Mikhail Zoshchenko - writer, satirist, playwright. Mikhail Zoshchenko: stories and feuilletons from different years Short satirical stories in Zoshchenko’s style

Whatever you want, comrades, I really sympathize with Nikolai Ivanovich.

This dear man suffered for the entire six hryvnia, and did not see anything particularly outstanding for that money.

Just now his character turned out to be soft and compliant. If someone else were in his place, he might have scattered the entire movie and smoked the audience out of the theater. That’s why six hryvnias don’t lie on the floor every day. You need to understand.

And on Saturday, our darling, Nikolai Ivanovich, of course, drank a little. After payday.

And this man was extremely conscientious. Another drunk person would have started to fuss and get upset, but Nikolai Ivanovich walked along the avenue with decorum and nobility. He sang something like that.

Suddenly he looks - there is a movie in front of him.

“Give it to me, he thinks, it doesn’t matter, I’ll go to the cinema. The man thinks I’m cultured, semi-intelligent, why should I drunkenly chatter around the panels and offend passers-by? Let him think I’ll watch the tape while drunk. I never did".

He bought a ticket with his own money. And he sat in the front row.

He sat down in the front row and looked at him decorously and nobly.

Just maybe he looked at one inscription and suddenly went to Riga. That’s why it’s very warm in the hall, the audience breathes and the darkness has a beneficial effect on the psyche.

Our Nikolai Ivanovich went to Riga, everything is decorous and noble - he doesn’t bother anyone, he can’t grab the screen with his hands, he doesn’t unscrew the light bulbs, but he sits and quietly goes to Riga.

Suddenly the sober public began to express dissatisfaction with Riga.

“You could,” they say, “comrade, walk around in the foyer for this purpose, but, they say, you distract those watching the drama to other ideas.”

Nikolai Ivanovich - a cultured, conscientious man - did not, of course, argue and get excited in vain. And he stood up and walked quietly.

“Why, he thinks, get involved with sober people? They won’t cause a scandal.”

He went to the exit. Contacts the cashier.

“Just now,” he says, “lady, I bought a ticket from you, I ask you to return the money back.” Because I can’t look at the picture—it’s driving me around in the dark.

Cashier says:

“We can’t give you the money back, if he drives you around, go to sleep quietly.”

There was a lot of noise and quarrel. If someone else were in Nikolai Ivanovich’s place, he would have dragged the cashier out of the cash register by the hair of her hair and returned her most pure money. And Nikolai Ivanovich, a quiet and cultured man, only maybe pushed the cashier once:

“You,” he says, “understand, you pest, I haven’t looked at your feed yet.” Give it back, he says, my pure ones.

And everything is so decorous and noble, without scandal - he asks for his own money back. Then the manager comes running.

“We,” he says, “don’t return the money - since, he says, it’s taken, be so kind as to watch the tape.”

If someone else were in Nikolai Ivanovich’s place, he would have spat at the manager and gone to look after his holy ones. And Nikolay

Ivanovich became very sad about the money, he began to explain heatedly and went back to Riga.

Here, of course, they grabbed Nikolai Ivanovich like a dog and dragged him to the police. They kept us there until the morning. And in the morning they fined him three rubles and released him.

Now I really feel sorry for Nikolai Ivanovich. This, you know, is a sad case: the person, one might say, didn’t even look at the tape, he just held out for a ticket - and please, charge three and six hryvnia for this petty pleasure. And for what, one wonders, three six hryvnia?

The writer saw in his own way some of the characteristic processes of modern reality. He is the creator of an original comic novella, which continued the traditions of Gogol, Leskov, and early Chekhov in new historical conventions. Z created his own unique thin style.

Three main stages can be distinguished in his work.

1The years of two wars and revolutions (1914-1921) are a period of intense spiritual growth of the future writer, the formation of his literary and aesthetic convictions.

