How disgusting Sharikov... He passed on all the features of a person whose pituitary gland was transplanted - that is, Klima Chugunkika- a rude, drunkard, rowdy, killed in a drunken brawl.
Sharikovrude, arrogant, arrogant, he feels himself the master of life, because he belongs to the representatives of the common people who are in power, feels support from the authorities. He quickly became accustomed to this environment in order to benefit from literally everything.
His main goal is to break out into people, to achieve the desired position. He is not going to do this, changing morally, developing, self-improving. He doesn't need knowledge. He believes that it is enough to put on a poisonous tie, patent leather boots - and you already have a presentable appearance, although the whole suit is dirty and untidy. And the book that Shvonder recommends him to read - Engels' correspondence with Kautsky, in the author's opinion, will not help him become smarter.
And the worst thing is that he achieves his goal: with the help of the manager of Shvonder, he registers in Peobrazhensky's apartment, even tries to bring his wife into the house, finds work (and even if she is dirty, she catches stray dogs, but here he is even a small boss).
Sharikov, having received the position, transformed, becoming like all representatives of the authorities. Now he also has a leather jacket as a symbol of belonging to power. He drives a company car.
So it doesn't matter what kind of person is moral. The main thing is that he is the proletariat, therefore the power, the law is on his side. This is what the author criticizes, showing the lawlessness that was characteristic of the country during the reign of Stalin.
When power is in the hands of people like Sharikov, life becomes scary. There was no rest in Preobrazhensky's house: swearing, drunkenness, strumming a balalaika, molesting women. So the professor's good intentions ended in a nightmare, which he himself began to correct.
Another hero does not command respect either Shvonder... Elected as the head of the house committee, he tries to fulfill his duties conscientiously. This is a public person, one of the "comrades." He hates class enemies, which, in his opinion, are Preobrazhensky and Bormental, talks to the professor with Calm gloating
". And when Philip Philipovich involuntarily lost his temper, "Blue joy spilled over Shvonder's face."
Summarizing, it should be noted that a person must remain a person, no matter what post he occupies, no matter what activity he devotes himself to. At home, in the service, in relations with people, especially with those who surround a person, there should be the basic laws of morality. Only then can we hope for a positive transformation of society as a whole.
Moral laws are unshakable, and their violation can lead to dire consequences. Everyone is responsible for their deeds, for all the results of their activities.
Readers of the story come to such conclusions.
Arguments for the composition
Problems 1. The role of art (science, mass media) in the spiritual life of society 2. The impact of art on the spiritual formation of a person 3. Educational function of art Approving theses 1. Genuine art ennobles a person. 2. Art teaches a person to love life. 3. To bring to people the light of high truths, "pure teachings of good and truth" - this is the meaning of true art. 4. The artist must put his whole soul into the work in order to infect his feelings and thoughts to another person. Quotes 1. Without Chekhov, we would be many times poorer in spirit and heart (K. Paustovsky. Russian writer). 2. The entire life of mankind has consistently settled in books (A. Herzen, Russian writer). 3. Conscientiousness - this is the feeling that literature must stir up (N. Evdokimova, Russian writer). 4. Art is called upon to preserve the human in man (Yu. Bondarev, Russian writer). 5. The world of the book is the world of a real miracle (L. Leonov, Russian writer). 6. A good book is just a holiday (M. Gorky, Russian writer). 7. Art creates good people, forms the human soul (P. Tchaikovsky, Russian composer). 8. They went into darkness, but their trail did not disappear (W. Shakespeare, English writer). 9. Art is a shadow of divine perfection (Michelangelo, Italian sculptor and painter). 10. The purpose of art is to condense the beauty dissolved in the world (French philosopher). 11. There is no career as a poet, there is the fate of a poet (S. Marshak, Russian writer). 12. The essence of literature is not in fiction, but in the need to say the heart (V. Rozanov, Russian philosopher). 13. The artist's business is to give birth to joy (K Paustovsky, Russian writer). Arguments 1) Scientists, psychologists have long argued that music can have various effects on the nervous system, on a person's tone. It is generally accepted that Bach's works increase and develop intelligence. Beethoven's music arouses compassion, purifies a person's thoughts and feelings of negativity. Schumann helps to understand the soul of a child. 