Analysis of a dog's heart, experiences and mistakes. The mistake of Professor Preobrazhesky in the story “The Heart of a Dog” by M. Bulgakov is a mirror reflection of our reality. Lesson – research using COR

Mikhail Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog” can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society. Using the example of the failure of Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 20s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.

Why do we call the experiment of a brilliant professor unsuccessful? From a scientific point of view, this experiment, on the contrary, is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland into a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a brief but succinct description: “Profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. Liver dilated 1 (alcohol). The cause of death was a stab in the heart in a pub.” And what? In the creature that appeared as a result of a scientific experiment, the makings of an eternally hungry street dog Sharik are combined with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And it is not surprising that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first “decent” word was “bourgeois.”

The scientific result was unexpected and unique, but in everyday life it led to the most disastrous consequences. The type who appeared in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of an operation, “short in stature and unattractive in appearance,” upended the well-functioning life of this house. He behaves defiantly rudely, arrogantly and insolently.

The newly minted Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov puts on patent leather shoes and a tie of a poisonous color, his suit is dirty, unkempt, tasteless. With the help of the house committee Shvonder, he registers in Preobrazhensky’s apartment, demands the “sixteen arshins” of living space allotted to him, and even tries to bring his wife into the house. He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he is reading a book recommended by Shvonder - the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky. And he even makes critical remarks about the correspondence...

From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are pathetic attempts that in no way contribute to Sharikov’s mental and spiritual development. But from the point of view of Shvonder and others like him, Sharikov is quite suitable for the society that they create. Sharikov was even hired by a government agency. For him, to become a boss, albeit a small one, means to transform outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a state car, and controls the fate of a girl secretary. His arrogance becomes limitless. All day long, obscene language and balalaika tinkling can be heard in the professor’s house; Sharikov comes home drunk, pesters women, breaks and destroys everything around him. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the entire house.

Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental are unsuccessfully trying to instill in him the rules of good manners, develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov only likes the circus, and he calls the theater a counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave culturally at the table, Sharikov ironically notes that this is how people tormented themselves under the tsarist regime.

Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more a failure than a success for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey... This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.” He 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 again turns into rtca. He is happy with his fate and with himself. But in real life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.

With his story “Heart of a Dog,” Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that took place in Russia is not the result of the natural socio-economic and spiritual development of society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is exactly how Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism. The writer protests against attempts to create a new perfect society using revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about educating a new, free person using the same methods. The main idea of ​​the writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people.

