Experience and mistakes are the arguments of a dog's heart. Mistake by Professor Preobrazhesky in the story "Heart of a Dog" M

⁰

Lesson - research using DER

"What is Professor Preobrazhensky's mistake?"

(Based on the novel by M.A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog")

1 slide

The story "Heart of a Dog" was written in 1925, but the writer did not see it printed. In Russia, the work was published only in 1987.

"It's spicy pamphlet on the present, it is impossible to print in any case, ”this is how L. B. Kamenev understood this work. How did you understand it?

Students' answers (most often students' answers come down to Professor Preobrazhensky's experiment)

The teacher asks a problematic question: “What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand at the end of the story? What is his mistake?

Different opinions of students lead to a problem situation, in the course of solving which students will come to a deeper understanding of the work.

Student's report on the history of the creation of the story "Heart of a Dog" (preliminary homework)

The story is based on a great experiment. Everything that happened around and what was called the construction of socialism was perceived by Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. The writer was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new perfect society by revolutionary (not excluding violence) methods, to educate a new, free person by the same methods. For him, this was such an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous, including for the "experimenters" themselves. The author warns readers about this in his work.

2 slide

- “Satire is created when a writer appears who considers the current life imperfect, and, indignantly, proceeds to expose it artistically. I believe that the path of such an artist will be very, very difficult. (M.A. Bulgakov)

Let's remember what satire is. What is satire directed at? (Satire is a kind of comic. The subject of satire is human vices. The source of satire is the contradiction between universal values and the reality of life).

What traditions of Russian satirists were continued by M. Bulgakov? (M.E. Saltykova-Shedrina, N.V. Gogol).

Analytical group study:

1. What does Moscow of the 1920s look like to the reader? Through whose eyes do we see Moscow? (Through the eyes of a dog, this is a detachment technique that allows the author to “hide” his attitude to what is happening and at the same time to most fully reveal the character of the observer through his perception of events and their assessment. Moscow seems to the guys dirty, uncomfortable, cold and gloomy. In this city, where wind, blizzard and snow reign, embittered people live, trying to keep what they have, and even better - to grab more.The students find details in the text that confirm their impressions, and come to the conclusion that in Moscow there is an atmosphere of chaos, disintegration , hatred: a person who was a nobody now receives power, but uses it for his own good, regardless of the people around him (an example of this is the fate of the “typist”).

3 slide

How does Professor Preobrazhensky appear before us? Is the choice of the professor's surname random? How does the author feel about his character in the first part of the story? What can be said about the lifestyle and views of the professor?

4 slide

What are his moral principles? What is the essence of the professor's attitude to the new system?

Why did the professor pick up a homeless dog? Why is he conducting an experimental operation?

Slide

What does Sharik look like to you? Describe it at the moment of meeting with the professor. Which qualities of Sharik do you like, which ones do you not? What qualities does the author emphasize in Sharik? For what purpose does he do this? What does Sharik notice in the reality around him and how does he react to it? What does Sharik like in the professor's house and what does he not like? (From the first lines, the “stream of consciousness” of the dog unfolds in front of the reader. And from the first lines it is clear that this dog is fantastic. The dog, whose body was abused by people, of course, knows how to hate, but the “typist” causes him sympathy and pity.

6 slide (viewing a movie clip)

The meeting with Professor Preobrazhensky saves Sharik from death. And although the dog is aware of his slavish soul and vile fate, he gives his love and devotion to "mental labor to the master" for a piece of Krakow sausage. The lackey obsequiousness that woke up in Sharik manifests itself not only in a readiness to lick the master's boots, but also in a desire to avenge past humiliations to one of those whom he used to be afraid of like fire - "to poke the porter by the proletarian calloused leg").

7 slide

Does Sharik change from December 16th to 23rd? Highlight the stages of these changes. Compare the behavior of a dog and a person (Sharikov) in the episodes of the first and second parts: choosing a name, dinner, visiting the house committee. Is there anything canine in a person? Why? What is in Sharikovo from a dog, what is from Chugunkin? (Sharikov, whose first word was the name of the store where he was scalded with boiling water, very quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to servants, turn his ignorance into a weapon against education. He even has a spiritual mentor - the chairman of the house committee Shvonder. Sharikov's career is truly amazing - from a vagrant a dog authorized to exterminate stray cats and dogs. And here one of the main features of Sharikov appears: gratitude is completely alien to him. On the contrary, he takes revenge on those who know his past. He takes revenge on his own kind in order to prove his difference from them, to assert himself. Shvonder , inspiring Sharikov to exploits (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky's apartment), just does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.)

Slide

Who is Sharikov's ideological mentor? Which impact is more terrible: physical or ideological? (Any violence cannot be justified)

What future did Bulgakov predict to Shvonder through Professor Preobrazhensky? Has this prediction come true?

slide

Compare the education theories of Prof. and Dr. Bormenthal. Which one was more effective and why? How did the results of the experiment affect the professor and his assistant? Does the author's attitude towards the professor change throughout the story? What are these changes?

10 slide

What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand by the end of the story? What is his mistake? What does the author warn his reader about? (Professor Preobrazhensky comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story "Heart of a Dog", the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov turns into a dog again. He is satisfied with his fate and himself. But in life, such experiments And Bulgakov managed to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.

Bulgakov believes that building socialism is also an experiment. A new society is created through violence, to which the author has a negative attitude. For him, this is a violation of the natural course of events, which will be deplorable for everyone.