2) Can art change a person's life? Actress Vera Alentova recalls such a case. One day she received a letter from an unknown woman who said that she was left alone, she did not want to live. But after watching the film “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears,” she became a different person: “You will not believe, I suddenly saw that people are smiling and they are not so bad as it seemed to me all these years. And the grass, it turns out, is green, And the sun is shining ... I recovered, for which many thanks to you. " 3) Many front-line soldiers tell that the soldiers exchanged smoke and bread for clippings from the front-line newspaper, where chapters from the poem by A. Tvardovsky "Vasily Terkin" were published. This means that the words of encouragement were sometimes more important to the soldiers than food. 4) The outstanding Russian poet Vasily Zhukovsky, talking about his impressions of Raphael's painting "The Sistine Madonna", said that the hour he spent in front of her belongs to the happiest hours of his life, and it seemed to him that this painting was born in the moment of a miracle. 5) The famous children's writer N. Nosov told an incident that happened to him in childhood. Once he missed the train and stayed overnight at the station square with the street children. They saw a book in his bag and asked her to read it. Nosov agreed, and the guys, deprived of parental warmth, holding their breath, began to listen to the story about a lonely old man, mentally comparing his bitter homeless life with their fate. 6) When the Nazis besieged Leningrad, the 7th symphony of Dmitry Shostakovich had a huge impact on the inhabitants of the city. which, as eyewitnesses testify, gave people new strength to fight the enemy. 7) In the history of literature, a lot of evidence has been preserved connected with the stage history of "The Minor". They say that many noble children, recognizing themselves in the image of the idler Mitrofanushka, experienced a genuine rebirth: they began to study diligently, read a lot and grew up worthy sons of the motherland. 8) For a long time, a gang operated in Moscow, which was particularly cruel. When the criminals were captured, they confessed that the American film Natural Born Killers, which they watched almost every day, had a huge impact on their behavior, on their attitude to the world. They tried to copy the habits of the heroes of this picture in real life. 9) The artist serves eternity. Today we imagine this or that historical person exactly as it is depicted in a work of art. Even tyrants were in awe of this truly royal power of the artist. Here's an example from the Renaissance. Young Michelangelo fulfills the Medici order and behaves quite boldly. When one of the Medici expressed displeasure at the lack of similarity with the portrait, Michelangelo said: "Do not worry, Your Holiness, in a hundred years will be like you." 10) As a child, many of us read the novel by A. Dumas "The Three Musketeers". Athos, Porthos, Aramis, d "Artagnan - these heroes seemed to us the embodiment of nobility and chivalry, and Cardinal Richelieu, their adversary, the personification of cunning and cruelty. But the image of the novel villain bears little resemblance to a real historical figure. After all, it was Richelieu who introduced the almost forgotten during the religious wars, the words “French”, “homeland.” He forbade duels, believing that young, strong men should shed blood not because of petty quarrels, but for the sake of their homeland. But under the pen of the novelist Richelieu acquired a different look with everything, and Dumas's invention affects the reader much more strongly and brighter than historical truth. 11) V. Soloukhin told such a case. Two intellectuals argued about what snow can be. One says that there is blue, the other proves that blue snow is nonsense, an invention of the Impressionists, decadents, that snow is snow, white as ... snow. Repin lived in the same house. Let's go to him to resolve the dispute. Repin: he didn’t like being torn from work. He angrily shouted: “Well, what do you want? ? - Whatever is it snowing? - Not white! - and slammed the door. 12) People believed in the truly magical power of art. So, some cultural figures suggested that the French during the First World War defend Verdun - their strongest fortress - not with forts and cannons, but with the treasures of the Louvre. “Put the La Gioconda or Madonna and Child with St. Anne, the great Leonardo da Vinci, in front of the besiegers - and the Germans will not dare to shoot!” They argued.
The work of M.A.Bulgakov is the largest phenomenon of Russian fiction XX century. Its main theme can be considered the theme of "the tragedy of the Russian people." The writer was a contemporary of all those tragic events that took place in Russia in the first half of this century. But most importantly, M. A. Bulgakov was an astute prophet. He not only described what he saw around him, but also understood how dearly his homeland would pay for all this. With bitter feeling, he writes after the end of the First World War: “... Western countries lick their wounds, they will recover, they will recover very soon (and will prosper!), And we ... we will fight, we will pay for the madness of the October ,for all!" And later, in 1926, in his diary: "We are wild, dark, unhappy people."