Arguments for the essay

Problems 1. The role of art (science, media) in the spiritual life of society 2. The impact of art on the spiritual development of a person 3. The educational function of art Affirmative theses 1. True art ennobles a person. 2. Art teaches a person to love life. 3. To bring people the light of high truths, “pure teachings of goodness and truth” - this is the meaning of true art. 4. The artist must put his whole soul into the work in order to infect another person with his feelings and thoughts. Quotes 1. Without Chekhov, we would be many times poorer in spirit and heart (K Paustovsky, Russian writer). 2. The whole life of mankind was consistently deposited in books (A. Herzen, Russian writer). 3. Conscientiousness is a feeling that literature must excite (N. Evdokimova, Russian writer). 4. Art is designed to preserve the human in a person (Yu. Bondarev, Russian writer). 5. The world of the book is the world of a real miracle (L. Leonov, Russian writer). 6. A good book is just a holiday (M. Gorky, Russian writer). 7. Art creates good people, shapes the human soul (P. Tchaikovsky, Russian composer). 8. They went into the darkness, but their trace did not disappear (W. Shakespeare, English writer). 9. Art is a shadow of divine perfection (Michelangelo, Italian sculptor and artist). 10. The purpose of art is to condensely convey the beauty dissolved in the world (French philosopher). 11. There is no poet’s career, there is a poet’s destiny (S. Marshak, Russian writer). 12. The essence of literature is not fiction, but the need to speak to the heart (V. Rozanov, Russian philosopher). 13. The artist’s job is to create joy (K Paustovsky, Russian writer). Arguments 1) Scientists and psychologists have long argued that music can have various effects on the nervous system and human tone. It is generally accepted that Bach's works enhance and develop the intellect. Beethoven's music arouses compassion and cleanses a person's thoughts and feelings of negativity. Schumann helps to understand the soul of a child. 2) Can art change a person’s life? Actress Vera Alentova recalls such an incident. One day she received a letter from an unknown woman who said that she was left alone and did not want to live. But after watching the film “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears,” she became a different person: “You won’t believe it, I suddenly saw that people were smiling and they weren’t as bad as I thought all these years. And the grass, it turns out, is green, And the sun is shining... I recovered, for which I thank you very much.” 3) Many front-line soldiers talk about how soldiers exchanged smokes and bread for clippings from a front-line newspaper, where chapters from A. Tvardovsky’s poem “Vasily Terkin” were published. This means that an encouraging word was sometimes more important to the soldiers than food. 4) The outstanding Russian poet Vasily Zhukovsky, talking about his impressions of Raphael’s painting “The Sistine Madonna,” said that the hour he spent in front of it belonged to the happiest hours of his life, and it seemed to him that this painting was born in a moment of miracle. 5) The famous children's writer N. Nosov told an incident that happened to him in childhood. One day he missed the train and stayed overnight on the station square with street children. They saw a book in his bag and asked him to read it. Nosov agreed, and the children, deprived of parental warmth, began to listen with bated breath to the story about the lonely old man, mentally comparing his bitter, homeless life with their fate. 6) When the Nazis laid siege to Leningrad, Dmitry Shostakovich’s 7th Symphony had a huge impact on the city’s residents. which, as eyewitnesses testify, gave people new strength to fight the enemy. 7) In the history of literature, a lot of evidence has been preserved related to the stage history of “The Minor”. They say that many noble children, having recognized themselves in the image of the slacker Mitrofanushka, experienced a true rebirth: they began to study diligently, read a lot and grew up as worthy sons of their homeland. 8) A gang operated in Moscow for a long time, which was particularly cruel. When the criminals were captured, they admitted that their behavior and their attitude to the world was greatly influenced by the American film “Natural Born Killers,” which they watched almost every day. They tried to copy the habits of the characters in this picture in real life. 9) The artist serves eternity. Today we imagine this or that historical figure exactly as he is depicted in a work of art. Even tyrants trembled before this truly regal power of the artist. Here is an example from the Renaissance. Young Michelangelo fulfills the order of the Medici and behaves quite boldly. When one of the Medici expressed displeasure about his lack of resemblance to the portrait, Michelangelo said: “Don’t worry, your Holiness, in a hundred years he will look like you.” 10) As children, many of us read the novel by A. Dumas “The Three Musketeers”. Athos, Porthos, Aramis, d'Artagnan - these heroes seemed to us the embodiment of nobility and chivalry, and Cardinal Richelieu, their opponent, the personification of treachery and cruelty. But the image of the novel's villain bears little resemblance to a real historical figure. After all, it was Richelieu who introduced almost forgotten during the religious wars, the words "French", "homeland". He banned duels, believing that young, strong men should shed blood not because of petty quarrels, but for the sake of their homeland. But under the pen of the novelist, Richelieu acquired a completely different appearance, and Dumas's invention affects the reader much stronger and brighter than the historical truth. 11) V. Soloukhin told the following incident. Two intellectuals were arguing about what kind of snow there is. One says that there is blue snow, the other proves that blue snow is nonsense, an invention of the impressionists, decadents that snow is snow, white as...snow. Repin lived in the same house. We went to him to resolve the dispute. Repin: did not like being taken away from work. He angrily shouted: “Well, what do you want?” ? - What kind of snow is there? - Just not white! - and slammed the door. 12) People believed in the truly magical power of art. Thus, some cultural figures suggested that during the First World War the French should defend Verdun, their strongest fortress, not with forts and cannons, but with the treasures of the Louvre. “Place “La Gioconda” or “Madonna and Child with Saint Anne”, the great Leonardo da Vinci in front of the besiegers - and the Germans will not dare to shoot!,” they argued.