In contrast to the happy ending of Mikhail Bulgakov's brilliant book, in real history everything turned out differently. After the revolution of 1917, numerous Sharkovs led by Shvonders came to power in the USSR. Proud of their proletarian origin, infinitely far from knowledge of the laws of history and economics, replacing genuine culture and education with immoderate "vocal impulses", these outcasts with "ruin in their heads" brought their country to a social catastrophe unheard of in world history. We are still healing the wounds of the bloody historical “operation” of 1917.

The great diagnostician and seer, M. Bulgakov predicted the tragic consequences of a social experiment "unprecedented in Europe" even at the height of historical events - in the article "Future Prospects" written in November 1919 9 . The article ends with the words:

“It will be necessary to pay for the past with incredible work, the severe poverty of life. Pay both figuratively and literally.

To pay for the madness of the March days, for the madness of the October days, for independent traitors, for Brest, for the insane use of machines for printing money... for everything!

And we will pay.

And only when it is already very late, we will again begin to create something in order to become full-fledged, so that we will be allowed back into the halls of Versailles.

Who will see these bright days?

Oh no! Our children, perhaps, and perhaps even grandchildren, because the scope of history is wide, and it “reads” decades just as easily as individual years.

And we, representatives of the unfortunate generation, dying in the rank of miserable bankrupts, will be forced to say to our children:

“Pay, pay honestly, and always remember the social revolution!”

Homework

Answer in writing the question: what is the meaning of the finale of the story?

Materials used in preparation for the lesson:

http://900igr.net/kartinki/literatura/Sobache-serdtse/011-M-A.-Bulgakov-1891-1940.html

http://www.bulgakov.ru/dogheart/dh6/

Direction

in preparation for writing

final essay

official comment

Within the framework of the direction, it is possible to reason about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, people, humanity as a whole, about the price of mistakes on the way of knowing the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes one think about the relationship between experience and mistakes: about experience that prevents mistakes, about mistakes without which it is impossible to move along the path of life, and about irreparable, tragic mistakes.

“Experience and mistakes” is a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is implied to a lesser extent, because without mistakes there is no and cannot be experience. The literary hero, making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, changes, improves, embarks on the path of spiritual and moral development. Giving an assessment of the actions of the characters, the reader acquires his invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make one's own mistakes, the price of which can be very high.

Aphorisms and sayings of famous people

You should not be shy for fear of making mistakes, the biggest mistake is to deprive yourself of experience.

Luc de Clapier Vauvenargues

You can make mistakes in various ways, you can only do the right thing in one way, therefore the first is easy, and the second is difficult; easy to miss, hard to hit.

Aristotle

Karl Raimund Popper

The one who thinks that he will not be mistaken if others think for him is deeply mistaken.

Avreliy Markov

We easily forget our mistakes when they are known only to us alone.

François de La Rochefoucauld

Take advantage of every mistake.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Modesty can be appropriate everywhere, but not in the matter of admitting one's mistakes.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

It is easier to find the error than the truth.

Johann Wolfgang Goethe

In all matters, we can only learn by trial and error, falling into error and correcting ourselves.

Karl Raimund Popper

F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Raskolnikov, killing Alena Ivanovna and confessing to his deed, does not fully realize the whole tragedy of the crime he committed, does not recognize the fallacy of his theory, he only regrets that he could not transgress, that he cannot now consider himself among the elect. And only in penal servitude the soul-worn hero does not just repent (he repented, confessing to the murder), but embarks on the difficult path of repentance. The writer emphasizes that a person who admits his mistakes is able to change, he is worthy of forgiveness and needs help and compassion.

M.A. Sholokhov "The Fate of Man"

K.G. Paustovsky "Telegram".

The heroes of such different works make a similar fatal mistake, which I will regret all my life, but, unfortunately, nothing can be corrected. Andrei Sokolov, leaving for the front, repels his wife hugging him, the hero is annoyed by her tears, he is angry, believing that she is "burying him alive", but it turns out the opposite: he returns, and the family dies. This loss is a terrible grief for him, and now he blames himself for every little thing and says with inexpressible pain: “Until my death, until my last hour, I will die, and I won’t forgive myself for pushing her away then!”

M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" The hero of the novel M.Yu. also makes a series of mistakes in his life. Lermontov. Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin belongs to the young people of his era who were disappointed in life.

Pechorin himself says about himself: "Two people live in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him." Lermontov's character is an energetic, intelligent person, but he cannot find application for his mind, his knowledge. Pechorin is a cruel and indifferent egoist, because he causes misfortune to everyone with whom he communicates, and he does not care about the condition of other people. V.G. Belinsky called him a "suffering egoist", because Grigory Alexandrovich blames himself for his actions, he is aware of his actions, worries, and nothing brings him satisfaction.

Grigory Alexandrovich is a very smart and reasonable person, he knows how to admit his mistakes, but at the same time he wants to teach others to confess their own, as, for example, he tried to push Grushnitsky to admit his guilt and wanted to resolve their dispute peacefully.

The hero is aware of his mistakes, but does nothing to correct them, his own experience does not teach him anything. Despite the fact that Pechorin has an absolute understanding that he destroys human lives (“destroys the lives of peaceful smugglers”, Bela dies through his fault, etc.), the hero continues to “play” with the fates of others, which makes himself unhappy .

L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". If the hero of Lermontov, realizing his mistakes, could not take the path of spiritual and moral improvement, then the beloved heroes of Tolstoy, the experience gained helps to become better. When considering the topic in this aspect, one can refer to the analysis of the images of A. Bolkonsky and P. Bezukhov.