2The civil and moral formation of Z as a humorist and satirist, an artist of significant social themes, occurred in the pre-October period. The first occurs in the 20s - the heyday of the writer’s talent, who honed his pen as an exposer of social vices in such popular satirical magazines of the time as “Behemoth”, “Buzoter”, “Red Raven”, “The Inspector General”, “Eccentric”, “Smekhach” ". At this time, the formation of Zoshchenko's short story and story took place. The 1920s saw the heyday of the main genre varieties in the writer’s work: the satirical story, the comic novella and the satirical-humorous story. Already at the very beginning of the 20s, the writer created a number of works that were highly appreciated by M. Gorky. The works created by the writer in the 20s were based on specific and very topical facts, gleaned either from direct observations or from numerous letters from readers. Their themes are motley and varied: riots in transport and in hostels, the grimaces of the NEP and the grimaces of everyday life, the mold of philistinism and philistinism, arrogant pompadour and creeping lackeyness and much, much more. Often the story is constructed in the form of a casual conversation with the reader, and sometimes, when the shortcomings became particularly egregious, the author’s voice sounded frankly journalistic notes. In a series of satirical short stories, M. Zoshchenko angrily ridiculed cynically calculating or sentimentally pensive earners of individual happiness, intelligent scoundrels and boors, and showed in their true light vulgar and worthless people who are ready to trample on everything truly human on the way to achieving personal well-being (“Matrenishcha”, "Grimace of NEP", "Lady with Flowers", "Nanny", "Marriage of Convenience"). In Zoshchenko's satirical stories there are no effective techniques for sharpening the author's thoughts. They, as a rule, are devoid of sharp comedic intrigue. M. Zoshchenko acted here as an exposer of spiritual smoking, a satirist of morals. He chose as the object of analysis the bourgeois owner - a hoarder and money-grubber, who from a direct political opponent became an adversary in the sphere of morality, a breeding ground for vulgarity. The main element of creativity in the 20s is still humorous everyday life.

1 In 1920-1921 Zoshchenko wrote the first stories that were subsequently published: Love, War, Old Woman Wrangel, Female Fish. (1928-1932).

2By the mid-1920s, Zoshchenko became one of the most popular writers. His stories Bathhouse, Aristocrat, Case History, etc., which he often read himself in front of numerous audiences, were known and loved in all layers of society. activity (custom-made feuilletons for the press, plays, film scripts, etc.), Zoshchenko’s true talent manifested itself only in the stories for children that he wrote for the magazines “Chizh” and “Hedgehog”.

Stories by M.M. Zoshchenko

A significant place in Zoshchenko’s work is occupied by stories in which the writer directly responds to real events of the day. The most famous among them: “Aristocrat”, “Glass”, “Case History”, “Nervous People”, “Fitter”. It was a language unknown to literature, and therefore did not have its own spelling. Zoshchenko was endowed with absolute pitch and a brilliant memory. Over the years spent in the midst of poor people, he managed to penetrate the secret of their conversational structure, with its characteristic vulgarisms, incorrect grammatical forms and syntactic structures, managed to adopt the intonation of their speech, their expressions, turns of phrase, words - he studied this language to the subtleties and has already From the first steps in literature, I began to use it easily and naturally. In his language one could easily encounter such expressions as “plitoir”, “okromya”, “creepy”, “this”, “in it”, “brunette”, “dragged”, “for the bite”, “why cry”, “ this poodle”, “a dumb animal”, “at the stove”, etc. But Zoshchenko is a writer not only of a comic style, but also of comic situations. Not only his language is comical, but also the place where the story of the next story unfolded: a wake, a communal apartment, a hospital - everything is so familiar, personal, everyday familiar. And the story itself: a fight in a communal apartment over a hedgehog in short supply, a row at a wake over a broken glass. Some of Zoshchenko’s phrases have remained in Russian literature as eaphorisms: “as if the atmosphere suddenly smelled on me”, “they will rob you like a stick and throw you away for their kind ones, even though they are their own relatives”, “the second lieutenant is nothing, but a bastard”, “disturbing the riots”. Zoshchenko While he was writing his stories, he himself was laughing. So much so that later, when I read stories to my friends, I never laughed. He sat gloomy, gloomy, as if not understanding what there was to laugh about.

Having laughed while working on the story, he later perceived it with melancholy and sadness. I perceived it as the other side of the coin.

Zoshchenko's hero is an ordinary man, a man with poor morals and a primitive outlook on life. This man in the street personified an entire human layer of the Russia of that time. The average person often spent all his energy fighting various kinds of minor everyday troubles, instead of actually doing something for the benefit of society. But the writer did not ridicule the man himself, but the philistine traits in him.

Thus, the hero of “The Aristocrat” (1923) became infatuated with one person in fildecos stockings and a hat. While he “as an official person” visited the apartment and then walked along the street, experiencing the inconvenience of having to take the lady’s arm and “drag like a pike,” everything was relatively safe. But as soon as the hero invited the aristocrat to the theater, “she and

unfolded her ideology in its entirety." Seeing the cakes during the intermission, the aristocrat "approaches the dish with a lecherous gait and grabs the cream and eats it."

The lady has eaten three cakes and is reaching for the fourth.