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

Within the framework of the direction, discussions are possible about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, a people, humanity as a whole, about the cost of mistakes on the path to understanding the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes you 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. Direction characteristics

Methodological recommendations: “Experience and errors” is a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is less implied, because without errors there is and cannot be experience. A literary hero, making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, changes, improves, and takes the path of spiritual and moral development. By assessing the actions of the characters, the reader gains 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 a wrong decision or an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also have the most fatal impact on the destinies of others. In literature we also encounter tragic mistakes that affect the destinies of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic area.

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 people use to call their mistakes”? 4. Do we really need our own experience? 5. Why do you need to analyze your mistakes? What can you learn from the mistakes of the heroes of the novel “The Master and Margarita”? 6. Is it possible to avoid mistakes by relying on the experience of others? 7. Is it boring to live without making mistakes? 8. What events and impressions in life help a person grow up and gain experience? 9. Is it possible to avoid mistakes when searching for a path in life? 10. A mistake is the next step towards experience 11. What mistakes cannot be corrected? Theme options

What we cannot avoid in this life are mistakes and misconceptions 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 be mistaken and 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 misled, because no matter who you are, you don’t know everything about this world, and you will never know everything, this is the law of life, and your whole life is a process of learning. But you can significantly reduce the number of mistakes you make, you can be less mistaken, at least not make mistakes and not be mistaken in obvious situations, and for this you must learn. You can learn in this life from your own or from others’ mistakes. The first option is much more effective, the second is more promising. Human psychology Website of Maxim Vlasov

But still, the main thing I want to draw your attention to is something else, the main thing comes down to your attitude towards all this. Many of us like to live according to concepts once accepted, holding on to them as a lifeline, and no matter what happens, not changing 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 differently, based on a number of our own ideas about reality. And this is actually normal, there is nothing scary about it, as it is usually presented. You know that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, which he theorized. A light beam can reach a speed three times higher than the speed that he considered to be the maximum, that is, 300 thousand km/sec.

Goethe said: “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 makes mistakes: what is happening is either mutual exchange or mutual deception. The greatest mistake people make in life is when they don't try to live by doing what they enjoy best. (Malcolm Forbes) In life, everyone must make their own mistakes. (Agatha Christie)Aphorisms

The only real mistake is not correcting your past mistakes. (Confucius) If it were not for the mistakes of youth, then what would we remember in old age? If you take the wrong road, you can return; If you make a mistake with a word, nothing can be done. (Chinese last) He who does nothing never makes mistakes. (Theodore Roosevelt) Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. (O. Wilde) Making a mistake and realizing it - this is wisdom. Realizing a mistake and not hiding it is honesty. (Ji Yun)

Bitter experience. Irreparable mistakes. The price of mistakes. Thesis Sometimes a person commits actions that lead to tragic consequences. And, although he eventually realizes that he made a mistake, nothing can be corrected. Often the cost of a mistake is someone's life. Experience that prevents errors. 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. People learn from some mistakes. 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 and learns a lot.

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

When meeting with Ivan, then still Bezdomny, Woland urges the poet to first believe in the devil, hoping that by doing so I.B. will be convinced of the truth of the story of Pontius Pilate and Yeshua Ha-Nozri, and then will believe in the existence of the Savior. The poet Bezdomny found his “small homeland”, becoming Professor Ponyrev (the surname comes from the Ponyri station in the Kursk region), thereby becoming familiar with the origins of national culture. However, the new I.B. was struck by the know-it-all bacillus. This man, raised to the surface of public life by the revolution, was first a famous poet, then a famous scientist. He expanded 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 behest I. B. fulfilled, refusing poetic creativity in the epilogue.

Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev is convinced that there is neither God nor the devil, and he himself in the past became a victim of a hypnotist. The professor's old faith revives 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 peacefully talking on a wide, moonlit road, he sees and recognizes the Master and Margarita. I.B. himself is not capable of true creativity, and the true creator - the Master - is forced to seek protection from Woland in his last refuge. This is how Bulgakov’s deep skepticism manifested itself regarding the possibility of a rebirth for the better of those who were brought 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 on whom Prince N.S. Trubetskoy and other Eurasians. Nurtured by the revolution, the nugget poets who emerged from the people, in the writer’s opinion, were too far from the feeling of “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. Having “seen the light” and turned from Homeless to Ponyrev, Ivan 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 and his wife,” “one of the most interesting men,” “a convinced counterfeiter, a state 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 turn out to be Bulgakov's contemporaries. “The last two guests were coming up the stairs. “Yes, this is 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 one person whose revelations he was extremely afraid of. And so he ordered his friend, who was dependent on him, to spray the walls of his office with poison. - What's his name? - asked Margarita. “Oh, really, I don’t know myself yet,” answered Koroviev, “I’ll have to ask Azazello.” - Who's with him? “But this is his most efficient subordinate.” Guests of Woland