M. A. Bulgakov is a subtle satirist, a student of N. V. Gogol and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. But the writer's prose is not just satire, it is fantastic satire. There is a huge difference between these two types of worldview: satire exposes the shortcomings that exist in reality, and fantastic satire warns society about what awaits it in the future. And the most outspoken views of MA Bulgakov on the fate of his country are expressed, in my opinion, in the story “ dog's heart”.
The story was written in 1925, but the author did not wait for its publication: the manuscript was seized during a search in 1926. The reader saw her only in 1985.
The story is based on a great experiment. The main character the story - Professor Preobrazhensky, who is the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of the Russian intellectual, conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: to create a new person by transplanting a part of a human brain into a dog. The story contains the theme of the new Faust, but, like everything else in Mikhail Bulgakov, it has a tragicomic character. Moreover, the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the name Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes all the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late.
To create a new person, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the "proletarian" - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, completely inheriting the “proletarian” essence of its “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois”. And then - street expressions: "do not push!", "Scoundrel", "get off the step" and so on. A disgusting “person of small stature and unsympathetic appearance appears. The hair on his head grew coarse ... The forehead was striking with its small height. A thick head brush began almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows.
The monstrous homunculus, a dog-like man whose "basis" was the lumpen-proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, arrogant, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormenthal and the humanoid being is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dim eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirt-front ...” “Don't throw the cigarette butts on the floor - for the hundredth time I ask. So that I no longer hear a single swear word. Don't give a damn about the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are watching her in the dark. Look! ” - the professor is indignant. “You are oppressing me painfully, dad,” he (Sharikov) suddenly uttered tearfully ... “Why don't you let me live?” Despite the discontent of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitive and stupid: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, loafs around, does all sorts of disgraceful things, confident that "now everyone has his own right."
Of course, it is not this scientific experiment in itself that Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov seeks to portray in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. It is not only about the responsibility of a scientist for his experiment, about the inability to see the consequences of his actions, about the huge difference between evolutionary change and revolutionary invasion of life.
The story "Heart of a Dog" carries an extremely clear author's view of everything that happens in the country.
Everything that happened around and what was called the construction of socialism was also perceived by M. A. Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. To attempts to create a new, perfect society by revolutionary methods, that is, to justify violence, by methods, to educating a new one by the same methods, free man he was extremely skeptical. He saw that in Russia they also strive to create a new type of person. A man who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received enormous rights from the state. It is such a person who is convenient for the new government, because he will put in the mud those who are independent, smart, high in spirit. Mikhail A. Bulgakov considers the reorganization of Russian life to be an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be dire. But do those who conceived their experiment realize that it can hit the “experimenters” too, do they understand that the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural development of society, and therefore can lead to consequences that no one can control ? It is these questions, in my opinion, that M. A. Bulgakov raises in his work. In the story, Professor Preobrazhensky manages to return everything to its place: Sharikov again becomes an ordinary dog. Will we ever be able to correct all those mistakes, the results of which we still experience on ourselves?
"Friendship and enmity"
"Friendship and enmity"
Nadezhda Borisovna Vasilyeva "Gagara"
Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov "Oblomov"
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev "Defeat"
Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"
Daniel Pennack "The Eye of the Wolf"
Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"
Oblomov and Stolz
The great Russian writer Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov published his second novel Oblomov in 1859. It was a very difficult time for Russia. The society was divided into two parts: first, the minority - those who understood the need to abolish serfdom, who were not satisfied with the life of ordinary people in Russia, and the second, the majority - "gentlemen", wealthy people whose life consisted of idle pastime, living at the expense of theirs peasants. In the novel, the author tells us about the life of the landowner Oblomov and about those heroes of the novel who surround him and allow the reader to better understand the image of Ilya Ilyich himself.
One of these heroes is Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, Oblomov's friend. But despite the fact that they are friends, each of them represents in the novel his opposite position in life, so their images are contrasted. Let's compare them.
Oblomov appears before us as a man "... about thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea ... an even light of carelessness glimmered all over his face." Stolz is the same age as Oblomov, “thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, ... the complexion is even, dark-skinned and no blush; the eyes, although a little greenish, are expressive. " As you can see, even in the description of appearance, we cannot find anything in common. Oblomov's parents were Russian nobles, they owned several hundred souls of serfs. Stolz was half German by his father, his mother was a Russian noblewoman.