“Then the blood rushed to my head.

“Lie down,” I say, “back!”

After this culmination, events unfold like an avalanche, drawing into their orbit an ever-increasing number of characters. As a rule, in the first half of Zoshchenko's short story one or two, or even three, characters are presented. And only when the development of the plot reaches its highest point, when the need arises to typify the phenomenon being described, to sharpen it satirically, a more or less written out group of people, sometimes a crowd, appears.

So it is in "The Aristocrat". The closer to the finale, the greater the number of faces the author brings to the stage. First, the figure of the barman appears, who, in response to all the assurances of the hero, who passionately proves that only three pieces have been eaten, since the fourth cake is on the platter, “behaves indifferently.”

“No,” he answers, “although it is in the dish, a bite was made on it and it was crushed with a finger.”

There are also amateur experts, some of whom “say the bite is done, others say it’s not.” And, finally, the crowd, attracted by the scandal, laughs at the sight of the unlucky theatergoer, frantically turning out his pockets with all kinds of junk before their eyes.

In the finale, again only two characters remain, finally clarifying their relationship. The story ends with a dialogue between the offended lady and the hero, dissatisfied with her behavior.

“And at the house she says to me in her bourgeois tone:

Quite disgusting of you. Those who don't have money don't travel with ladies.

And I say:

Happiness is not in money, citizen. Sorry for the expression."

As we can see, both sides are offended. Moreover, both sides believe only in their own truth, being firmly convinced that it is the other side that is wrong. The hero of Zoshchenkov's story invariably considers himself infallible, a “respected citizen,” although in reality he acts as a arrogant man in the street.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Zoshchenko was born in St. Petersburg into the family of an artist. Childhood impressions - including the difficult relationship between parents - were later reflected both in Zoshchenko's stories for children (Overshoes and Ice Cream, Christmas Tree, Grandma's Gift, No Need to Lie, etc.) and in his story Before Sunrise (1943). The first literary experiences date back to childhood. In one of his notebooks, he noted that in 1902-1906 he had already tried to write poetry, and in 1907 he wrote the story Coat.

In 1913 Zoshchenko entered the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University. His first surviving stories date back to this time - Vanity (1914) and Two-kopeck (1914). Studies were interrupted by the First World War. In 1915, Zoshchenko volunteered to go to the front, commanded a battalion, and became a Knight of St. George. Literary work did not stop during these years. Zoshchenko tried his hand at short stories, epistolary and satirical genres (he composed letters to fictitious recipients and epigrams to fellow soldiers). In 1917 he was demobilized due to heart disease that arose after gas poisoning.

MichaelZoshchenko participated in the First World War, and by 1916 was promoted to the rank of staff captain. He was awarded many orders, including the Order of St. Stanislaus, 3rd degree, the Order of St. Anne, 4th degree “For Bravery,” and the Order of St. Anne, 3rd degree. In 1917, due to heart disease caused by gas poisoning, Zoshchenko was demobilized.

Upon returning to Petrograd, Marusya, Meshchanochka, Neighbor and other unpublished stories were written, in which the influence of G. Maupassant was felt. In 1918, despite his illness, Zoshchenko volunteered for the Red Army and fought on the fronts of the Civil War until 1919. Returning to Petrograd, he earned his living, as before the war, by various professions: shoemaker, carpenter, carpenter, actor, rabbit breeding instructor, policeman, criminal investigation officer, etc. In the humorous Orders on railway police and criminal supervision written at that time, Art. Ligovo and other unpublished works can already feel the style of the future satirist.

In 1919, Mikhail Zoshchenko studied at the Creative Studio, organized by the publishing house “World Literature”. The classes were led by Chukovsky, who highly appreciated Zoshchenko’s work. Recalling his stories and parodies written during his studio studies, Chukovsky wrote: “It was strange to see that such a sad person was endowed with this wondrous ability to powerfully make his neighbors laugh.” In addition to prose, during his studies Zoshchenko wrote articles about the works of Blok, Mayakovsky, Teffi... At the Studio he met the writers Kaverin, Vs. Ivanov, Lunts, Fedin, Polonskaya, who in 1921 united in the literary group “Serapion Brothers”, which advocated freedom of creativity from political tutelage. Creative communication was facilitated by the life of Zoshchenko and other “serapions” in the famous Petrograd House of Arts, described by O. Forsh in the novel Crazy Ship.