M.A. Sholokhov "Quiet Don". Speaking about how the experience of military battles changes people, makes them evaluate their life mistakes, we can refer to the image of Grigory Melekhov. Fighting on the side of the whites, then on the side of the reds, he understands what a monstrous injustice is around, and he himself makes mistakes, gains military experience and draws the most important conclusions in his life: "... my hands need to plow." Home, family - that's the value. And any ideology that pushes people to kill is a mistake. A person already wise with life experience understands that the main thing in life is not war, but a son meeting at the threshold of the house. It is worth noting that the hero admits that he was wrong. This is the reason for his repeated throwing from white to red.

M.A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog". If we talk about experience as “a procedure for reproducing some phenomenon experimentally, creating something new under certain conditions for the purpose of research”, then the practical experience of Professor Preobrazhensky to “clarify the issue of survival of the pituitary gland, and later on its influence on rejuvenation organism in humans” can hardly be called successful in full measure.

From a scientific point of view, he is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation. The scientific result turned out to be unexpected and impressive, but in everyday life it led to the most deplorable consequences.

V.G. Rasputin "Farewell to Matera" Talking about the mistakes that are irreparable and bring suffering not only to each individual person, but to the people as a whole, one can also refer to the specified story of the writer of the twentieth century. This is not just a work about the loss of one's home, but also about how erroneous decisions lead to disasters that will certainly affect the life of society as a whole.

For Rasputin, it is quite clear that the collapse, the disintegration of a nation, a people, a country, begins with the disintegration of the family. And the reason for this is a tragic mistake, which consists in the fact that progress is much more important than the souls of old people saying goodbye to their home. And there is no repentance in the hearts of young people.

Wise with life experience, the older generation does not want to leave their native island, not because they cannot appreciate all the benefits of civilization, but primarily because they demand to give Matera for these amenities, that is, to betray their past. And the suffering of the elderly is the experience that each of us must learn. A person cannot, must not renounce his roots.

In reasoning on this topic, one can turn to history and the catastrophes that the “economic” activity of man entailed.

Rasputin's story is not just a story about great construction projects, it is a tragic experience of previous generations as a warning to us, people of the 21st century.

SOURCES

http://www.wpclipart.com/blanks/book_blank/diary_open_blank.png notebook

http://7oom.ru/powerpoint/fon-dlya-prezentacii-bloknot-07.jpg sheets

https://www.google.ru/search?q=%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%8D&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO5t7kkKDPAhXKEywKHc7sB-IQ_AUICSgC&biw=1352&bih=601#newwindow=1&tbm=isch&q=% D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%8D+%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF&imgrc=QhIRugc5LIJ5EM%3A

http://www.uon.astrakhan.ru/images/Gif/7b0d3ec2cece.gif compass

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DVEvdRWM3Ug/Vi-NnLSuuXI/AAAAAAAAGPA/28bVRUfkvKg/s1600/essay-clipart-24-08-07_04a.jpg student

http://effects1.ru/png/kartinka/4/kniga/1/kniga_18-320.png books

Composer of the presentation, teacher of the Russian language and literature, MBOU secondary school No. 8, Mozdok, North Ossetia-Alania Pogrebnyak N.M.

M. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog"

