What is the mistake of Professor Preobrazhensky? The main problems of the “heart of a dog”

Bibliographic description: Pronina U.V., Chizhikova Z.A., Ilinich M.S., Koroteeva T.B. Dispute about a book read // Young scientist. 2016. No. 6. P. 9-12..04.2019).



Chizhikova Z. and Pronina U., classmates, read M. Bulgakov’s story “ Heart of a Dog" The girls argued about whether the unique operation performed by Professor Preobrazhensky was a success or a mistake.

In the articles, 7th grade students express their points of view on the work and characters. How should the reader relate to the events of the story? Let's think together.

The success of Professor Preobrazhensky

I really liked M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.” Most of all the heroes of the work evoke sympathy from Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky - an intelligent, educated and sweet person. He is a doctor who performs operations to rejuvenate aging women. It seems to me that the professor is certainly talented person. He performed an unusual operation to transform a dog into a human. The professor planned to improve nature itself, become a creator, create a new thinking creature. It was a very bold step! Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant sincerely hoped to create a “new man”, teach him to behave correctly in the society of people, to be useful in the new world. human life. The doctor was punished quickly and cruelly for his experiment. " New man" turned out to be rude, angry and ungrateful. Sharikov had a human appearance, and the actions of an animal, but I believe that he is not to blame for this. Most of The dog spent his life on the street, without affection or care, every day people offended him. Much depends on whose qualities the animal has inherited. Klim Chugunkin was terrible person, and Sharik could not get anything good from him. It turned out to be impossible to change Citizen Sharikov. Being a dog, he chased cats with the desire to tear them apart. Nature cannot be deceived! Having become a man, Sharikov was influenced bad people, who began to help him become a “unit of society.” This is exactly how the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, perceives him. Shvonder doesn't even seem human. This is a “public figure” who bows to authority and has great respect for pieces of paper. "The document is the most important thing in the world,” says the chairman of the house committee and helps Sharikov purchase a passport. He also gets the hero a job. Shvonder hates Professor Preobrazhensky and talks to him with “calm gloating.” The intelligence of Preobrazhensky and his assistant is unpleasant to Shvonder. It is interesting that Sharikov’s stupidity and funny behavior does not bother him. The Chairman does not see the creation new personality no miracle. He's too mentally limited to even think about it. There was no success in educating Sharikov and introducing him to a new way of life. The hero drank, made scandals, slept in the kitchen, threw cigarette butts on the floor in the professor’s apartment, wrote denunciations against “dad,” and even threatened to kill Philip Philipovich. Of course, communication with Shvonder did not pass without a trace for Sharikov. The former dog understood him more than an intelligent professor with some incomprehensible and unpleasant rules of decency. Does this mean that the experiment was erroneous, unnecessary, and did not provide anything useful for science and the doctor himself? Can the professor's result be considered a success? I think it is possible.

No one except Preobrazhensky thought of such an unheard of experience. Moreover, experience has shown that there is no need to try to create people in a similar way. It seems to me that, having undergone a second operation, the hero of the story thought about his experiment for a long time and took into account all his mistakes. It was necessary not only to create a “new man”, but also to correctly introduce him into a life unfamiliar to him, protect him from the influence of bad people, and prevent the rough and cruel work of catching stray animals. Next to the well-mannered and intelligent professor there were other people who could help Sharikov become a worthy person. His assistant Zina lived in his house, Doctor Bormental was nearby, kind woman- cook. Sharikov himself was not able to immediately understand the features of the new life. kind man and the professor himself. He was the one who found the dog on the street. A negative result is also a result!

This is very interesting work!

Pronina Ulyana

Professor Preobrazhensky's mistake

I recently read a story famous writer M. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog”. This work interested me so much that I wanted to express my opinion about the plot and characters.