In 1920-1921 Zoshchenko wrote the first stories that were subsequently published: Love, War, Old Woman Wrangel, Female Fish. The cycle Stories of Nazar Ilyich, Mr. Sinebryukhov (1921-1922) was published as a separate book by the Erato publishing house. This event marked Zoshchenko's transition to professional literary activity. The very first publication made him famous. Phrases from his stories acquired the character of catchphrases: “Why are you disturbing the disorder?”; “The second lieutenant is wow, but he’s a bastard”... From 1922 to 1946, his books went through about 100 editions, including collected works in six volumes (1928-1932).

By the mid-1920s, Zoshchenko became one of the most popular writers. His stories Bathhouse, Aristocrat, Case History, which he himself often read before large audiences, were known and loved by everyone. In a letter to Zoshchenko, Gorky noted: “I don’t know such a ratio of irony and lyricism in anyone’s literature.” Chukovsky believed that at the center of Zoshchenko’s work was the fight against callousness in human relationships.

In the collections of stories of the 1920s: Humorous Stories (1923), Dear Citizens (1926), Zoshchenko created a new type of hero for Russian literature - a Soviet man who has not received an education, has no skills in spiritual work, does not have cultural baggage, but strives to become a full-fledged participant in life, equal with “the rest of humanity.” The reflection of such a hero produced a strikingly funny impression. The fact that the story was told on behalf of a highly individualized narrator gave literary critics the basis to define Zoshchenko’s creative style as “fairy-tale.” Academician Vinogradov, in his study “Zoshchenko’s Language,” examined in detail the writer’s narrative techniques and noted the artistic transformation of various speech layers in his vocabulary. Chukovsky noted that Zoshchenko introduced into literature “a new, not yet fully formed, but victoriously spreading extra-literary speech throughout the country and began to freely use it as his own speech.”

In 1929, which was called “the year of the great turning point” in Soviet history, Zoshchenko published the book “Letters to a Writer” - a kind of sociological study. It consisted of several dozen letters from the huge reader mail that the writer received, and his commentary on them. In the preface to the book, Zoshchenko wrote that he wanted to “show genuine and undisguised life, genuine living people with their desires, taste, thoughts.” The book caused bewilderment among many readers, who expected only more funny stories from Zoshchenko. After its release, Meyerhold was forbidden to stage Zoshchenko's play "Dear Comrade" (1930).

Soviet reality could not but affect the emotional state of the sensitive writer, prone to depression from childhood. A trip along the White Sea Canal, organized in the 1930s for propaganda purposes for a large group of Soviet writers, made a depressing impression on him. No less difficult for Zoshchenko was the need to write after this trip thatcriminalsupposedly being re-educatedin Stalin's camps(The Story of a Life, 1934). An attempt to get rid of a depressed state and correct one’s painful psyche was a kind of psychological study - the story “Youth Restored” (1933). The story evoked an interested reaction in the scientific community that was unexpected for the writer: the book was discussed at many academic meetings and reviewed in scientific publications; Academician I. Pavlov began to invite Zoshchenko to his famous “Wednesdays”.

As a continuation of “Youth Restored,” the collection of short stories “The Blue Book” (1935) was conceived.By internal contentMikhail Zoshchenko considered The Blue Book a novel, defined it as “a short history of human relations” and wrote that it “is driven not by a novella, but by a philosophical idea that makes it.” Stories about modern times were interspersed with stories set in the past - in different periods of history. Both the present and the past were presented in the perception of the typical hero Zoshchenko, unencumbered by cultural baggage and understanding history as a set of everyday episodes.

After the publication of the Blue Book, which caused devastating reviews in party publications, Mikhail Zoshchenko was actually prohibited from publishing works that went beyond “positive satire on individual shortcomings.” Despite his high writing activity (commissioned feuilletons for the press, plays, film scripts), his true talent manifested itself only in stories for children, which he wrote for the magazines “Chizh” and “Hedgehog”.

In the 1930s, the writer worked on a book that he considered the main one. The work continued during the Patriotic War in Alma-Ata, in evacuation; Zoshchenko could not go to the front due to severe heart disease. The initial chapters of this scientific and artistic study of the subconscious have been publishedin 1943in the magazine "October" under the title "Before Sunrise". Zoshchenko examined incidents from his life that gave impetus to severe mental illness, from which doctors could not save him. Modern scientists note that the writer anticipated many of the discoveries of science about the unconscious by decades.

