Is there abstract humanism in the novel defeat? Lessons based on Fadeev's novel The Destruction lesson plan in literature (grade 11) on the topic. Fragment of work for review

Fadeev believes that the main reason for the irresponsibility, cowardice, and weakness of the “educated,” “clean,” “urban” Mechik is his overdeveloped sense of personality. Betrayal, according to Fadeev, is the natural ending to which an intellectual comes (and cannot help but come!), not connected by deep roots with the people, with the masses, with the proletariat and its party. However, Fadeev shows that among intellectuals there are people devoted to the cause of the revolution. These are people of a “special breed”.

Homework

Select episodes that characterize Levinson’s image.

Lesson 54. The image of Levinson and the problem of humanism

In the novel by A. A. Fadeev “Destruction”

Methodical techniques: analytical conversation.

During the classes

I. The teacher's word

In Levinson, Fadeev embodied the image of a man who “always walks at the head,” harmoniously combining instinct, will and reason. This is a "special person". In the composition of the novel, a separate chapter is also dedicated to him (IV). Levinson opens and closes the novel: he appears in the first and last paragraphs of the novel.

The most important thing in the general movement of action is the fate of the entire team, the entire partisan detachment. Levinson is the bearer of a common, unifying, uniting and organizing principle.

It was very important for Fadeev to artistically reproduce in “Destruction” a special type of relationship between the communist leader and the partisans: “In my experience of partisan struggle, I saw that with large elements of spontaneity in the partisan movement, the Bolshevik workers played a decisive, organizing role in it,” he said . - I wanted to emphasize this idea in the novel “Destruction.” Fadeev shows how the fundamental, class interests of people sometimes run counter to their private, temporary interests, desires and ideas. In the eyes of Fadeev, Levinson is the focus of precisely these main, fundamental interests of the people.

II. Conversation

How does Fadeev draw the image of Levinson?

Levinson seems to be an unquestioned authority, a man of unbending will, self-confident, born to lead. Fadeev paints the image of Levinson through the attitude of other characters towards him: “no one in the detachment knew that Levinson could hesitate at all: he did not share his thoughts and feelings with anyone, he presented ready-made “yes” or “no.” Therefore, he seemed to everyone... a person of a special, correct breed.” Each partisan thought that Levinson “understands everything, does everything as it should be... Therefore, one cannot help but trust and obey such a correct person...” The author emphasizes Levinson’s natural, intuitive sense of truth, the ability to navigate the situation: “a special sense of smell. .. sixth sense, like a bat”; “he was unusually patient and persistent, like an old taiga wolf, who may no longer have teeth, but who powerfully leads the pack - with the invincible wisdom of many generations” (Chapter III).

What is the significance of Levinson's childhood memories?

Memories of Levinson's childhood and his appearance are in conflict with his image of a “special breed of man.” “As a child, he helped his father sell used furniture, and his father wanted to get rich all his life, but he was afraid of mice and played the violin poorly” - Levinson did not tell anyone such things. Levinson recalls “an old family photograph where a frail Jewish boy - in a black jacket, with large naive eyes - looked with amazing, childish persistence at the place from where, as he was told then, a bird should fly out.” Over time, Levinson became disillusioned “with false fables about beautiful birds” and came to “the simplest and most difficult wisdom: “See everything as it is, in order to change what is, to bring closer what is born and should be".

What is the role of portraiture?

Levi's appearance is not at all heroic: “He was so small, unprepossessing in appearance - he consisted entirely of a hat, a red beard and ichigs above the knees.” Levinson reminds Mechik of “a gnome from a fairy tale.” Fadeev emphasizes the physical weakness and outward unsightliness of the hero, highlighting, however, his “unearthly eyes,” deep as lakes. This portrait detail speaks of the originality and significance of the individual.

What are Levinson's main character traits?

In the scene of the trial of Morozka, Levinson is shown as tough, subjugating people: “Morozka hesitated. Levinson leaned forward and, immediately grabbing him like pincers, with an unblinking gaze, pulled him out of the crowd like a nail.” Morozka “was sure that the commander “sees right through everything” and it is almost impossible to deceive him.” Levinson can speak “surprisingly quietly,” but everyone hears him and catches his every word. His words are convincing, although he may hesitate internally, have no plan of action, and feel confused. However, he does not allow anyone into his inner world.

Closedness, restraint, will, composure, responsibility, determination, perseverance, knowledge of human psychology are his main features.

What gives Levinson such confidence and power over people? How does he understand his responsibility to them?

Levinson deeply believed that people are driven not only by a sense of self-preservation, but also by another, “no less important instinct, not realized even by most of them, according to which everything that they have to endure, even death, is justified by its ultimate goal.” This instinct, Levinson believes, “lives in people under the cover of infinitely small, everyday, urgent needs and concerns about their own - just as small, but alive - personality, because every person wants to eat and sleep, because every person is weak.” People entrust “their most important concerns” to people like Levinson.