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

What is on V. b. at the village A string of murderers, poisoners, executioners, libertines and procurers passes in front of Margarita, not at all by chance. Bulgakov's heroine is tormented by betrayal of her husband and, albeit subconsciously, puts her offense 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 possible suicide together 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 famous villains and libertines, intensifies the torment of her conscience. But Bulgakov seems to leave an alternative possibility: V. b. at the village and all the events associated with him occur only in the sick imagination of Margarita, who is 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 version of the fate of the one who crosses the line defined by Dostoevsky in the form of the tears of an innocent child. 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 paints. He satirically conveys to 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 (the 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 their superiors and write not what they want, but what they need. There is no place for a true creator, so critics begin persecuting the Master. Moscow of the 20s was also a Variety Show, run by the lover of carnal entertainment Styopa Likhodeev. He is punished by Woland, just like his subordinates Rimsky and Varenukha, liars and sycophants. The chairman of the house management, Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, was also punished for bribery. In general, Moscow of the 1920s was distinguished by many unpleasant qualities. This is a thirst for money, a desire for easy money, satisfaction of one’s carnal needs at the expense of spiritual ones, lies, servility to superiors. It was not in vain that Woland and his retinue came to this city at this time. They punish the hopeless severely, and give those who are not yet completely morally lost a chance to improve. Moscow 20s

As we remember, at the beginning of the novel, writers Berlioz and Bezdomny convince their friend that there was no Jesus and that in general all gods are fictitious. Is it necessary to prove that this was “atheism out of fear” (especially from the editor Berlioz)? And so, 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 was subconsciously unsure of his words) replied: “The man himself controls.” So: no one in the “Moscow” chapters “manages” anything. Moreover, by myself. Not a single person, starting with Berlioz and Bezdomny. All of them are victims of fear, lies, cowardice, stupidity, ignorance, money-grubbing, lust, self-interest, greed, hatred, loneliness, melancholy. . . And because of all this they are ready to throw themselves into the arms of even the devil himself (which is what they do at every step...). Should Mikhail Bulgakov be given over to the evil spirits? (I. Akimov)

Likhodeev Stepan Bogdanovich is the director of the Variety Show, in which Woland, calling himself a professor of magic, plans a “performance”. Likhodeev is known as a drunkard, a slacker and a lover of women. Bosoy Nikanor Ivanovich is a man who held the position of chairman of a housing association on Sadovaya Street. A greedy thief who the day before embezzled some of the money from the partnership's cash register. Koroviev invites him to conclude an agreement to rent out a “bad” apartment to the guest performer Woland and gives a bribe. After this, the received bills turn out to be foreign currency. Following a call from Koroviev, the bribe-taker is taken to the NKVD, from where he ends up in a mental hospital. 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 Satan's trial, he left Moscow, ending up 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 purchased sunflower oil while crossing the tram rails, which was the cause of Berlioz’s death.