The magazine publication caused a scandal; Zoshchenko was subjected to such a barrage of critical abuse that the printing of “Before Sunrise” was interrupted. He addressed a letter to Stalin, asking him to familiarize himself with the book “or give orders to check it more thoroughly than has been done by critics.” The response was another stream of abuse in the press, the book was called “nonsense, needed only by the enemies of our homeland” (Bolshevik magazine).In 1944-1946 Zoshchenko worked a lot for theaters. Two of his comedies were staged at the Leningrad Drama Theater, one of which, “The Canvas Briefcase,” had 200 performances in a year.

In 1946, after the release of the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad”,” the party leader of Leningrad Zhdanov recalled in a report the book “Before Sunrise,” calling it “a disgusting thing.”The resolution of 1946, which “criticized” Zoshchenko and Akhmatova with the rudeness inherent in Soviet ideology, led to public persecution and a ban on the publication of their works. The occasion was the publication of Zoshchenko’s children’s story “The Adventures of a Monkey” (1945), in which the authorities saw a hint that in the Soviet country monkeys live better than people. At a writers’ meeting, Zoshchenko stated that the honor of an officer and a writer does not allow him to come to terms with the fact that in the Central Committee resolution he is called a “coward” and a “scum of literature.” Subsequently, Zoshchenko also refused to come forward with the repentance and admission of “mistakes” expected of him. In 1954, at a meeting with English students, Zoshchenko again tried to express his attitude towards the 1946 resolution, after which the persecution began in the second round.The saddest consequence of the ideological campaign was the exacerbation of mental illness, which did not allow the writer to work fully. His reinstatement in the Writers' Union after Stalin's death (1953) and the publication of his first book after a long break (1956) brought only temporary relief to his condition.

Zoshchenko the satirist

Mikhail Mikhailovich's first victory was “Stories of Nazar Ilyich, Mr. Sinebryukhov” (1921-1922). The loyalty of the hero, the “little man” who had been in the German war, was told ironically, but kindly; The writer, it seems, is more amused than saddened by the humility of Sinebryukhov, who “understands, of course, his title and post,” and his “boasting,” and the fact that from time to time “a bump and a regrettable incident” happens to him. The case takes place after the February Revolution, the slave in Sinebrykhov still seems justified, but it already appears as an alarming symptom: a revolution has occurred, but the psyche of the people remains the same. The narration is colored by the words of the hero - a tongue-tied person, a simpleton who finds himself in various funny situations. The author's word is collapsed. The center of artistic vision is moved to the consciousness of the narrator.

In the context of the main artistic problem of the time, when all writers were solving the question “How to emerge victorious from the constant, exhausting struggle of the artist with the interpreter” (Konstantin Aleksandrovich Fedin), Zoshchenko was the winner: the relationship between image and meaning in his satirical stories was extremely harmonious. The main element of the narrative was linguistic comedy, the form of the author’s assessment was irony, and the genre was the comic tale. This artistic structure became canonical for Zoshchenko's satirical stories.

The gap between the scale of revolutionary events and the conservatism of the human psyche that struck Zoshchenko made the writer especially attentive to the area of ​​life where, as he believed, high ideas and epoch-making events were being deformed. The writer’s phrase, “And we are little by little, and we are little by little, and we are on a par with Russian reality,” which caused a lot of noise, grew out of a feeling of an alarming gap between the “rapidity of fantasy” and “Russian reality.” Without questioning the revolution as an idea, M. Zoshchenko believed, however, that, passing through “Russian reality,” the idea encounters obstacles on its way that deform it, rooted in the age-old psychology of yesterday’s slave. He created a special - and new - type of hero, where ignorance was fused with a readiness for mimicry, natural acumen with aggressiveness, and old instincts and skills were hidden behind new phraseology. Stories such as “Victim of the Revolution”, “Grimace of NEP”, “Westinghouse Brake”, “Aristocrat” can serve as a model. The heroes are passive until they understand “what’s what and who isn’t shown to beat,” but when it’s “shown,” they stop at nothing, and their destructive potential is inexhaustible: they mock their own mother, a quarrel over a brush escalates into “an integral battle” (“Nervous People”), and the pursuit of an innocent person turns into an evil pursuit (“Terrible Night”).

,

The new type was the discovery of Mikhail Zoshchenko. He was often compared to the “little man” of Gogol and Dostoevsky, and later to the hero of Charlie Chaplin. But the Zoshchenkovsky type - the further, the more - deviated from all the models. Linguistic comedy, which became an imprint of the absurdity of his hero’s consciousness, became a form of his self-exposure. He no longer considers himself a small person. “You never know what the average person has to do in the world!” - exclaims the hero of the story “Wonderful Holiday”. The proud attitude towards “the cause” comes from the demagoguery of the era; but Zoshchenko parodies her: “You understand: you drink a little, then the guests will hide, then you need to glue a leg to the sofa... The wife, too, will sometimes begin to express complaints.” Thus, in the literature of the 1920s, Zoshchenko’s satire formed a special, “negative world,” as he said, so that it would be “ridiculed and pushed away from itself.”