An essay on the topic “Does abstract humanism exist?” Based on Fadeev's novel, Defeat"

Fadeev said: “Literature teaches, its main theme is human life.” His works, like those of many other Russian classics, always conceal many important problems for humanity. One of the most interesting, in my opinion, is the problem of humanism. The work in which this problem is best seen is the novel “Destruction”.

The novel takes place during the civil war, when the people of Russia fought against each other. At this time, there was a real restructuring of people's lives, many of them died defending their point of view. Specifically, the novel tells about a partisan detachment that fights in the Far East.

The leader of the detachment is Levinson, a man of special convictions and strength of character. We know about him that he is a good, prudent leader who tries to defend his squad by all legal and illegal means. His people see him as a strong and fearless man, but Levinson is not like that, he has learned to skillfully hide his fear behind a smile and rudeness.

Also in the work we see another character who is contrasted with Levinson. Mechik, a young and inexperienced partisan who came to war immediately after graduating from high school, guided by ideas about a new, correct future. But reality turned out to be cruel towards this hero. His inexperience and naivety were completely unsuitable for the purpose for which the people of this detachment fought.

If we divide the characters of “Destruction” into good and bad people, then Mechik will belong to the second detachment. Accusing Levinson of rudeness and dishonor, in the end he himself turned out to be a coward and a traitor. When his comrades trusted him, he dared to run away, thereby dooming them to death. But this is even more terrible, worse is the way he treats his betrayal. At the beginning, he is very worried and worried, not because he left his comrades, but because such an act does not correspond to who he imagined himself to be.

Another character that Fadeev creates for a clearer analysis of humanism in a person is Morozko. This is a 27-year-old man who has committed vile and base acts all his life; his whole life seemed easy and carefree to him. In our opinion, such a person cannot be classified as a positive hero, a humanist hero, but the author greatly surprises us about this guy. Indeed, at the end of the work, when Mechik escaped, and Morozka lay wounded and helpless, he gave a signal to his comrades to move forward in order to stumble upon their opponents. Just before his death, he managed to accomplish a feat that saved many lives.

But what can we say in relation to Levinson, what kind of hero he is, positive or negative. The author says that this character has a lot of shortcomings, but still the advantages prevail. But we cannot say that his actions are humane, because he does good to one, taking it away from another. Like, for example, the cattle that he took and the resident in order to feed his squad. Or how he poisons a comrade who was seriously wounded in battle and was a burden to the entire team. These actions are immoral, but still he treated his people well. This character is a representative of abstract humanism, since his humanism is not complete. It blurs into the generally accepted norm, but still remains so.

In Levinson’s justification, it is worth noting that the war did not give a person room to feel sorry and empathize. He was a good leader and tried his best to save the lives of his people, even if his methods were a little unusual and sometimes cruel. It is difficult to remain humane when dishonor and injustice reign around.

A school-type essay based on A. Fadeev’s novel “Destruction”. The issues of humanism during the war period and the evolution of the concept of “humanism” are considered using the example of this work. ...

Introduction

There is nothing more terrible and inhumane than war, especially civil war. War denies such universal human values ​​as compassion, tolerance, the right to life, freedom and happiness, that is, those values ​​that form the basis of humanism. Humanism is faith in human personality, respect for others; In war, human life loses value.
The Civil War of 1918 - 1920 was one of the most tragic periods in Russian history. Author of the novel “Destruction” (1927) A.A. Fadeev experienced first-hand the horrors of the civil war. And, despite the fact that Fadeev adhered to revolutionary views and remained faithful to the Bolshevik ideology to the end, he, like any real artist, endowed his characters with a contradictory and complex inner life. Thus, in the episode of the expropriation of a pig from a Korean peasant, the author plays out a complex moral dilemma: on the one hand, Levinson and the partisans taking away a pig from a poor peasant, on the other hand, the internal experiences of Levinson himself, who does not pick up the Korean who threw himself at his feet not out of hardness of heart, but , as Fadeev himself wrote, because “he was afraid that having done this, he would not be able to stand it and would cancel his order.”

Fragment of work for review

He always faces a moral choice, but the conditions of the fratricidal war in which the decision is made cannot tolerate delay. Fadeev’s humanistic position in “Destruction” is manifested mainly in the fact that he demonstrates that his heroes do not and cannot, in principle, have justifications for their actions, but the worst thing is that they have no other choice. The novel “Destruction” conceals complex moral problems that do not have an unambiguous assessment, problems of humanism. On the one hand, we are shown the heroism of the partisans (Frolov realizes the situation and voluntarily drinks the poison), their humanity, because they are not just fighting for ideals, ready to kill and commit violence indiscriminately, but they experience remorse for the evil committed, believing that this is being done for the good of the future. On the other hand, we see Mechik, an intelligent, romantically inclined person, whose morality does not coincide with the morality of the partisans, but, rather, is generally Christian, rejecting violence. And Mechik, like other characters in the novel, faces a difficult choice. He deserts, but the flight seems painful to him. He opposes the poisoning of Frolov, the murder of the peasant “in the vest,” but, nevertheless, he eats the pig along with everyone else, because he is hungry. It is obvious that Fadeev, portraying the heroes as hesitant and doubting individuals, placing them in a situation of tragic choice in inhuman circumstances of wartime, demonstrates the so-called “historical” humanism, different from universal humanism.