In the foreground "Dog Heart"- the experiment of the brilliant medical scientist Preobrazhensky with all the tragicomic results unexpected for the professor himself and his assistant Bormental. Having transplanted human seminal glands and the pituitary gland of the brain into a dog for purely scientific purposes, Preobrazhensky, to his amazement, receives from a dog ... a man. Homeless Ball, forever hungry, offended by everyone who is not lazy, in a matter of days, in front of the professor and his assistant, turns into homosapiens. And already on his own initiative receives a human name: Sharikov Polygraph Polygraphovych. His habits remain, however, canine. And the professor, willy-nilly, has to take up his upbringing.
Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky not only an outstanding specialist in his field. He is a man of high culture and an independent mind. And he is very critical of everything that has been happening around since March. 1917 of the year. The views of Philipp Philippovich have much in common with the views of Bulgakov. He is also skeptical about the revolutionary process. And also strongly opposed to any violence. Weasel is the only way that is possible and necessary in dealing with living beings - rational and unreasonable. "Terror can't do anything..."
And this conservative professor, who categorically rejects the revolutionary theory and practice of reorganizing the world, suddenly finds himself in the role of a revolutionary. The new system strives to create a new man from the old "human material". Philip Philipovich, as if competing with him, goes even further: he intends to make a man, and even a high culture and morality, out of a dog. "A caress, an exceptional caress." And of course, by example.
The result is known. Attempts to instill Sharikov elementary cultural skills are met with stubborn resistance on his part. And every day Sharikov becomes bolder, more aggressive and more dangerous.
If the "source material" for modeling Polygraph Polygraphovycha if there was only one Sharik, perhaps the professor's experiment would have succeeded. Having taken root in the apartment of Philipp Philippovich, Sharik, at first, as a recent homeless child, still commits some hooligan acts. But in the end it turns into a well-mannered house dog.
But by chance, human organs went to a citizen Sharikov from a criminal. In addition, a new, Soviet formation, as emphasized in his official characterization, or, more precisely, in Bulgakov's very poisonous parody of a characterization:
"Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. Nonpartisan, sympathetic. Tried 3 times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time the origin saved, the third time - conditionally hard labor for 15 years.
A "sympathizer" sentenced to hard labor "conditionally" - this is reality itself invading Preobrazhensky's experiment.
Is this character really alone? There is also the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, in the story. This "personnel" Bulgakov's character in this case has a special position. He even writes articles for the newspaper, reads Engels. In general, he is fighting for revolutionary order and social justice. Residents of the house should enjoy the same benefits. No matter how brilliant the scientist Professor Preobrazhensky, there is nothing for him to occupy seven rooms. He can dine in the bedroom, perform operations in the examination room, where he cuts rabbits. And in general it is time to equate it with Sharikov, a man of a completely proletarian appearance.
The professor himself manages to fight off Shvonder in one way or another. But fight back Polygraph Polygraphich he is unable to. Shvonder already taken over Sharikov patronage and educates, paralyzing all professorial educational efforts, in his own way.
Two weeks after the dog skin came off Sharikova and he began to walk on two legs, this participant already has a document proving his identity. And the document, according to Schwonder, who knows what he's talking about, is "the most important thing in the world." In another week or so Sharikov neither more nor less - a co-worker. And not an ordinary one - the head of the sub-department of cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals. Meanwhile, his nature is the same as it was - a canine-criminal .. What is worth one of his messages about his work "in his specialty": "Yesterday they strangled cats, strangled them."
But what kind of satire is this, if in just a few years thousands of real ball-bearers in the same way “choked-choked” no longer cats - people, real workers, who were not guilty of anything before the revolution ?!
Preobrazhensky and Bormental, making sure that they managed to "turn the sweetest dog into such filth that the hair stands on end", in the end they corrected their mistake.
But those experiments that have been carried out for a long time in reality itself have not been corrected. In the very first lines of the story, a certain Central People's Council farms. under the shade Central Council a canteen of normal food is discovered, where employees are fed shami from stinking corned beef, where a cook in a dirty cap is "a thief with a copper muzzle." And the caretaker is also a thief ...
But Sharikov. Not artificial, professorial - natural ...: “Now I am the chairman and, no matter how much I steal, everything is for the female body, for cancer necks, for Abrau-Dyurso. Because I was hungry enough in my youth, it will be with me, and the afterlife does not exist.
Why not a mixture of a hungry dog and a criminal? And this is no longer a special case. Something much more serious. Isn't it a system? The man was hungry, humiliated enough. And suddenly, on you! - position, power over people ... Is it easy to resist the temptations, which are now in turn plenty? ..

Boborykin, V.G. In the foreground of the "Heart of a Dog" / V.G. Boborykin//Mikhail Bulgakov.-1991.-S.61-66

Description of the presentation Experience and mistakes in the novel by M. A. Bulgakov on slides

Guidelines: “Experience and mistakes” is a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is implied to a lesser extent, because without mistakes there is no and cannot be experience. The literary hero, making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, changes, improves, embarks on the path of spiritual and moral development. Giving an assessment of the actions of the characters, the reader acquires his invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make one's own mistakes, the price of which can be very high. Speaking about the mistakes made by the heroes, it should be noted that an incorrectly made decision, an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also most fatally affect the fate of others. In literature, we also encounter such tragic mistakes that affect the fate of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic direction.

1. Wisdom is the daughter of experience. (Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter, scientist) 2. Experience is a useful gift that is never used. (J. Renard) 3. Do you agree with the popular proverb “Experience is the word that people call their mistakes”? 4. Do we really need our own experience? 5. Why should you analyze your mistakes? What can be learned from the mistakes of the heroes of The Master and Margarita? 6. Is it possible to avoid mistakes by relying on someone else's experience? 7. Is it boring to live without making mistakes? 8. What events and impressions of life help a person grow up, gain experience? 9. Is it possible to avoid mistakes in the search for a life path? 10. A mistake is the next step to experience 11. What mistakes cannot be corrected? Theme Options

What we cannot avoid in this life is the mistakes and delusions that will haunt us throughout our lives. This is a key point in the psychological attitude of every person - you will always make mistakes, you will always make mistakes and be mistaken. And therefore, dear friends, you should treat this normally, not make a disaster out of it, as we were taught, but learn a very valuable and useful lesson from each such situation. Why will you always make mistakes and be mistaken, because no matter who you are, you know far from everything about this world, and you will never know everything, this is the law of life, and your whole life is a process of cognition. But you can significantly reduce the number of mistakes you make, you can be less mistaken, at least not wrong or wrong in obvious situations, and for this you must learn. You can learn in this life from your own or from the mistakes of others. The first option is much more effective, the second is more promising. Human psychology Maxim Vlasov's website

But still, the main thing that I want to draw your attention to is something else, the main thing comes down to your attitude to all this. Many of us like to live according to once accepted concepts, holding on to them as a lifeline, and no matter what happens there, do not change our minds for anything. This is the main mistake in the mental attitude, as a result of which a person stops growing. And this also has a negative impact on the idea of oneself, of one’s mistakes, delusions and one’s abilities… We all make mistakes and are mistaken, we can all see the same situation in different ways, based on a number of our own ideas about reality. And this is actually normal, there is nothing wrong with it, as it is usually presented. You know that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, which he theorized. A light beam can develop a speed three times higher than the speed that he considered the limit, that is, 300 thousand km / s.