Oblomov and Stolz have known each other since childhood, since they studied together in a small boarding school, located five miles from Oblomovka, in the village of Verkhlevka. Stolz's father was the manager there.
“Perhaps Ilyusha would have had time to learn something well if Oblomovka had been five hundred versts from Verkhlev. The charm of Oblomov's atmosphere, lifestyle and habits extended to Verkhlevo; there, except for the Stolz house, everything breathed the same primitive laziness, simplicity of morals, silence and immobility. " But Ivan Bogdanovich raised his son strictly: “From the age of eight he sat with his father at a geographic map, sorted out bible verses in the warehouses of Herder, Wieland, and summed up the illiterate accounts of peasants, burghers and factory workers, and with his mother he read sacred history, taught Krylov's fables and dismantled Telemak in warehouses. " As for physical education, Oblomov was not even allowed out into the street, while Stolz
"Breaking away from the pointer, he ran to destroy bird nests with the boys", sometimes, it happened, disappearing from the house for a day. Oblomov from childhood was surrounded by the tender care of his parents and nanny, which took away the need for his own actions, others did everything for him, while Stolz was brought up in an atmosphere of constant mental and physical labor.
But Oblomov and Stolz are already over thirty. What are they now? Ilya Ilyich has turned into a lazy gentleman, whose life slowly passes on the sofa. Goncharov himself speaks about Oblomov with a grain of irony: “Lying down for Ilya Ilyich was neither a necessity, like a patient's or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like someone who is tired, nor pleasure, like a lazy one: it was his normal state. " Against the background of such a lazy existence, Stolz's life can be compared to a seething stream: “He is incessantly in motion: if society needs to send an agent to Belgium or England, they will send him; you need to write a project or adapt a new idea to the case - they choose it. Meanwhile, he travels to the world and reads: when he has time - God knows. "
All this once again proves the difference between Oblomov and Stolz, but if you think about it, what can unite them? Probably friendship, but apart from it? It seems to me that they are united by eternal and deep sleep. Oblomov sleeps on his couch, and Stolz sleeps in his stormy and eventful life. “Life: life is good!”, - says Oblomov, - “What is there to look for? interests of the mind, the heart? Look where the center around which all this revolves: there is none, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people worse than me, these members of the world and society! ... Do they not sleep sitting all their lives? Why am I more to blame than them, lying at home and not infecting the head with threes and jacks? " Maybe Ilya Ilyich is right, because we can say that people who live without a definite, lofty goal, simply sleep in pursuit of the satisfaction of their desires.
But who is more needed by Russia, Oblomov or Stolz? Of course, such active, active and progressive people as Stolz are simply necessary in our time, but we must come to terms with the fact that the Oblomovs will never disappear, because there is a part of Oblomov in each of us, and we are all a little Oblomov in our souls. Therefore, both of these images have the right to exist as different life positions, different views on reality.
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"
Duel of Pierre with Dolokhov. (Analysis of an episode from Leo Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace", vol. II, part I, chap. IV, V.)
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy in the novel "War and Peace" consistently pursues the idea of \u200b\u200bthe predetermined fate of man. He can be called a fatalist. This is vividly, truthfully and logically proved in the scene of Dolokhov's duel with Pierre. A purely civilian man - Pierre wounded Dolokhov in a duel - a brute, a hangman, a fearless warrior. But Pierre could not handle weapons at all. Before the duel, the second Nesvitsky explained to Bezukhov "where to press."
The episode about the duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov can be called "An Unconscious Deed". It begins with a description of the English Club dinner. Everyone sits at the table, eating and drinking, toasting the emperor and his health. The dinner is attended by Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, Bezukhoye. Pierre "does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, difficult and insoluble." He is tormented by the question: are Dolokhov and his wife Helen really lovers? "Every time his gaze accidentally met Dolokhov's beautiful, insolent eyes, Pierre felt something terrible, ugly rising in his soul." And after the toast uttered by his "enemy": "For the health of beautiful women and their lovers," Bezukhov understands that his suspicions are not in vain.
A conflict is brewing, the outset of which occurs when Dolokhov grabs a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it hesitantly, timidly, one might even think that the words: "You ... you ... scoundrel!., I challenge you ..." - accidentally burst from him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and the seconds do not realize this either: Nesvitsky is Pierre's second and Nikolai Rostov is Dolokhov's second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits at the club all night, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill an opponent, but this is only an appearance, “he is restless in his soul. His rival, on the other hand, "has the appearance of a man busy with some considerations that have nothing to do with the upcoming business. His sunken face is yellow. He, apparently, did not sleep at night." The count still doubts the correctness of his actions and thinks: what would he do in Dolokhov's place?