Bibliography

A. Fadeev "Destruction"

Please carefully study the content and fragments of the work. Money for purchased finished works will not be returned due to the fact that the work does not meet your requirements or is unique.

* The category of work is of an evaluative nature in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the material provided. This material, neither in its entirety nor any of its parts, is a finished scientific work, final qualifying work, scientific report or other work provided for by the state system of scientific certification or necessary for passing intermediate or final certification. This material is a subjective result of processing, structuring and formatting the information collected by its author and is intended, first of all, to be used as a source for independent preparation of work on this topic.

HEROIC AND TRAGIC IN A. A. FADEYEV’S NOVEL “DEFEAT”

Works about the revolution and the Civil War, published in 1926-1927, were to a certain extent final in nature. In 1927, two novels were published: “Destruction” by Fadeev and “The White Guard” by M. Bulgakov. These works posed pressing questions about the humanistic meaning of the revolution, polemicizing with each other. The authors of these novels belonged to different directions in Russian literature of the twenties. Bulgakov continued the traditions of classical Russian culture.

Fadeev was a writer who tried to create images of modern literature, create an appropriate mood for understanding reality, and create a new hero of the revolution; working on a social order for a new reader, often unprepared and lacking sufficient education. and education for the perception of books that are complex in design, thought, and language. Fadeev illuminates spiritual values ​​in a different way, such as humanism, heroism, struggle, pity, love, loyalty, duty. If Bulgakov’s heroes are not allowed to sink to the level of their culture, acquired from several generations of the intelligentsia, to become a beast, then Fadeev’s heroes can be cruel, merciless, and dishonest. However, the living conditions of both are still incomparable.

For Fadeev’s heroes, what is moral is what benefits the workers and peasants, what serves the victory of the revolution and its defense. All means are permissible and crimes are justified by a higher idea. Fadeev's heroes are guided by such moral principles.

Levinson's image is an expression of an absolutely true hero of the time. He is the embodiment of the heroic in the novel.

Levinson comes from among workers and peasants; he completely subordinated his life to serving the people. In his soul lives a bright dream of a kind, beautiful and strong person. This, in his opinion, is what a person born of a revolution should become. Levinson is a man of duty, cold, unshakable, putting business above all else, “a special person, of the right breed.” Levinson knew that you can lead people only by hiding your weaknesses, pains, fears, and insecurities. And he knew how to constantly be a strong, courageous person. Levinson is trying to create discipline in the detachment, checks the combat readiness of the detachment, makes decisions quickly and acts confidently: no one in the detachment knew that Levinson could hesitate at all: he did not share his thoughts and feelings with anyone, he presented ready-made “yes” or “ No".

Levinson’s heroism is based on the belief that “these people are driven not only by a sense of self-preservation,” but also by “an equally important instinct ... according to which everything that they have to endure, even death, is justified by its ultimate goal and without which no one they would not have gone voluntarily to die in the Ulakhin taiga.” This confidence gives the moral right to cruel orders. Therefore, for the sake of a great idea, today (in 1919) a lot can be allowed: to take away the only pig from a Korean (after all, the detachment is fighting for the future of his six children), to poison a mortally wounded comrade (otherwise Frolov will slow down the movement of the retreating and not save the “combat units”), “ not to hear” what Mechik, “a young man lost in the wilds of revolutionary ideas” from among the intellectuals, is trying to tell.

Levinson's heroism lies in serving abstract humanism, in love for the future, bright and fair. It’s not easy for Levinson to “step on the throat of his own song”: he suffers when he learns about the death of the fighters, about the arrest of Metelitsa, about the forced murder of Frolov, he does not hide his tears when he hears about the death of young Baklanov. Levinson feels sorry for the Korean and sorry for his children suffering from scurvy and anemia, sorry for the hungry, cold people, even the “man in a vest,” but Levinson stops at nothing, the main thing for him is to fulfill the task of the Bolshevik center. Levinson says: “But what kind of conversation can there be about a new, wonderful person while huge millions are forced to live such a primitive and pitiful, such an unbearably meager life?”

The best, heroic people, united by an idea, surround Levinson. These are his comrades-in-arms and assistants: Baklanov, the future Levinson, who tries to imitate the commander in everything, Dubov, a miner’s devoted and honest platoon leader, sent to the most important areas of the fight together with his Red Army men, Metelitsa, a platoon leader of whom the entire detachment is proud, and Levinson for “ extraordinary physical tenacity, animal vitality,” a strong, tireless mind, always ready for action,” for the fact that “the exploits and successes that accompanied him in every endeavor glorified his name among people.”