Since the mid-1920s, Mikhail Zoshchenko has been publishing “sentimental stories.” Their origins were the story “The Goat” (1922). Then the stories “Apollo and Tamara” (1923), “People” (1924), “Wisdom” (1924), “Terrible Night” (1925), “What the Nightingale Sang” (1925), “A Merry Adventure” (1926) appeared ) and “The Lilac is Blooming” (1929). In the preface to them, Zoshchenko for the first time openly sarcastically spoke about the “planetary tasks”, heroic pathos and “high ideology” that are expected of him. In a deliberately simple form, he posed the question: where does the death of the human in a person begin, what predetermines it and what can prevent it. This question appeared in the form of a reflective intonation.

The heroes of the “sentimental stories” continued to debunk the supposedly passive consciousness. Evolution of Bylinkin (“What the Nightingale Sang About”), who at the beginning walked in the new city “timidly, looking around and dragging his feet,” and, having received “a strong social position, public service and a salary of the seventh category plus for the workload,” turned into a despot and boor, convinced that the moral passivity of the Zoshchensky hero was still illusory. His activity revealed itself in the degeneration of his mental structure: the features of aggressiveness clearly appeared in it. “I really like,” Gorky wrote in 1926, “that the hero of Zoshchenko’s story “What the Nightingale Sang About,” the former hero of “The Overcoat,” at least a close relative of Akaki, arouses my hatred thanks to the author’s clever irony.” .

But, as Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky noted in the late 1920s and early 1930s, another type of hero is emergingZoshchenko- a person who has “lost his human form”, a “righteous man” (“Goat”, “Terrible Night”). These heroes do not accept the morality of the environment, they have different ethical standards, they would like to live according to high morality. But their rebellion ends in failure. However, unlike the rebellion of the “victim” in Chaplin, which is always covered in compassion, the rebellion of Zoshchenko’s hero is devoid of tragedy: the individual is faced with the need for spiritual resistance to the morals and ideas of his environment, and the strict demands of the writer do not forgive her for compromise and capitulation.

The appeal to the type of righteous heroes betrayed the eternal uncertainty of the Russian satirist in the self-sufficiency of art and was a kind of attempt to continue Gogol’s search for a positive hero, a “living soul.” However, one cannot help but notice: in the “sentimental stories” the writer’s artistic world has become bipolar; the harmony of meaning and image was disrupted, philosophical reflections revealed a preaching intention, the pictorial fabric became less dense. The word fused with the author's mask dominated; in style it was similar to stories; Meanwhile, the character (type) that stylistically motivates the narrative has changed: he is an intellectual of average grade. The old mask turned out to be attached to the writer.

http://to-name.ru/index.htm

Mikhail Zoshchenko at a meeting of the Serapion Brothers literary circle.

Zoshchenko and Olesha: double portrait in the interior of the era

Mikhail Zoshchenko and Yuri Olesha - twothe most popular writer of Soviet Russia of the 20s, who largely determined the appearance of Russian literature of the 20th century. They were both born into impoverished noble families and experienced phenomenal success and oblivion. They were both broken by the authorities. They also had a common choice: to exchange their talent for day labor or to write something that no one would see.

Russian satirical writers in the 1920s were particularly bold and frank in their statements. All of them were heirs of Russian realism of the 19th century.

The popularity of M. Zoshchenko in the 20s could be the envy of any venerable writer in Russia. But his fate later developed harshly: Zhdanov’s criticism, and then a long oblivion, after which the “discovery” of this wonderful writer for the Russian reader again followed. Zoshchenko began to be mentioned as a writer who wrote for the entertainment of the public. It is known that many were perplexed when “Adventures of the Monkey” incurred the wrath of Soviet cultural officials. But the Bolsheviks had already developed a sense of their antipodes. A. A. Zhdanov, criticizing and destroying Zoshchenko, who ridiculed the stupidity and stupidity of Soviet life, against his own will, guessed in him a great artist who poses a danger to the existing system. Zoshchenko did not directly, not directly, ridicule cult of Bolshevik ideas, and with a sad smile protested against any violence against the individual. It is also known that in his prefaces to the editions of “Sentimental Stories”, with the proposed misunderstanding and distortion of his work, he wrote: “Against the general background of enormous scale and ideas, these stories are about small, weak people and ordinary people, this book about a miserable passing life is really , one must assume, will sound for some critics like some kind of shrill flute, some kind of sentimental offensive tripe.”