Pierre does not know what to do: whether to run away, or to bring the matter to the end. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupidity. Dolokhov doesn't want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal of reconciliation, the duel does not begin for a long time because of the unconsciousness of the deed, which Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: "For about three minutes everything was already ready, and nevertheless they delayed to begin. Everyone was silent." The indecision of the characters also conveys the description of nature - it is sparse and laconic: fog and thaw.
Began. Dolokhov, when they began to disperse, walked slowly, his mouth had a semblance of a smile. He realizes his superiority and wants to show that he is not afraid of anything. Pierre walks quickly, straying off the beaten path, he seems to be trying to run away, to finish everything as soon as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, while at random, flinching from a strong sound, and wounds the opponent.
Dolokhov, firing, misses. Dolokhov's injury and his unsuccessful attempt to kill the count are the culmination of the episode. Then there is a decline in action and a denouement, which is what all the characters are experiencing. Pierre does not understand anything, he is full of remorse and regret, barely holding back sobs, clutching his head, going back somewhere into the forest, that is, running away from what he had done, from his fear. Dolokhov does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, whom he causes suffering.
In the end of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was done. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house as a friend and helped with money in memory of an old friendship, disgraced Bezukhov by seducing his wife. But Pierre is completely unprepared for the role of "judge" and "executioner" at the same time, he regrets what happened, thanks God that he did not kill Dolokhov.
Pierre's humanism disarms, already before the duel he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helene's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. "Perhaps I would have done the same in his place, thought Pierre. Even probably I would have done the same. What is this duel, this murder for?"
Helene's insignificance and baseness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his act, this woman should not take a sin on her soul - to kill a man for her. Pierre is terrified that he almost ruined his own soul, as before - his life, linking it with Helene.
After a duel, taking the wounded Dolokhov home, Nikolai Rostov learned that "Dolokhov, this brawler, a bruiser, Dolokhov lived in Moscow with an old mother and a humpbacked sister and was the most tender son and brother ...". Here one of the author's statements is proved that not everything is as obvious, understandable and unambiguous as it seems at first glance. Life is much more complex and diverse than we think, know or assume. The great philosopher Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy teaches us to be humane, fair, tolerant of the shortcomings and vices of people. By the scene of Dolokhov's duel with Pierre Bezukhov, Tolstoy teaches us a lesson: it is not for us to judge what is fair and what is unfair, not everything that is obvious is simple and easy to solve.
Lesson - Research Using CRC
"What is the mistake of Professor Preobrazhensky?"
(based on the story of M. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog")
1 slide
The story "Heart of a Dog" was written in 1925, but the writer did not see it in print. In Russia, the work was published only in 1987.
"It's spicy pamphlet in no case should it be published, ”- this is how LB Kamenev understood this work. How did you understand him?
Students 'answers (most of the students' answers are reduced to the experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky)
The teacher asks a problematic question: “What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand in the ending of the story? What is his mistake? "
Different opinions of students lead to a problematic situation, in the course of solving which students will come to a deeper understanding of the work.
Student message about the history of the creation of the story "Heart of a Dog" (preliminary homework)
The story is based on a great experiment. Everything that happened around and what was called the construction of socialism was perceived by Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. The writer was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new perfect society by revolutionary (not excluding violence) methods, and about educating a new, free person by the same methods. For him, it was such an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be dire, including for the "experimenters" themselves. The author warns readers about this with his work.
2 slide
- “Satire is created when a writer appears who considers the current life to be imperfect, and, indignant, proceeds to artfully denounce it. I believe that the path of such an artist will be very, very difficult. " (M.A.Bulgakov)
Let's remember what satire is. What is the satire directed against? (Satire is a kind of comic. The subject of satire is human vices. The source of satire is the contradiction between universal values \u200b\u200band the reality of life).
The traditions of which Russian satirists did Mikhail Bulgakov continue? (M.E. Saltykov-Shedrin, N.V. Gogol).