Goethe argued: - Error is to truth, as a dream is to awakening. Awakening from error, a person turns to the truth with renewed vigor. L. N. Tolstoy believed that mistakes give reason. However… The mind gives errors: there is either an exchange, or a mutual deception. The biggest mistake people make in life is when they don't try to live by doing what they love best. (Malcolm Forbes) Everyone has to make their own mistakes in life. (Agatha Christie)Aphorisms

The only real mistake is not correcting your past mistakes. (Confucius) If not for the mistakes of youth, what would we remember in old age? If you made a mistake on the road, then you can return; if you make a mistake with the word - nothing can be done. (Chinese epil.) The one who does nothing is never mistaken. (Theodore Roosevelt) Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. (O. Wilde) To make a mistake and realize it - this is wisdom. To realize the mistake and not hide it - this is honesty. (Ji Yun)

Bitter experience. Irreparable errors. The cost of mistakes. Thesis Sometimes a person does things that lead to tragic consequences. And, although he eventually realizes that he made a mistake, nothing can be corrected. Often the price of a mistake is someone's life. Mistake prevention experience. Thesis Life is the best teacher. Sometimes difficult situations arise when a person must make the right decision. By making the right choice, we gain invaluable experience - experience that will help us avoid mistakes in the future. Abstracts

Mistakes, without which it is impossible to move along the path of life. Some mistakes people learn from. Thesis Is it possible to live life without making mistakes? I think not. A person walking along the path of life is not immune from a wrong step. And sometimes it is thanks to mistakes that he gains valuable life experience, learns a lot.

Van Bezdomny (aka Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev) is a character in the novel The Master and Margarita, a poet who becomes a professor at the Institute of History and Philosophy in the epilogue. In the fate of the poet Ivan Bezdomny, who by the end of the novel has turned into a professor at the Institute of History and Philosophy Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev, Bulgakov says that the new people created by Bolshevism will not be viable and, naturally, will perish along with the Bolshevism that gave birth to them, that nature does not tolerate not only emptiness but also pure destruction and denial and requires creation, creativity, and true, positive creativity is possible only with the approval of the beginning of the national and with a sense of the religious connection of a person and a nation with the Creator of the Universe. Ivan Homeless

When meeting with Ivan, then Homeless, Woland urges the poet to first believe in the devil, hoping that thereby I. B. will be convinced of the truth of the story of Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri, and then believe in the existence of the Savior. The poet Bezdomny found his “small homeland” by becoming Professor Ponyrev (the surname comes from the Ponyri station in the Kursk region), as if joining thereby to the origins of national culture. However, the new I.B. was struck by the omniscience bacillus. This man, raised by the revolution to the surface of public life, is at first a well-known poet, after that a well-known scientist. He replenished his knowledge, ceasing to be that virgin youth who tried to detain Woland at the Patriarch's Ponds. But I. B. believed in the reality of the devil, in the authenticity of the story of Pilate and Yeshua, while Satan and his retinue were in Moscow and while the poet himself communicated with the Master, whose testament I. B. fulfilled by refusing to write poetry in the epilogue.

Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev is convinced that there is neither God nor the devil, and he himself became a victim of a hypnotist in the past. The professor's former faith comes to life only once a year, on the night of the spring full moon, when he sees in a dream the execution of Yeshua, perceived as a world catastrophe. He sees Yeshua and Pilate talking peacefully on the wide, moonlit road, he sees and recognizes the Master and Margarita. I. B. himself is not capable of genuine creativity, and the true creator - the Master - is forced to seek protection from Woland in the last shelter. This is how Bulgakov’s deep skepticism manifested itself regarding the possibility of rebirth for the better of those who were introduced into culture and public life by the October Revolution of 1917. The author of The Master and Margarita did not see in Soviet reality such people, whose appearance was predicted and hoped for by Prince N. S. Trubetskoy and other Eurasians. Raised by the revolution, nugget poets who came out of the people, according to the writer, were too far from feeling “the religious connection of man and nation with the Creator of the Universe,” and the idea that they could become the creators of a new national culture turned out to be a utopia. Ivan, who has “seen the light” and turned from Homeless into Ponyrev, feels such a connection only in a dream.

A series of guests who pass in front of Margarita on V. b. at the village , was not chosen randomly. The procession is opened by “Mr. Jacques with his wife”, “one of the most interesting men”, “a convinced counterfeiter, a traitor, but a very good alchemist”, who “became famous for that. . . that he poisoned the royal mistress." The last imaginary poisoners on V. b. at the village are contemporaries of Bulgakov. “The last two guests were going up the stairs. “Yes, it’s someone new,” said Koroviev, squinting through the glass, “oh, yes, yes. Once, Azazello visited him and, over cognac, whispered advice to him on how to get rid of a certain person, whose revelations he was extremely afraid of. And so he ordered his acquaintance, who was dependent on him, to spray the walls of the office with poison. - What's his name? Margaret asked. “Ah, really, I don’t know yet myself,” Koroviev answered, “I must ask Azazello. - And who is with him? “But this very executive subordinate of his.” Woland's guests

During V. b. at the village not only imaginary poisoners and murderers pass before Margarita, but also real villains of all times and peoples. Interestingly, if all the imaginary poisoners at the ball are men, then all the true poisoners are women. The first to speak is “Ms. Tofana”. The next poisoner on V. b. at the village - Marquise, who "poisoned her father, two brothers and two sisters because of the inheritance." On V. b. at the village Margarita sees the famous harlots and pimps of the past and present. Here is a Moscow dressmaker who organized a visiting house in her workshop (Bulgakov included the prototype of the main character of his play “Zoyka’s Apartment” among the participants in V. b. at the village), and Valeria Messalina, the third wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius I (10 -54) , the successor of Gaius Caesar Caligula (12-41), also present at the ball.