One of the most significant stories in this book is “What the Nightingale Sang About.” The author himself said about this story that it is “... perhaps the least sentimental of sentimental stories.” Or again: “And what may seem to someone to be a little invigorating in this essay is not true. There is vivacity here. Not over the edge, of course, but there is.”

“But” they will laugh at us in three hundred years! It’s strange, they will say, how the little people lived. Some will say they had money, passports. Some acts of civil status and square meters of living space..."

His moral ideals were aimed at the future. Zoshchenko felt acutely callousness of human relationships, the vulgarity of the life around him. This is evident from the way he reveals the theme of human personality in a small story about “true love and genuine awe of feelings,” about “absolutely extraordinary love.” Tormented by thoughts about a future better life, the writer often doubts and asks the question: “Will it be wonderful?” And then he draws the simplest, most common version of such a future: “Maybe everything will be free, for nothing. Let’s say they’ll sell some fur coats or mufflers in Gostiny Dvor for nothing.” Next, the writer begins to create the image of the hero. His hero is the simplest person, and his name is ordinary - Vasily Bylinkin. The reader expects that the author will now begin to make fun of his hero, but no, the author seriously talks about Bylinkin’s love for Liza Rundukova. All actions that accelerate the gap between lovers, despite their ridiculousness (the culprit is a chest of drawers not given to the bride's mother) are a serious family drama. For Russian satirical writers, in general, drama and comedy exist side by side. Zoshchenko seems to be telling us that while people like Vasily Bylinkin, when asked: “What is the nightingale singing about?” - they will answer: “He wants to eat, that’s why he sings,” - we won’t see a worthy future. Zoshchenko does not idealize our past either. To be convinced of this, just read the Blue Book. The writer knows how much vulgar and cruel humanity has left behind, so that one can immediately free oneself from this legacy. True fame was brought to him by the small humorous stories that he published in various magazines and newspapers - in Literary Week, Izvestia, Ogonyok, Krokodil and many others.

Zoshchenko's humorous stories were included in his various books. In new combinations, each time they forced us to look at ourselves in a new way: sometimes they appeared as a cycle of stories about darkness and ignorance, and sometimes - like stories about small acquirers. Often they were about those who were left out of history. But they were always perceived as sharply satirical stories.

Years have passed, things have changed living conditions our lives, but even the absence of those numerous everyday details in which the characters in the stories existed did not weaken the power of Zoshchenko’s satire. It’s just that earlier the terrible and disgusting details of everyday life were perceived only as a cartoon, but today they have acquired the features of the grotesque and phantasmagoria.

The same thing happened with the heroes of Zoshchenko’s stories: to a modern reader they may seem unreal, completely invented. However, Zoshchenko, with his keen sense of justice and hatred for militant philistinism, never strayed from the real vision of the world.

Even using the example of several stories, one can determine the objects of the writer’s satire. In Hard Times, the main character is a dark, ignorant man with a wild, primitive idea of ​​​​freedom and rights. When he is not allowed to bring a horse into the store, which definitely needs to be fitted with a collar, he complains: “What a time. Horse to the store they don’t allow it... And just now we were sitting in a beer hall - and no one even said a word. The manager personally laughed sincerely... What a time.”

A related character appears in the story “Point of View.” This is Yegorka, who, when asked whether there are many “conscious women,” declares that there are “not enough of them at all.” Or rather, he remembered one: “Yes, and that one is unknown how... (Maybe it will end.” The most conscious turns out to be a woman who, on the advice of some healer, took six unknown pills and is now near death.

In the story “The Capital Thing,” the main character, Leshka Konovalov, is a thief posing as an experienced person. [At a meeting in the village, he was considered a worthy candidate for the position of chairman: after all, he had just arrived from the city (“... I spent two years in the city”). Everyone takes him for [a sort of “metropolitan thing” - no one knows what he did there. However, Leshka’s monologue gives him away: “You can talk... Why not say it when I know everything... I know the decree or whatever the order and note are. Or, for example, the code... I know everything. For two years, maybe, I was rubbing myself... It used to be that I was sitting in a cell, and they were running towards you. Explain, they say, Lesha, what kind of note and decree this is.”