Analytical group research:
1. How does the Moscow of the 1920s appear before the reader? Whose eyes do we see Moscow? (Through the eyes of a dog - a method of detachment, which allows the author to "hide" his attitude to what is happening and at the same time to fully reveal the nature of the observer through his perception of events and their assessment. Moscow seems to the guys dirty, uncomfortable, cold and gloomy. In this city, where the wind, blizzard and snow reign, angry people live, trying to hold on to what they have, or even better - to seize more. Students find details in the text that confirm their impressions, and come to the conclusion that in Moscow there is an atmosphere of chaos, decay , hatred: a person who was nobody, now receives power, but uses it for his own good, regardless of the people around him (an example of this is the fate of the "typist").
3 slide
How does Professor Preobrazhensky appear before us? Is the choice of the name of the professor accidental? How does the author relate to his hero in the first part of the story? What about the professor's lifestyle and views?
4 Slide
What are his moral principles? What is the essence of the professor's attitude to the new order?
For what purpose did the professor pick up a homeless dog? Why is he conducting an experimental operation?
Slide
How does Sharik appear to you? Describe him at the time of the meeting with the professor. What qualities of Sharik do you like, what - not? What qualities does the author emphasize in Sharik? For what purpose does he do this? What does Sharik notice in the surrounding reality and how does he react to it? What does Sharik like in the professor's house and what doesn't? (From the first lines, the reader's "stream of consciousness" unfolds. And from the first lines it is clear that this dog is fantastic. The dog, over whose body people have abused, of course, knows how to hate, but the "typist" evokes sympathy and pity in him.
6 slide (movie preview)
Meeting with Professor Preobrazhensky saves Sharik from death. And although the dog is aware of his slave soul and vile lot, but for a piece of Krakow sausage he gives his love and dedication to the "mental labor of the master." The servile obsequiousness awakened in Sharik is manifested not only in the readiness to lick the master's boots, but also in the desire to avenge the past humiliations of one of those whom he previously feared like fire - “to bite the doorman on the proletarian calloused leg”).
7 slide
Does Sharik change from December 16 to December 23? Highlight the stages of these changes. Compare the behavior of the dog and the person (Sharikov) in the episodes of the first and second parts: choosing a name, lunch, visiting the house committee. Is there anything doggy in a person? Why? What's in Sharikov from the dog, what's from Chugunkin? (Sharikov, whose first word was the name of the store where he was scalded with boiling water, very quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to servants, turn his ignorance into a weapon against education. He even has a spiritual mentor - the chairman of the house committee Shvonder. Sharikov's career is truly amazing - from a vagabond a dog to an authorized person for the destruction of stray cats and dogs. And here one of the main features of Sharikov is manifested: gratitude is completely alien to him. On the contrary, he takes revenge on those who know his past. He takes revenge on his own kind in order to prove his difference from them, to assert himself. , inspiring Sharikov to feats (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky's apartment), just does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.)
Slide
Who is Sharikov's ideological mentor? Which impact is worse: physical or ideological? (Any violence cannot be justified)
What future did Bulgakov predict to Shvonder through the mouth of Professor Preobrazhensky? Did this prediction come true?
slide
Compare the parenting theories of Professor and Dr. Bormental. Which one and why was it more effective? How did the results of the experiment affect the professor and his assistant? Does the author's attitude to the professor change throughout the story? What are these changes related to?
10 slide
What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand by the end of the story? What is his mistake? What does the author warn his reader about? (Professor Preobrazhensky comes to the conclusion that violent interference in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story "A Dog's Heart" the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov turns into a dog again. He is content with his fate and himself. But in life such experiments And Bulgakov was able to warn about this at the very beginning of those destructive transformations that began in our country in 1917.
Bulgakov believes that building socialism is also an experiment. The new society is created by violence, to which the author has a negative attitude. For him, this is a violation of the natural course of events, which will turn out to be deplorable for everyone.
Unlike the happy ending of Mikhail Bulgakov's brilliant book, in real history everything turned out differently. After the 1917 revolution, numerous Sharikovs, led by Shvonders, came to power in the USSR. Proud of their proletarian origins, infinitely far from knowledge of the laws of history and economics, replacing true culture and education with immoderate "vocal impulses", these marginalized with "ruin in their heads" brought their country to a social catastrophe unheard of in world history. We are still healing the wounds of the bloody historical "operation" of 1917.