Snowstorm, like Levinson, is a heroic image. He, sent on reconnaissance, caught and realizing the hopelessness of his situation, behaved like a real hero: he did not lose heart and wanted to fully “show those people who would kill him that he is not afraid and despises them”: he did not utter a single words, never even looked at those asking during the interrogation.”

The new hero is imbued with fierce class hatred - the most valuable feeling, according to proletarian authors, which makes a real hero of the Civil War out of an ordinary soldier.

Levinson's ordinary comrades, who act as examples of the heroic, are Morozko, a former orderly who asked to join the detachment as a fighter who committed a heroic act (he, having sacrificed his life, warned the exhausted detachment about the ambush); Goncharenko is a demolitionist who knows his job, an insightful and reliable Red Army soldier. These people knew their inner strength, conviction and, “burdened with everyday, petty vanity, they feel their weakness... as if they entrusted their most important concern to the stronger ones, like Levinson, Baklanov, Dubov, obliging them to think about it more than about that , that they also need to eat and sleep, instructing them to remind others of this.”

To better highlight the heroic, Fadeev created anti-heroic images, images of people like Mechik and Chizh. They are educated, with “correct speech”, clean, but always ready to “deviate from the orderly, from the kitchen,” to betray in battle, to retreat.

Mechik feels bad in the detachment, he is disgusted, lonely, he is distant from the fighters by the culture he became familiar with in the gymnasium and by his social background. “After all, I can’t get along with anyone here, I don’t see support from anyone, but am I to blame for this? I approached everyone with an open soul, but I always encountered rudeness, ridicule, bullying...” Mechik says to Levinson.

Mechik was brought into the detachment by romantic ideas about the revolutionary struggle, about partisans. These illusions also separate Mechik from the rest. He becomes disappointed, despair overtakes him, and at the first opportunity to desert, Mechik does so, although flight seems painful to him, since “the indelibly dirty, disgusting stain of this act contradicted everything that was good and pure that he found in himself,” and did not because (Fadeev emphasizes) that people from the detachment died. Mechik’s morality does not coincide with partisan morality, because Mechik preaches Christian truths, such as “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” Mechik opposes the poisoning of Frolov, the murder of the peasant in the “vest,” theft in the detachment, all cruelty and rudeness. Mechik does not feel class hatred, he sees and feels sorry for a suffering person. War is an unnatural state, and Mechik understands this: “I am no longer able to endure this, I can no longer live such a low, inhuman, terrible life,”

But in war, a new order can be established only without sparing anyone. This is the heroism of a merciless struggle.

The novel “Destruction” is dedicated to the tragic defeat of a small partisan detachment by superior enemy forces. Cruel events cripple people's souls and require death.

All the heroes of the novel have tragic fates. A tragic manifestation in the struggle with weapons in hand and in the readiness to make a sacrifice, to die for an idea. The best conscious fighters die for the revolution with a sense of fulfilled duty, without hesitation, without fear of death. Frolov consciously takes poison, Morozko in the last minutes thinks only about shooting and warning the detachment, Metelitsa dies heroically, Baklanov died in the last breakthrough, Dubov is killed. The tragic thing is that the best people, the most devoted to the idea, die in an unequal struggle. Levinson feels sorry for all the soldiers killed during the defeat and pursuit of the detachment; he frowns and darkens his face at the sight of death, but for Levinson it is less tragic that a Korean with his family or some Cossack will die of hunger. Circumstances force Levinson not to see the “birds”. The tragic thing in the novel is the countless victims of the Civil War. In the novel, almost all the soldiers die, only nineteen people remain alive. Levinson survived, but was tragically devoted to his appointment to the end.

Fadeev brought into literature the “romance of the Civil War” (A. Tolstoy). His heroes are strong fighters dedicated to the revolution, suffering for the sake of the future, their goals are noble, their actions are by and large beautiful, they attract the sympathy of readers, they are role models.

Fadeev proposes to somehow compare his life, his participation in the revolution with the life and struggle of his heroes. The book appeals to the best feelings and sets us up for a high, moral wave of achievement, teaches us to divide the world into “we” and “they”, where “they” are always bad, to fight against the difficult past for the future.

Thus, the novel has certain educational functions, and millions of Soviet people accepted the tragically romantic understanding of reality, the cult of a strong leader without pity, hesitation, or compassion; They adopted a morality according to which it is moral to renounce the personal, to suffer for the sake of the future, to live by ideals.

In wartime, such a position justifies itself (for example, victory in the Great Patriotic War), and in times of peace it leads to barracks socialism and to some countries lagging behind others, and therefore requires change.