It is interesting that not only Lesha, who served two years in Kresty, but also many other heroes of Zoshchenko’s stories are in complete confidence that they know absolutely everything and can judge everything. Savagery, obscurantism, primitiveness, some kind of militant ignorance- these are their main features.

However, the main object of Zoshchenko’s satire was a phenomenon that, from his point of view, posed the greatest danger to society. This blatant, triumphant philistinism. It appears in Zoshchenko’s work in such an unsightly form that the reader clearly feels the need to immediately combat this phenomenon. Zoshchenko shows it comprehensively: both from the economic side, and from the point of view of morality, and even from the position of simple bourgeois philosophy.

The true hero Zoshchenko appears before us in all his glory in the story “The Groom”. This is Yegorka Basov, who has suffered a great misfortune: his wife has died. What a bad time! “It was, of course, a hot time - here you can mow, carry here, and collect bread.” What words does his wife hear from him before his death? “Well... thank you, Katerina Vasilievna, you cut me without a knife. They decided to die at the wrong time. Be patient... until the fall, and die in the fall.” As soon as his wife died, Yegorka went to woo another woman. And what, again a misfire! It turns out that this woman is lame, which means she is an inferior housewife. And he takes her back, but doesn’t take her home, but dumps her property somewhere halfway. The main character of the story is not just a man crushed by poverty and need. This is a person with the psychology of an outright scoundrel. He is completely devoid of elementary human qualities and is primitive to the last degree. The features of a tradesman in this image are raised to a universal scale.

And here is a story on the philosophical topic “Happiness”. The hero is asked if there was happiness in his life. Not everyone will be able to answer this question. But Ivan Fomich Testov knows for sure that in his life “there was definitely happiness.” What was it? And the fact is that Ivan Fomich managed to install mirror glass in the tavern at a high price and drink the money he received. And not only! He even “made some purchases: he bought a silver ring and warm insoles.” The silver ring is clearly a tribute to aesthetics. Apparently, from satiety - it’s impossible to drink and eat everything. The hero does not know whether this happiness is big or small, but he is sure that it is happiness, and he will “remember it for the rest of his life.”

In the story “A Rich Life,” a bookbinder wins five thousand on a gold loan. In theory, “happiness” suddenly fell on him, like Ivan Fomich Testov. But if he fully “enjoyed” the gift of fate, then in this case the money brings discord into the family of the protagonist. There is a quarrel with relatives, the owner himself is afraid to leave the yard - he is guarding the firewood, and his wife is addicted to playing lotto. And yet the artisan dreams: “What is this all about... Will there be a new raffle soon? It would be nice for me to win a thousand for good measure...” Such is the fate limited and petty person- dreaming about something that still won’t bring you joy, and not even guessing why.

Among his heroes it is easy to meet ignorant talker-demagogues who consider themselves the guardians of some ideology, and “connoisseurs of art” who, as a rule, demand that their ticket money be returned to them, and most importantly, the endless, indestructible and all-conquering “terry” philistines. The accuracy and sharpness of each phrase is amazing. “I write about philistinism. Yes, we don’t have philistinism as a class, but for the most part I make a collective type. Each of us has certain traits of a tradesman, an owner, and a money-grubber. I combine these characteristic, often shaded features in one hero, and then this hero becomes familiar to us and seen somewhere.”

Among the literary heroes of prose of the 20s, the characters in M. Zoshchenko's stories occupy a special place. An infinite number of small people, often poorly educated, not burdened with the burden of culture, but who realized themselves as “hegemons” in the new society. M. Zoshchenko insisted on the right to write about “an individual insignificant person.” It was the “little people” of modern times, who make up the majority of the country’s population, who were enthusiastic about the task of destroying the “bad” old and building the “good” new. Critics did not want to “recognize” a new person in M. Zoshchenko’s heroes. Regarding these characters, they either spoke about the anecdotal refraction of the “old”, or about the writer’s conscious emphasis on everything that prevents the Soviet person from becoming “new”. Sometimes they reproached that he brought out not so much a “social type, but a primitively thinking and feeling person in general.” Among the critics there were also those who accused Zoshchenko of contempt for the “new man born of the revolution.” The far-fetched nature of the heroes was beyond doubt. I really didn’t want to connect them with a new life. Zoshchenko's characters are immersed in everyday life.

Zoshchenko’s military past (he volunteered for the front at the very beginning of the war, commanded a company, then a battalion, was awarded four times for bravery, was wounded, poisoned with poisonous gases, which resulted in a heart defect) was partly reflected in the stories of Nazar Ilyich, Mr. Sinebryukhov (A High Society Story).