What is on V. b. at the village before Margarita passes a string of murderers, poisoners, executioners, harlots and pimps, not at all by chance. Bulgakov's heroine is tormented by betrayal of her husband and, albeit subconsciously, puts her misdeed on a par with the greatest crimes of the past and present. The abundance of poisoners and poisoners, real and imaginary, is a reflection in Margarita's brain of the thought of a possible suicide with the Master using poison. At the same time, their subsequent poisoning, carried out by Azazello, can be considered imaginary, and not real, since almost all male poisoners in V. b. at the village imaginary poisoners. Another explanation for this episode is the suicide of the Master and Margarita. Woland, introducing the heroine to the famous villains and harlots, intensifies the pangs of her conscience. But Bulgakov, as it were, leaves an alternative possibility: V. b. at the village and all the events connected with him occur only in the sick imagination of Margarita, tormented by the lack of news about the Master and guilt before her husband and subconsciously thinking about suicide. A special role in V. b. at the village Frida plays, showing Margarita the fate of the one who crosses the line defined by Dostoevsky in the form of an innocent child's tears. Frida, as it were, repeats the fate of Margarita in Goethe's Faust and becomes a mirror image of Margarita.

This is a collective image that Bulgakov draws. He satirically gives us portraits of his contemporaries. It becomes funny and bitter from the images drawn by the author. At the very beginning of the novel, we see Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, chairman of MASSOLIT (union of writers). In fact, this person has nothing to do with real creativity. B. is completely faked by time. Under his leadership, the entire MASSOLIT becomes the same. It includes people who know how to adapt to the authorities, write not what you want, but what you need. There is no place for a true creator, so critics start persecuting the Master. Moscow in the 1920s is also a Variety show, directed by Styopa Likhodeev, a lover of carnal entertainment. He is punished by Woland, just like his subordinates Rimsky and Varenukha, liars and sycophants. Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, chairman of the house administration, was also punished for bribery. In general, Moscow of the 1920s is distinguished by a lot of unpleasant qualities. This is a thirst for money, a desire for easy money, satisfaction of one's carnal needs to the detriment of spiritual ones, lies, subservience to superiors. It was not in vain that Woland and his retinue came to this city and at this time. They punish the hopeless severely, and morally give those who are not yet completely dead a chance to improve. Moscow in the 20s

As we remember, at the beginning of the novel, the writers Berlioz and Bezdomny convince their friend that there was no Jesus and that in general all gods are invented. Is it necessary to prove that this was “atheism out of fear” (especially with the editor Berlioz)? And now, at the very moment when Ivan Bezdomny "one hundred percent" agreed with Berlioz, Woland appears and asks: if there is no God, then who controls human life? Ivan Bezdomny "angrily" (because he is subconsciously not sure of his words) replied: "The man himself manages." So: no one in the “Moscow” chapters “manages” anything. Moreover, by yourself. Not a single person, starting with Berlioz and Homeless. All of them are victims of fear, lies, cowardice, stupidity, ignorance, money-grubbing, lust, self-interest, greed, hatred, loneliness, longing. . . And from all this they are ready to throw themselves into the arms of even the devil himself (which they do at every step ...). Is it necessary to give Mikhail Bulgakov to the evil spirit? (I. Akimov)

Likhodeev Stepan Bogdanovich is the director of the Variety show, in which Woland, calling himself a professor of magic, is planning a "performance". Likhodeev is known as a drunkard, loafer and lover of women. Barefoot Nikanor Ivanovich - a man who held the position of chairman of the housing association on Sadovaya Street. A greedy thief, who on the eve appropriated part of the money from the cash desk of the partnership. Koroviev invites him to conclude an agreement on the delivery of a "bad" apartment to the guest performer Woland and gives a bribe. After that, the received banknotes turn out to be foreign currency. On a call from Koroviev, the bribe-taker is taken to the NKVD, from where he ends up in a lunatic asylum. Aloisy Mogarych is an acquaintance of the Master who wrote a false denunciation against him in order to appropriate his apartment. Woland's retinue kicked him out of the apartment, and after the trial of Satan, he left Moscow, finding himself at Vyatka. Later he returned to the capital and took the position of financial director of Variety. Annushka is a speculator. It was she who broke the container with the purchased sunflower oil at the crossing of the tram rails, which caused the death of Berlioz.