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 bitter feeling, he writes after the end of the First World War: “...The Western countries are licking their wounds, they will get better, they will get better very soon (and will prosper!), and we... we will fight, we will pay for the madness of the days of October ,for all!" And later, in 1926, in his diary: “We are wild, dark, unhappy 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 “The Heart of a Dog.”
The story was written in 1925, but the author never saw its publication: the manuscript was seized during a search in 1926. The reader saw it only in 1985.
The story is based on a great experiment. The main character of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, who represents the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of Russian intellectual, conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: creating a new person by transplanting part of a human brain into a dog. The story contains the theme of a new Faust, but, like everything by M. A. Bulgakov, it is of a tragicomic nature. Moreover, the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the name Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late.
To create a new person, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the “proletarian” - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, completely inheriting the “proletarian” essence of its “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois.” And then - street expressions: “don’t push!”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” and so on. A disgusting “man of short stature and unattractive appearance appears. The hair on his head grew coarse... His forehead was striking in its small height. A thick head brush began almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows.”
The monstrous homunculus, a man with a canine disposition, the “basis” of which was the lumpen-proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, swaggering, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormenthal and the humanoid creature 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 shirtfront...” - “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask you for the hundredth time. So that I never hear a single curse word again. Don't spit in the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look!” - the professor is indignant. “For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me,” he (Sharikov) suddenly said tearfully... “Why aren’t you letting me live?” Despite the dissatisfaction of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitively and stupidly: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, messes around, does all sorts of outrages, confident that “nowadays everyone has his own right.”
Of course, it is not this scientific experiment in itself that Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov seeks to depict in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. We are talking 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” contains the author’s extremely clear view of everything that is happening in the country.
Everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism was also perceived by M. A. Bulgakov as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. He was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society using revolutionary, that is, methods that justify violence, and about educating a new, free person using the same methods. He saw that in Russia they were also trying to create a new type of person. A person who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received enormous rights from the state. It is precisely such a person who is convenient for the new government, because he will put into the dirt those who are independent, intelligent, and high in spirit. M.A. Bulgakov considers the reorganization of Russian life to be an intervention 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? ? These are the 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 are still experiencing?

"Friendship and Enmity"

"Friendship and Enmity"

Nadezhda Borisovna Vasilyeva "Loon"

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov "Oblomov"

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev "Destruction"

Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"

Daniel Pennac "Eye of the Wolf"

Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov "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. Society was divided into two parts: the first, the 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 what belonged to them 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 Stolts, a friend of Oblomov. But despite the fact that they are friends, each of them presents in the novel their own life position that is opposite to each other, so their images are contrasting. Let's compare them.
Oblomov appears before us as a man “... about thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, ... an even light of carelessness glowed throughout his face.” Stolz is the same age as Oblomov, “he is thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, ... his complexion is even, dark and there is no blush; the eyes, although a little greenish, are expressive.” As you can see, even in the description of appearance we cannot find anything in common. Oblomov's parents were Russian nobles who owned several hundred serfs. Stolz's father was half German, his mother was a Russian noblewoman.
Oblomov and Stolz have known each other since childhood, since they studied together in a small boarding school located five miles from Oblomovka, in the village of Verkhleve. Stolz's father was the manager there.
“Maybe Ilyusha would have had time to learn something well from him if Oblomovka had been about five hundred miles from Verkhlev. The charm of Oblomov’s atmosphere, lifestyle and habits extended to Verkhlevo; there, except for Stolz’s house, everything breathed the same primitive laziness, simplicity of morals, silence and stillness.” But Ivan Bogdanovich raised his son strictly: “From the age of eight, he sat with his father at the geographical map, sorted through the warehouses of Herder, Wieland, biblical verses and summed up the illiterate accounts of peasants, townspeople and factory workers, and with his mother he read sacred history, taught Krylov’s fables and sorted it out from Telemacus’ warehouses.” As for physical education, Oblomov was not even allowed outside, while Stolz
“Tearing himself away from the pointer, he ran to destroy birds’ nests with the boys,” sometimes disappearing from home for a day. Since childhood, Oblomov was surrounded by the tender care of his parents and nanny, which took away the need for his own actions; others did everything for him, while Stolz was brought up in an atmosphere of constant mental and physical labor.
But Oblomov and Stolz are already over thirty. What are they like now? Ilya Ilyich has turned into a lazy gentleman, whose life slowly passes on the sofa. Goncharov himself speaks with a bit of irony about Oblomov: “Ilya Ilyich’s lying down was neither a necessity, like that of a sick person or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like that of someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like that of 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 business - they choose it. Meanwhile, he goes out into 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 uninterrupted sleep. Oblomov sleeps on his sofa, and Stolz sleeps in his stormy and eventful life. “Life: life is good!” argues Oblomov, “What to look for there? interests of the mind, heart? Look where the center is around which all this revolves: it is not there, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society!... Don’t they sleep sitting all their lives? Why am I more guilty than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with threes and jacks? Maybe Ilya Ilyich is right, because we can say 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 piece of Oblomov in each of us, and we are all a little Oblomov at heart. Therefore, both of these images have the right to exist as different life positions, different views on reality.

