• You do not clearly represent the role and function of each character.

• Are all the characters needed to tell this story?

Relationship between characters

• You don't have a four-point opposition. You need at least three opponents to fight hero.

• The secondary characters are completely undetailed, or vice versa - just as complex as the main character.

• Conflict between hero and adversary surface

• Hero

• Enemy not provided with a detailed set of values ​​and beliefs.

• Who is the main opponent and who are the secondary opponents?

• How enemy exploits major weaknesses hero?

• What is the jewel for which they fight among themselves hero and enemy?

• What do you think hero, includes the concept of "living right"?

• Than values enemy different from those hero?

character world

• You failed to create a detailed story world

• The world does not express deep weaknesses hero.

• The world doesn't change because of actions hero.

• The story develops in a world that does not go beyond the family.

• Have you thought out the world as carefully as hero?

• What are the most significant consequences hero?

• Could these consequences be more significant?

Context / Society / Institutions

• You failed to connect the unique created society with the big world. This means that the arena of action is too narrow and specialized.

• Will the general audience be able to identify with the unique society or institution in your history?

Social environment

• It does not show how social forces affect hero.

• Aware or not aware hero influence of social forces?

Symbolism of the world

• There is no set of symbols (symbolic meanings) fixed in the world of history.

• What deep meanings are attached to the settings of your world?

Season / Holiday

• The season (or holiday) used is cliché or predictable.

• What is the deeper meaning or philosophy behind the use of the season or holiday, and how does this relate to history?

World change range

• The world does not change with the course of history.

• Is there a fundamental shift in how the world looks throughout history?

Visual seven steps

• The places where each of the main events takes place are not too different from each other.

• What unique locations are associated with each key plot point?

Dialogues

• The scene is out of focus

• The wrong character leads the price.

• There are no opposing characters with different goals.

• The leading character in this scene does not have a strategy for moving towards the goal.

• The scene has no clear ending.

• The dialogue matters, but it doesn't move the story.

• There are no "right" or "wrong" arguments.

• Dialogue lacks personality.

• You write dialogues that don't reflect the unique meaning of each character.

moral actions

• Throughout history, the character does not grow and does not fall morally.

• Other characters do not respond if hero acts immorally.

• How far can it go hero trying to reach the goal?

• How is your hero criticized by others for their actions?

• Does the hero reach an understanding of how to live with dignity by the end of the story?

Premise

• A worn out background. The audience has seen it a thousand times already.

• Small idea stretched for two hours.

• The premise is not something personal to the screenwriter. (Not that felt)

• The premise is too personal: acceptable and understandable only for you, but not for a wide audience.

• Why are you concerned about this issue?

• Are you personally interested in solving this problem?

• How good is the character to express this idea?

• Can an idea go beyond two or three good scenes? (can an idea take two hours to complete?)

• Will the audience be affected on a personal level by solving this problem?

• Is this storyline really universal enough to interest people other than you?

Scene List

• More than one storyline is used in a scene.

• Description of surface elements instead of the essence of the action.

• Scenes that are not required for the dramatic development of the story are included.

• You are more concerned with chronological order than with structure.

• Is it possible to combine multiple scenes into one?

• Are the scenes in order?

• Are there gaps in the scene list?

The course of history

• You are unable to verify the "backbone" of history.

• There are no characters in the scenes.

Symbol in the scene

• There are no symbols, key phrases to focus the dialogue.

• Your symbols are not related to the topic.

• You are unable to find a symbol that can be associated with the world, society or institution.

• There is no symbol that expresses the main aspect of your character's character.

• Is there an object that visually expresses the world of history?

• Which symbol expresses the change in your character's character?

• Is there a name or object that can express the essence of your character?

Topic

• Wrong structure or genre chosen to tell your story.

• The narrative does not focus on the deepest conflict in history.

• Don't know your subject.

• Don't have a strategy to tell the story better.

• The characters do not express a unique perspective on the story's central issue.

• There is not a single line of dialogue that repeats itself several times over the course of a story to express a theme.