The great diagnostician and seer, M. Bulgakov, predicted the tragic consequences of an "unprecedented in Europe" social experiment in the midst of historical events - in the article "Future Prospects", written in November 1919 9. The article ends with the words:
“It will be necessary to pay for the past with incredible work, the severe poverty of life. Pay both figuratively and literally.
To pay for the madness of the March days, for the madness of the October days, for the self-styled traitors, for Brest, for the insane use of machines for printing money ... for everything!
And we will pay.
And only then, when it is already very late, will we again begin to create something in order to become full-fledged, so that we will be allowed back into the Versailles halls.
Who will see these bright days?
Oh no! Our children, perhaps, and perhaps grandchildren, for the scope of history is wide, and it “reads” decades as easily as individual years.
And we, representatives of the unlucky generation, dying in the rank of miserable bankrupts, will have to say to our children:
“Pay, pay honestly and remember the social revolution forever!”
Answer in writing to the question: what is the meaning of the ending of the story?
In preparation for the lesson, materials were used:
http://900igr.net/kartinki/literatura/Sobache-serdtse/011-M-A.-Bulgakov-1891-1940.html
http://www.bulgakov.ru/dogheart/dh6/
Mikhail Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society rejected the ideas of the 1917 revolution, showed the dire consequences of human intervention in the natural course of development, be it nature or society. On the example of the failure of the experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, M. Bulgakov tried to say in the distant 1920s that the country must be returned, if possible, to its former natural state.
Why do we call the experiment of the brilliant professor unsuccessful? From a scientific point of view, this experience, on the contrary, is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation: he transplants a human pituitary gland to a dog from a twenty-eight-year-old man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin. Bulgakov gives him a short but succinct description: “The profession is playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated 1 (alcohol). The cause of death is a stab in the heart in a pub. " And what? In the creature that appeared as a result of a scientific experiment, the makings of an eternally hungry street dog Sharik are combined with the qualities of an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the first words he uttered were swearing, and the first "decent" word was "bourgeois".
The scientific result was unexpected and unique, but in everyday life, it led to the most deplorable consequences. The appearance in the house of Professor Preobrazhensky as a result of the operation of the type, "small in stature and unsympathetic appearance," turned the well-oiled life of this house. He behaves defiantly rude, arrogant and arrogant.
The newly-minted Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov wears patent leather shoes and a poisonous tie, his suit is dirty, untidy, and tasteless. With the help of Shvonder's house committee, he registers in Preobrazhensky's apartment, demands the "sixteen yards" of living space allocated to him, even tries to bring his wife into the house. He believes that he is raising his ideological level: he is reading a book recommended by Schwonder — the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky. And even makes critical remarks about the correspondence ...
From the point of view of Professor Preobrazhensky, all these are pitiful attempts that in no way contribute to the mental and spiritual development of Sharikov. But from the point of view of Shvonder and those like him, Sharikov is quite suitable for the society they create. Sharikov was even hired by a government agency. For him, to become, albeit small, but a boss means to transform outwardly, to gain power over people. Now he is dressed in a leather jacket and boots, drives a state car, and controls the fate of the secretary girl. His impudence becomes limitless. All day long, in the professor's house, one can hear obscene language and balalaika chirping; Sharikov comes home drunk, sticks to women, breaks and destroys everything around him. It becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the inhabitants of the whole house.
Professor Preobrazhensky and Bormental unsuccessfully try to instill in him the rules of good manners, to develop and educate him. Of the possible cultural events, Sharikov likes only the circus, and he calls the theater counter-revolution. In response to the demands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental to behave culturally at the table, Sharikov notes with irony that this is how people tortured themselves under the tsarist regime.
Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid of Sharikov is: this is more a failure than a success of Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: "Old donkey ... Here, doctor, what happens when a researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge." He comes to the conclusion that violent interference in the nature of man and society leads to disastrous results. In the story "Heart of a Dog" the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov turns into rtca again. He is content with his fate and with himself. But in life such experiments are irreversible, Bulgakov warns.
With his story "Heart of a Dog" Mikhail Bulgakov says that the revolution that took place in Russia is not the result of the natural socio-economic and spiritual development of society, but an irresponsible experiment. This is how Bulgakov perceived everything that was happening around him and what was called the construction of socialism. The writer protests against attempts to create a new perfect society using revolutionary methods that do not exclude violence. And he was extremely skeptical about bringing up a new, free person by the same methods. The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people.