THE AUTHOR AND HIS HEROES (Based on the novel “Destruction”)

The events in the novel relate to the period of the Civil War in the Far East, in which Fadeev himself actively participated. However, the author brings to the fore not historical problems, but socio-psychological research. War, battle, partisan life - all this is just a background for depicting the inner world of the heroes, their psychology, relationships with society, and internal conflicts. The problems of “Destruction” echo modern problems of humanism, attitudes towards people, interactions between man and humanity. The plot of the novel is very simple due to its psychological orientation. In a short period of time from the beginning of the defeat to the last breakthrough of the detachment through the ring of whites, the characters of the heroes emerge, as well as the author’s attitude towards these types of people. Several figures occupy a central place in the novel: Levinson, the detachment commander, is definitely a positive hero, the most perfect of all the people acting in the novel. Snowstorm, to whom an entire chapter is devoted, where his character is fully revealed. Morozka, according to the author’s sympathy, belongs, together with Metelitsa, to Levinson’s positive camp, and Mechik, a completely different type of person who has nothing in common with the first. All of them are connected by the same living conditions, and this helps to judge the positive and negative qualities of the characters most objectively, both from the position of the author and from the position of the reader. In addition, there are no special relationships between the heroes, with the exception of Mechik and Morozka, this allows us to consider each hero separately from the others.

Metelitsa became one of the main characters only in the middle of the novel. Fadeev explained this by saying that already in the process of working on the book he saw the need to separately reveal the character of Metelitsa, and since it was too late to rebuild the novel, the episode with Metelitsa stood out, disrupting the harmony of the narrative. The author's attitude towards Metelitsa is beyond doubt: the scout is clearly sympathetic to Fadeev. Firstly, appearance: he is a flexible, slender hero, in whom “flowed... with an inexhaustible spring... of extraordinary physical value, animal, vitality.” Such wonderful qualities are rarely endowed on a negative hero. Secondly, lifestyle: “Metelitsa lives the way he wants, without limiting himself in anything. He is a brave, passionate, true man.” Third: Metelitsa’s positive personality is proven by his actions: reconnaissance, which only such a fearless person as Metelitsa could undertake, worthy behavior in captivity, death to save others. Every step he takes is bold and decisive.

For example, being in captivity, realizing that he cannot escape, Metelitsa calmly thinks about death, he is tormented by only one thought: how to accept it with dignity, demonstrating to his enemies his contempt for them. Already on the site where he was to be identified, Metelitsa behaves independently and proudly, but dies rushing to save a little shepherd boy who did not want to hand the scout over to the whites. The author loves this hero and, apparently, that’s why he never writes about him mockingly or sympathetically, as about some others, for example Morozk.

Morozka does not have the virtues inherent in Metelitsa, but he is also completely natural in his actions, the worst qualities of his character are visible: laxity, close to hooliganism, and improvidence. Overall, Morozka is a good person. He has a wonderful quality that many people lack - love for people. The first time he proved this by saving Mechik, risking his own life, and subsequently almost every action of his testified to this. A striking example is his behavior at the “trial”. Clumsily, with difficulty, but sincerely, he says: “But would I... have done such a thing... well, these same melons... if I had thought... but would I, brothers! Yes, I’ll give a vein of blood for each one, and it’s not like it’s a shame or anything!” Behind this tongue-tied, helpless speech there is such devotion to comrades that it is difficult not to believe. It is for this, for love for the people, for dedication to work, for kindness, because Morozka did not take revenge on Mechik for his lost wife, for the humane principle, it is expressed even in Morozka’s love for Mishka, his horse - for these best human qualities the author loves Morozka and makes the reader sympathize with him, despite. Many of his shortcomings, he writes with bitterness about the heroic death of Morozka and almost ends the novel there.