The work of M. A. Bulgakov is the largest phenomenon of Russian fiction of the 20th century. Its main theme can be considered the theme of “the tragedy of the Russian people”. The writer was a contemporary of all those tragic events that took place in Russia in the first half of our century. But most importantly, M. A. Bulgakov was an insightful prophet. He not only described what he saw around him, but also understood how dearly his homeland would pay for all this. With a bitter feeling, he writes after the end of the First World War: “... The Western countries are licking their wounds, they will recover, they will recover very soon (and will prosper!), and we ... we will fight, we will pay for the madness of the October days ,for all!" And later, in 1926, in his diary: “We are a wild, dark, unfortunate people.”
M. A. Bulgakov is a subtle satirist, a student of N. V. Gogol and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. But the writer's prose is not just satire, it is fantastic satire. There is a huge difference between these two types of worldview: satire exposes the shortcomings that exist in reality, and fantastic satire warns society about what awaits it in the future. And the most frank views of M. A. Bulgakov on the fate of his country are expressed, in my opinion, in the story “Heart of a Dog”.
The story was written in 1925, but the author did not wait for its publication: the manuscript was seized during a search in 1926. The reader saw her only in 1985.
The story is based on a great experiment. The protagonist of the story - Professor Preobrazhensky, who is the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of Russian intellectual - conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: to create a new person by transplanting part of the human brain into a dog. The theme of the new Faust sounds in the story, but, like everything else with M.A. Bulgakov, it has a tragicomic character. Moreover, the action of the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the surname Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes all the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late.
To create a new man, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the "proletarian" - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of the most complicated operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, who has completely inherited the “proletarian” essence of his “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois”. And then - street expressions: “do not push!”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” and so on. A disgusting “man of small stature and unsympathetic appearance appears. The hair on his head grew stiff ... The forehead struck with its small height. Almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows, a thick head brush began.
The monstrous homunculus, a man with a canine disposition, whose "base" was a lumpen proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, arrogant, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormental and a humanoid being is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirt-front ...” - “Do not throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask for the hundredth time. I don't want to hear another swear word. Don't give a damn about the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are watching her in the dark. Look!” - the professor is indignant. “Something you me, daddy, hurt me painfully,” he (Sharikov) suddenly said whiningly ... “Why don’t you let me live?” Despite the displeasure of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitive and stupid: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, does nothing, does all sorts of outrages, confident that "at present everyone has his own right."
Of course, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is not trying to depict this scientific experiment in itself in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. It is not only about the scientist's responsibility for his experiment, about the inability to see the consequences of his actions, about the huge difference between evolutionary changes and a revolutionary invasion of life.
The story "Heart of a Dog" carries an extremely clear author's view of everything that happens in the country.
Everything that happened around and what was called the construction of socialism was also perceived by M.A. Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. He was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society by revolutionary, that is, justifying violence, methods, to educating a new, free person by the same methods. He saw that in Russia they were also striving to create a new type of person. A man who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received huge rights from the state. It is such a person who is convenient for the new government, because he will put in the dirt those who are independent, smart, high in spirit. M. A. Bulgakov considers the reorganization of Russian life an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous. But do those who conceived their experiment realize that it can also hit the “experimenters”, do they understand that the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural development of society, and therefore can lead to consequences that no one can control ? It is these questions, in my opinion, that M. A. Bulgakov poses in his work. In the story, Professor Preobrazhensky manages to return everything to its place: Sharikov again becomes an ordinary dog. Will we ever be able to correct all those mistakes, the results of which we still experience for ourselves?

"Friendship and enmity"

"Friendship and enmity"

Nadezhda Borisovna Vasilyeva "Gagara"

Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov "Oblomov"

Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev "Defeat"

Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"

Daniel Pennak "Eye of the Wolf"

Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"

Oblomov and Stolz

The great Russian writer, Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, published his second novel, Oblomov, in 1859. It was a very difficult time for Russia. The society was divided into two parts: the first, a minority - those who understood the need to abolish serfdom, who were not satisfied with the life of ordinary people in Russia, and the second, the majority - "masters", wealthy people whose life consisted of idle pastime, living off the property they owned peasants. In the novel, the author tells us about the life of the landowner Oblomov and about those heroes of the novel who surround him and allow the reader to better understand the image of Ilya Ilyich himself.
One of these heroes is Andrei Ivanovich Stolz, a friend of Oblomov. But despite the fact that they are friends, each of them represents in the novel his life position that is opposite to one another, so their images are contrasting. Let's compare them.
Oblomov appears before us as a man "... about thirty-two or three years old, of medium height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, ... an even light of carelessness glimmered all over his face." Stolz is the same age as Oblomov, “thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, ... his complexion is even, swarthy and no blush; eyes, although a little greenish, but expressive. As you can see, even in the description of appearance, we can not find anything in common. Oblomov's parents were Russian nobles, they owned several hundred souls of serfs. Stolz's father was half German, his mother was a Russian noblewoman.
Oblomov and Stolz have known each other since childhood, as they studied together in a small boarding school located five miles from Oblomovka, in the village of Verkhlev. Stolz's father was a manager there.
“Perhaps Ilyusha would have had time to learn something well from him if Oblomovka had been five hundred versts from Verkhlev. The charm of the Oblomov atmosphere, way of life and habits extended to Verkhlevo; there, except for Stolz's house, everything breathed the same primitive laziness, simplicity of morals, silence and immobility. But Ivan Bogdanovich raised his son strictly: “From the age of eight, he sat with his father behind a geographical map, disassembled Herder, Wieland, biblical verses according to the warehouses and summed up the illiterate accounts of peasants, bourgeois and factory workers, and read sacred history with his mother, taught Krylov’s fables and sorted through the warehouses of Telemachus. As for physical education, Oblomov was not even allowed out into the street, while Stolz
“Tearing himself away from the pointer, he ran to destroy bird nests with the boys,” sometimes, it happened, disappearing from home for a day. From childhood, Oblomov was surrounded by the tender care of his parents and nanny, which took away from him the need for his own actions, others did everything for him, while Stoltz was brought up in an atmosphere of constant mental and physical labor.
But Oblomov and Stolz are already over thirty. What are they now? Ilya Ilyich turned into a lazy gentleman, whose life slowly passes on the couch. Goncharov himself speaks with some irony about Oblomov: “Ilya Ilich’s lying down was neither a necessity, like a sick person or a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like a lazy person: it was his normal state." Against the background of such a lazy existence, Stolz's life can be compared to a seething stream: “He is constantly on the move: if society needs to send an agent to Belgium or England, they send him; you need to write some project or adapt a new idea to the case - choose it. Meanwhile, he travels to the world and reads: when he has time - God knows.
All this once again proves the difference between Oblomov and Stolz, but if you think about it, what can unite them? Probably friendship, but other than that? It seems to me that they are united by an eternal and sound sleep. Oblomov sleeps on his couch, and Stolz sleeps in his stormy and eventful life. “Life: life is good!” Oblomov argues, “What is there to look for? interests of the mind, heart? Just look where is the center around which all this revolves: it is not there, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are the dead, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society! ... Don't they sleep sitting all their lives? How am I more guilty than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with triples and jacks? Maybe Ilya Ilyich is right, because it can be said that people who live without a specific, lofty goal simply sleep in pursuit of satisfying their desires.
But who is more needed by Russia, Oblomov or Stolz? Of course, such active, active and progressive people as Stolz are simply necessary in our time, but we must come to terms with the fact that the Oblomovs will never disappear, because there is a part of Oblomov in each of us, and we are all a little Oblomov in our souls. Therefore, both of these images have the right to exist as different life positions, different views on reality.

Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Duel between Pierre and Dolokhov. (Analysis of an episode from L.N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace", vol. II, part I, ch. IV, V.)

Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy in the novel "War and Peace" consistently pursues the idea of the predestination of a person's fate. You can call him a fatalist. Brightly, truthfully and logically, this is proved in the scene of the duel between Dolokhov and Pierre. A purely civilian man - Pierre wounded Dolokhov in a duel - a bully, a rake, a fearless warrior. But Pierre could not handle weapons at all. Just before the duel, Nesvitsky's second explained to Bezukhov "where to press."
The episode, which tells about the duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov, can be called "Unconscious act". It begins with a description of a dinner at the English Club. Everyone is sitting at the table, eating and drinking, proclaiming toasts to the emperor and his health. Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, Bezukhoye are present at the dinner. Pierre "does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, heavy and insoluble." He is tormented by the question: are Dolokhov and his wife Helen really lovers? “Every time his gaze accidentally met Dolokhov’s beautiful, insolent eyes, Pierre felt something terrible, ugly rising in his soul.” And after the toast uttered by his "enemy": "To the health of beautiful women and their lovers," Bezukhov realizes that his suspicions are not in vain.
A conflict is brewing, the plot of which occurs when Dolokhov grabs a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it uncertainly, timidly, one might even think that the words: "You ... you ... scoundrel!., I challenge you ..." - inadvertently escape from him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and the seconds do not realize this either: Nesvitsky - Pierre's second and Nikolai Rostov - Dolokhov's second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits in the club all night, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill an opponent, but this is only an appearance, his soul is restless. His opponent, on the other hand, "looks like a man preoccupied with some considerations that are not at all related to the upcoming business. His haggard face is yellow. He apparently did not sleep at night." The count still doubts the correctness of his actions and thinks: what would he do in Dolokhov's place?
Pierre does not know what to do: either to run away, or to bring the matter to an end. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupid. Dolokhov does not want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal to reconcile, the duel does not begin for a long time because of the unconsciousness of the act, which Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: "For about three minutes everything was already ready, and yet they hesitated to start. Everyone was silent." The indecision of the characters is also conveyed by the description of nature - it is sparing and laconic: fog and thaw.
Began. Dolokhov, when they began to disperse, walked slowly, his mouth had the semblance of a smile. He is aware of his superiority and wants to show that he is not afraid of anything. Pierre, on the other hand, walks quickly, straying off the beaten track, he seems to be trying to escape, to finish everything as soon as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, while at random, shuddering from a strong sound, and injures his opponent.
Dolokhov, shooting, misses. Dolokhov's wound and his unsuccessful attempt to kill the count are the climax of the episode. Then there is a decline in action and a denouement, which is what all the characters experience. Pierre does not understand anything, he is full of remorse and regret, barely holding back his sobs, clutching his head, goes back somewhere into the forest, that is, he runs away from what he has done, from his fear. Dolokhov, on the other hand, does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, whom he causes suffering.
In the outcome of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was done. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house in a friendly way and helped with money in memory of an old friendship, disgraced Bezukhov by seducing his wife. But Pierre is completely unprepared for the role of "judge" and "executioner" at the same time, he repents of what happened, thanks God that he did not kill Dolokhov.
Pierre's humanism disarms, already before the duel he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helen's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. “Perhaps I would have done the same in his place,” thought Pierre. “Even probably I would have done the same thing. Why this duel, this murder?”
Helen's insignificance and meanness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his act, this woman is not worth it to take a sin on her soul - to kill a person for her. Pierre is afraid that he almost ruined his own soul, as he already did his life, by connecting it with Helen.
After the duel, taking the wounded Dolokhov home, Nikolai Rostov found out that "Dolokhov, this brawler, breter, Dolokhov lived in Moscow with an old mother and a hunchbacked sister and was the most gentle son and brother ...". Here one of the author's statements is proved, that not everything is so obvious, understandable and unambiguous, as it seems at first glance. Life is much more complex and diverse than we think about it, know or assume. The great philosopher Leo Tolstoy teaches to be humane, fair, tolerant of the shortcomings and vices of people. The scene of Dolokhov's duel with Pierre Bezukhov Tolstoy gives a lesson: it is not for us to judge what is fair and what is unfair, not everything obvious is unambiguous and easily solved.