Lev Nikolaevich 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, chapter IV, V.)

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy in his novel “War and Peace” consistently pursues the idea of ​​the predestined destiny of man. He can be called a fatalist. This is clearly, truthfully and logically proven in the scene of Dolokhov’s duel with Pierre. A purely civilian - Pierre wounded Dolokhov in a duel - a rake, a rake, a fearless warrior. But Pierre was completely unable to handle weapons. Just before the duel, second Nesvitsky explained to Bezukhov “where to press.”
The episode telling 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 sits at the table, eats and drinks, toasts to the emperor and his health. Present at the dinner are Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, and Bezukhoe. Pierre “does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, difficult 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 a toast made 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 beginning of which occurs when Dolokhov snatches a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The Count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it hesitantly, timidly, one might even think that the words: “You... you... scoundrel!.., I challenge you...” - accidentally escape him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and neither do the seconds: Nesvitsky, Pierre’s second, and Nikolai Rostov, Dolokhov’s second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits all night in the club, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill his opponent, but this is only an appearance, “his soul is restless. His opponent “has the appearance of a man busy with some considerations that are not at all related to the upcoming matter. His haggard face is yellow. He apparently did not sleep at night.” The Count still doubts the correctness of his actions and wonders: what would he do in Dolokhov’s place?
Pierre doesn't know what to do: either run away or finish the job. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupid. Dolokhov doesn’t want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal to reconcile, the duel does not begin for a long time due to the lack of awareness of the act, which Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: “For about three minutes everything was 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 walks quickly, straying from the beaten path, as if he is trying to run away, to finish everything as quickly as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, at random, flinching from the strong sound, and wounds his opponent.
Dolokhov, having fired, misses. Dolokhov's wounding and his unsuccessful attempt to kill the count are the climax of the episode. Then there is a decline in the 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, he goes back somewhere into the forest, that is, he runs away from what he has done, from his fear. Dolokhov does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, to whom he causes suffering.
In the outcome of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was accomplished. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house as a friend 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 is disarming; even before the duel, he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helene's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. “Maybe I would have done the same thing in his place,” thought Pierre. “Even probably I would have done the same thing. Why this duel, this murder?”
Helene’s insignificance and baseness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his action; this woman is not worth taking a sin on her soul - killing a person for her. Pierre is scared that he almost ruined his own soul, as he had previously ruined his life, by connecting it with Helen.
After the duel, taking the wounded Dolokhov home, Nikolai Rostov learned that “Dolokhov, this brawler, brute, - 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 proven that not everything is as obvious, clear and unambiguous as it seems at first glance. Life is much more complex and diverse than we think, know or assume about it. The great philosopher Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy teaches to be humane, fair, tolerant of the shortcomings and vices of people. In 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 resolved.

Here we should recall Mikhail Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.” The main character, doctor F. F. Preobrazhensky, does the seemingly impossible. He turns a dog into a human through pituitary gland transplant surgery. A scientist wants to surprise the scientific world and make a discovery. But the consequences of such interference in nature are not always for the good. The new Sharik in the human form of P.P. Sharikov will never become a full-fledged person, but will resemble the same drunkard and thief whose pituitary gland was transplanted to him. A person without conscience who is capable of any baseness.

Also, another work by Mikhail Bulgakov, “Fatal Eggs,” shows how an irresponsible attitude towards science can result.

Zoologist professor Vladimir Persikov was supposed to breed chickens, but due to a terrible mistake, instead they turn out to be giant reptiles that threaten death. Everyone is seized with horror and panic, and when there seems to be no way out, suddenly a frost of 18 degrees below zero hits. And in August. The reptiles did not survive the cold and died.

In Ivan Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” the main character, Evgeny Bazarov, is also involved in science in the field of medicine. Wants to do something useful. But his own worldview lets him down. He rejects everything that constitutes people's needs (love, art). The author sees this “nihilism” as the reason for Eugene’s death.

Updated: 2017-10-05

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.