Concentrating the best qualities of a person is Levinson. In his person, Fadeev portrayed the best type of leader of the masses, endowed with intelligence, determination and organizational skills. Despite his appearance - Levinson looked like a gnome with his small stature and red beard - the commander commands respect not only from his subordinates, but also from the author and the reader. Fadeev never writes about him mockingly or contemptuously, as he does about Mechik, for example. Levinson’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are such as Fadeev would apparently like to see them in the most worthy person, that is, from the author’s point of view, Fadeev endowed his best hero with the best features. What is attractive about Levinson, first of all, is that he lacks internal egoism. All his thoughts and actions express the interests of the detachment; his personal experiences are drowned out by constant concern for others. In practice, he has already sacrificed himself to people. However, no person is without flaws. One of them for Levinson is the negative side of his victim. Every person is characterized by selfishness to one degree or another, and its complete absence is unnatural. In addition, every person must have a soul, something that moves him and attracts people to him, and Levinson suppressed the movement of the soul in himself, turning his work, which he must love, into a duty. True, he is helped by diligence, commitment and devotion to higher goals. Fadeev sees Levinson's shortcomings and believes that he lacks the wonderful qualities of Metelitsa - vitality, courage, love of life - otherwise Levinson would be an ideal person. And yet he is an excellent commander: he decisively makes decisions, so that many do not see his hesitation, he appreciates the positive traits of his subordinates, in particular Morozkov’s daring, Baklanov’s intelligence and diligence, Metelitsa’s courage, he takes full responsibility for preserving the detachment, That's why he enjoys universal respect. His value as a commander is confirmed in the chapter “Squag”. The problem of the relationship between the leader and the masses is resolved in favor of Levinson, he retains authority, self-respect and the squad as a “combat unit”. The reason for this is that people for him are “closer to everything else, closer even to himself, because he owes something to them.” This obligation is the meaning of his life. Levinson’s position is shared by the author, apparently, which is why the reader perceives him as a teacher, senior, commander, and all his decisions, even in the case of Frolov’s death, seem to be the only correct ones, although they were made after a long internal struggle. Levinson, Metelitsa, Morozka and some other partisans are opposed by Mechik. It is he who is subjected to the sympathetic, and more often contemptuous, attitude of the author. The relationship between man and society is one of the most important problems. Every person lives in society and is obliged to bring benefit to it. Levinson, Morozka, Metelitsa did this at the cost of their own lives, as for Mechik, he only dreams of people treating him well, but for this something needs to be done, and Mechik did nothing. His dream of beautiful love, of a romantic feat does not come true. Through the mouth of Morozka, Fadeev immediately contemptuously calls him: “yellow-mouthed,” and when asking Varya who she is in love with, he rewards him with the following epithet: “In this, mom’s, or what?” Mechik deserves such treatment. This is an egoist who values ​​himself highly, but does not confirm this with his actions. At the most decisive moments, he acted basely, although he himself was often unaware of it. His selfish, incapable of being loyal nature began to reveal itself even when he allowed his foot to step on a photograph of a girl, and then tore it himself. Another example: angry with his horse for its weakness and unattractive appearance, he does not take care of it, dooming it to immediate unfitness. In the end, it was Mechik who was responsible for the death of Morozka and, possibly, many other partisans. It’s scary that the thought that torments him after escaping is not about betrayal, not about the death of friends, but about the fact that he “stained” his pure, previously unsullied soul: how could I do this - I, such good and honest and who did not wish harm to anyone...” Fadeev evaluates him quite objectively. The author’s point of view is expressed by Levinson: weak, lazy, weak-willed,” “worthless barren flower.” And yet Mechik is not the embodiment of evil. The reason for his failures is that he is not close to almost any of the partisans, he is from a different social class, and the traits characteristic of other heroes have not been instilled in him since childhood. Most likely it's not your fault. Most of the partisans are Russian men, people from the people, rude, brave, cruel, people devoted to the people and loving the people. Mechik is a representative of the “rotten” intelligentsia. The desire for beauty is alive in him, he is compassionate, because only he was strongly impressed by the death of Frolov and Nika’s departure, but he is inexperienced and young, the fear of not being liked by the people among whom he needs to live makes him act unnaturally for him. He correctly understood that he was a stranger in the detachment, his place was not here, but he did not have the opportunity to leave, and his actions can be understood. Even if society does not need him, it should still take care of him as a sick or old person, if it is humane.

Thus, the novel poses to the reader a number of controversial issues relating to interpersonal relationships, the relationship between a person and society, person to person. Fadeev defined the main idea of ​​the novel as follows: “In a civil war, a selection of material takes place, everything hostile is swept away by the revolution, everything incapable of a real fight, that accidentally ends up in the camp of the revolution is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution, from the millions of masses of the people, is tempered, grows, develops in this struggle. A huge transformation of people is taking place.”

I think that “selection of human material” always occurs, and not just in the Civil War; those who are incapable of real struggle do not pass natural selection, which is why they are eliminated, but those who carry goodness within themselves and are able to fight for it “harden, grow, develop.” This is necessary for the development of society as a whole, because the desire for goodness, for perfection is natural for a person, for every member of a society that calls itself humane.

SYSTEM OF IMAGES IN A. A. FADEEV’S NOVEL “DEFEAT”

With the victory of the young Soviet Republic, new life spontaneously burst into art. The theme of the noisy war seemed to be the main one in the work of Soviet writers. Writing about the Civil War meant writing about the revolution, about a new life, about a new era, about a new man. “Destruction” was conceived in the first post-October years, because memories of the events of the Civil War in the Far East, in which the author participated, were still fresh. In “Destruction” we see Fadeev’s attitude towards war as an evil that brings blood, suffering, and death. But Fadeev looks at the war not as an observer, but as a direct participant in the events. In his novel, the author reflected the awakened consciousness of the masses in new conditions.

To take a closer look at “Destruction”, it is necessary to briefly convey the content. The novel deals with a heterogeneous partisan mass. The revolutionary wave affected the interests of all groups of the population. One of the main characters, partisan commander Levinson, is a man of the “right breed”, whom everyone loved and respected. His small partisan detachment experiences hunger, fatigue, deprivation, constant threats to life, and the death of many, many. I see that events are unfolding on the outskirts of former Tsarist Russia, in the midst of the people, among depressed and oppressed people. Representatives of the people are the miners, from which stands out the desperate Morozka, the responsible and efficient Dubov, and from the peasants - the former shepherd Metelitsa, a brave and courageous man. Representatives of the intelligentsia are Mechik and Doctor Stashinsky. Levinson's small partisan detachment, making its way to its own people, defends itself from many times superior enemy forces, courageously overcomes various obstacles on its way. The ending of the novel is dramatic. The squad is ambushed, leaving nineteen people. The partisans are defeated, but at the end of the novel I see a bright and encouraging beginning, which is shown through Morozka’s desperate feat. In the last lines of the novel we see the author’s hope for a bright future, which is expressed in the words: “I had to live and fulfill my duties.”

Now let's discuss the heroes of the novel, each of whom is individual in their own way. It is worth highlighting from the characters the detachment commander Levinson, who is not distinguished by his striking appearance, but has the talent of a leader. Levinson feels responsible for the people entrusted to him. He is a real Bolshevik leader, a conscious leader of the masses, a man of “a special, correct breed”, ready to self-denial for the sake of his ideals. Levinson enjoys real respect and serves as an example to follow for young Baklanov. However, Fadeev, in my opinion, somewhat idealizes the image of his hero. After all, if you look closely, you can see that Levinson is a completely ordinary person with weaknesses and shortcomings. The fact is that he knows how to conceal and suppress all his fears and doubts, painful discord. Levinson manages people very skillfully.

Young Baklanov tries to imitate his commander in every detail. The author shows that the assistant commander is gaining experience for the future. Fadeev paints the image of a reasonable Goncharenko. I believe that this bomber is also, to some extent, a “correct” person. I read how clearly and selflessly Goncharenko acted during the retreat, how skillfully he blew up the gates, how judiciously and intelligently he spoke with the partisans. Such people are infinitely devoted to the revolution and its ideals; they know what they are doing and where they are going, for what they are fighting.

There are few characters in the novel, but Fadeev carefully examined each personality, its formation and development. Therefore, before showing a person at the pinnacle of heroism, the writer depicts him in an ordinary setting. Fadeev shows the difficult life of the partisans, their everyday life. For example, Morozka went through a thorny path, turning from a careless partisan into a “serviceable” partisan. At the beginning of the novel, I see Morozka’s lack of consciousness and indiscipline, his rude treatment of Varya, who wanted pure and sincere love. But this participation in the struggle gave rise to his moral re-education. His life becomes more meaningful, he tries to comprehend his actions and the world around him. Morozka’s “careless mischief” turns into responsibility, personality formation occurs. As a result, Morozka commits a truly heroic act at the end of the novel, sacrificing her life for the sake of her comrades. The former shepherd Metelitsa also stands out in the novel. This hero is brave and impetuous, his courage admires those around him.

Metelitsa formed on its own, in the elements of working life. In this case, the revolution helped the hero not to lose his wonderful qualities. He gets the opportunity to use and reveal them to the fullest. I am fascinated by Metelitsa: his fire, movement, predatory eyes, determination, swiftness, lightning speed. Fadeev showed the formation of spontaneity into a conscious beginning using the example of Morozka. Snowstorm, in my opinion, is a complement to Levinson’s image. The commander's doubts and experience are combined with the determined Metelitsa. This can be observed in the example of how deftly Levinson replaces Metelitsa’s rapid plan with a calmer and more cautious one. The author shows the advantages of Metelitsa, which Morozka is not endowed with. But each hero is individual and unique in his own way. Morozka’s natural behavior at the beginning of the novel is characterized by laxity, hooliganism, recklessness and lack of accountability in many actions.

But if the author sympathizes with Metelitsa and Morozka, then Fadeev experiences complete antipathy towards Mechik. The author shows how the petty-bourgeois intellectual Mechik is looking for romance and heroic deeds in the Civil War. But, seeing the routine, theft, bullying, ridicule, curses among the partisan masses, Mechik is disappointed. The sword is moral, but his qualities are manifested only in words, and not in deeds. Mechik thinks only about saving his own life, he is unreliable. Coming into contact with the complexity of real life, he is lost, he has no ideals left: neither the desired feat, nor pure love for a woman. His cowardice and uncertainty soon give rise to betrayal, which Fadeev brands with shame. Mechik has an abstract humanism that is passive and does not require cruelty and severity. However, this humanism causes suffering. Taking pity on Frolov, Mechik only made things worse for him and caused him suffering. His morals are against him. In my opinion, he was not created for exploits and war, and indeed for the kind of life in which he now finds himself. His soul is too pampered, conscientious and vulnerable. Fadeev shows that the partisan environment did not accept this intellectual. The author emphasizes the uselessness of the intelligentsia in the Bolshevik struggle. But not all intellectuals are like Mechik.

It seems to me that Mechik is simply not ready for the fight; his uncertainty and youthful romanticism gave rise to negative qualities. As a result, he betrayed his comrades. The urban environment played a big role in the development of this hero’s personality. Fadeev does not accept Mechik, although he sympathizes with the doctor Stashinsky. A doctor is an intellectual, but he is infinitely devoted to his work, to his ideals, which he will never betray. This is illustrated by the example of the murder of Frolov. Even in critical situations one cannot kill a hopeless patient, but in this case it is also impossible not to do so. From this I can conclude that the intelligentsia also plays a significant role in the revolution.

So, in the example of this small detachment we see the spontaneous and conscious formation of the masses. This determines the main and fundamental idea of ​​“Destruction”. Fadeev defined it this way: in a civil war, a selection of human material occurs, everything hostile is swept away by the revolution, everything incapable of a real revolutionary struggle that accidentally ends up in the camp of the revolution is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution, from the millions of masses of the people, is tempered, grows, develops into this fight. A huge transformation of people is taking place.” In the novel there is selection, elimination, and remaking of people. But this “selection of human material” is carried out by the war itself. As a result, the best people who have already fallen in love with the reader die: Metelitsa, Baklanov. After his spiritual formation, Morozka heroically dies. Such useless people as Chizh remain in the detachment. But Fadeev fanatically believed that there was a breakthrough to goodness and justice, to a new spiritual life, to free, joyful work without the bourgeoisie. But reality was sometimes completely different, realism is introduced into life, showing a heroic personality, elevating and developing the sprouts of communism in the imagination. I want to note that the study of people and events does not always lead to a positive result. Negative aspects are also revealed that cannot be hidden or smoothed over; justice is not always pure.

However, we must give credit to Fadeev for clearly revealing the theme, idea and composition of the novel, and also clearly setting out two main concepts. The first is the unity of the world and man in it, and the second is humanism. Fadeev showed us not only a partisan detachment, but also a picture of peasant life, without which a description of the partisans is unthinkable, because almost all of them came from peasant backgrounds. Let's remember Metelitsa and Morozka. Goncharenko claimed that there was a man in each of them. The author shows the inseparability of people and the peasant world. Humanism in “Destruction” is shown not through a merciful attitude towards the wives and children of the enemy, but through the impact of new relationships on the characters and personalities of people.

Fadeev defined the main theme and idea as “remaking people.” It is this main idea that the composition is subordinated to. There are few characters in the novel, but the author carefully examines each personality. The first half of the novel is subordinated to this deep analysis of changes in a person’s inner world during the struggle. The author tells about a man, about his fate, about his trials. It is not for nothing that the beginning of the defeat is described only in the tenth chapter. But even during military operations, Fadeev first of all shows the state, behavior and experiences of the participants in the battle. The author completes the character of the hero with his actions. In his novel, the author asserts the invincibility of the people in war. Fadeev was a real party soldier, a true fighter for a bright future. Of course, he saw the darker sides of reality, but he firmly believed that they would soon disappear. And we must pay tribute to Fadeev for such dedication, dedication and work.

The problem of humanism in A. Fadeev's novel defeat is central. The author in his work showed two concepts of humanism: the bourgeois humanism of Mechik and the proletarian humanism of Levinson.

Let's look at everything in order. Pavel Mechik is the main character of the novel. Analyzing his actions and thoughts, we immediately conclude that he is a true humanist and a preacher of the ideas of humanism: he is against any violence, very peaceful and vulnerable. From his dialogues with other characters, for example, with Varya or Pika and his internal monologues, we see that he misses his home, his beloved girl, and a peaceful life. But the impression the reader gets is quite misleading. For his pseudo-humanism always led to sad consequences: because of his, as he believes, humanistic actions, Frolov learned that they wanted to put him to sleep.

It was already difficult for everyone to do this act, and after the truth came out and he drank the prepared poison, it became even more difficult for the detachment. At the end of the novel, Mechik’s humanism leads to the death of almost the entire detachment: he was appointed as a sentinel and his task was to reconnoiter the road ahead and report the discovery of the enemy. He discovered the enemy, but did not warn the detachment. And he ran away cowardly. Exposing the entire squad to heavy fire. Almost all the fighters knew that they would die, but they bravely gave their last battle. Think about it, are Mechik’s actions humanistic or selfish? Levinson is the antipode of Mechik. His actions truly correspond to humanistic ideas: he thought about himself last, about the detachment first. Life constantly presented him with a choice: to act for himself or for the sake of his partisan detachment. The decision to put Frolov to sleep was difficult for Levinson, but it was solely for the sake of the well-being of the entire squad. The eyes of a local resident, full of tears, when the last pig was taken from him, I think Levinson remembered for a long time. But he, again, acted for the benefit of others, so that the detachment would not die of hunger. Levinson's constant internal conflict, when he did not want to get up in the morning, but he did it and continued to command the detachment. Now let’s return to the image of Mechik and think about his actions. He always acted for himself and thought only about himself, which contradicts the ideas of humanism. Even after the betrayal, he cried not because he betrayed, but because he really loved himself and his pseudo-humanistic ideas, into which the betrayal of the detachment did not fit at all. And Levinson always acted for the benefit of the people around him, and thought of himself last. This, I believe, is true humanism.

Updated: 2019-04-26

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.

Useful material on the topic