In the story, the author talks about Professor Preobrazhensky and his unique experiment. Who is Professor Preobrazhensky? How did he come to this unusual idea? Preobrazhensky is a scientist famous for his achievements in the field of rejuvenation of the human body. In Europe they know his name. The most important thing for him is what he loves. Intelligent man who looks at everything from a position of morality and duty. The professor has his own principles. He is confident that it is not his origin that makes a man a man, but his hard work for the benefit of society. It is immediately clear that Preobrazhensky is not a friend new government. “You can’t do anything about terrorism,” he says. But he needed to adapt to new living conditions in Soviet Russia in order to be able to practice medicine and receive funds, without which it is also impossible to exist. The professor treats representatives of the new government, and the new government provides him with relative safety. Without such “friendship” Preobrazhensky would have been left not only without the opportunity to carry out his medical experiments, but also without a roof over your head. Having picked up a stray dog ​​on the street, he and his assistant Dr. Bormenthal perform an amazing operation. A professor transplants part of a human brain into a dog. And oddly enough, the dog survives and gradually turns into a human. How can you feel about this event? At first glance, a great experiment! An important step in the history of medicine. The professor is looking forward to the results of the work done. He is completely sure that his unusual patient has not a dog, but human heart Chugunkina. However, subsequent events upset and disappoint Philip Philipovich. The dog turns into bad person, since the donor of part of the brain was a drunkard and a hooligan. The professor regrets that he performed the operation, because bad person began to live in his apartment and create various outrages. Poor Philip Philipovich realized what a monster he had given birth to. He realized what he had done from " sweetest dog"some kind of scum." Preobrazhensky even talks about himself to his friend: “Professor Preobrazhensky ran into this operation as a third-year student...” Perhaps Sharikov needed to be seriously educated and instilled in him such thoughts and habits that his creator would like. However, Philip Philipovich was sure that it was unacceptable to harshly influence a person. He says: “Man and animal can only be influenced by suggestion.” I think that even if the professor wanted to educate his “creation,” nothing would have come of it. He himself is a stranger in his own country. Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov very quickly got used to his lifestyle, his new appearance, found his place among people and even a job. The hero does not feel any gratitude to “dad” and even shouts that he was “slashed with a knife”, and he did not give any permission for the operation. It even got to the point that the “creator” almost lost his apartment by the grace of Sharikov, and only the intervention of influential acquaintances saved him from real trouble. Exhausted by the “new man,” the professor decided to perform another operation so that his “creation” would again become a dog. The “new man” becomes a dog again. The author showed that not everything in our lives is subject to human desires. M. Bulgakov is sure that not every interesting experiment can benefit humanity. The professor made a mistake in the work and tried as best he could to correct it. It seems to me that you should always be aware of what you are doing.

M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” raises many thoughts and questions. I thought, for example, that I love animals and would not want anyone to make a human out of my cat. This is wrong. If you are born an animal, then you must remain one, and a person must be a person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is: rather a failure than the luck of Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey... This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.” He comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into rtca. He is happy with his fate and with himself. But in life, such experiments are irreversible, warns Bulgakov.

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

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 our century. But most importantly, M. A. Bulgakov was an insightful prophet. He not only described what he saw around him, but also understood how dearly his homeland would pay for all this. With bitter feeling he writes after the end of the First World War: “... Western countries lick their wounds, they will get better, they will get better very soon (and will prosper!), and we... we will fight, we will pay for the madness of the October days, for everything!” And later, in 1926, in his diary: “We are wild, dark, unhappy people.”
M. A. Bulgakov is a subtle satirist, a student of N. V. Gogol and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. But the writer’s prose is not just satire, it is fantastic satire. There is a huge difference between these two types of worldview: satire exposes the shortcomings that exist in reality, and fantastic satire warns society about what awaits it in the future. And the most frank views of M. A. Bulgakov on the fate of his country are expressed, in my opinion, in the story “The Heart of a Dog.”
The story was written in 1925, but the author never saw its publication: the manuscript was seized during a search in 1926. The reader saw it only in 1985.
The story is based on a great experiment. The main character of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, who represents the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of Russian intellectual, conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: creating a new person by transplanting a part into a dog human brain. The story contains the theme of a new Faust, but, like everything by M. A. Bulgakov, it is of a tragicomic nature. Moreover, the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the last name Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late.
To create a new person, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the “proletarian” - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, completely inheriting the “proletarian” essence of its “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois.” And then - street expressions: “don’t push!”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” and so on. A disgusting “man of short stature and unattractive appearance appears. The hair on his head grew coarse... His forehead was striking in its small height. A thick head brush began almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows.”
The monstrous homunculus, a man with a canine disposition, the “basis” of which was the lumpen-proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, swaggering, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormenthal and the humanoid creature is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirtfront...” - “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask you for the hundredth time. So that I don't hear any more dirty word. Don't spit in the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look!” - the professor is indignant. “For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me,” he (Sharikov) suddenly said tearfully... “Why aren’t you letting me live?” Despite the dissatisfaction of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitively and stupidly: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, messes around, does all sorts of outrages, confident that “nowadays everyone has his own right.”
Of course, it is not this scientific experiment in itself that Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov seeks to depict in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. It's about not only about the scientist’s responsibility for his experiment, about the inability to see the consequences of his actions, about the huge difference between evolutionary changes and revolutionary invasion of life.
The story “Heart of a Dog” contains the author’s extremely clear view of everything that is happening in the country.
Everything that was happening around and what was called the construction of socialism was also perceived by M. A. Bulgakov as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. He was extremely skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society using revolutionary, that is, methods that justify violence, and about educating a new, free person using the same methods. He saw that in Russia they were also trying to create new type person. A person who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received enormous rights from the state. It is precisely such a person who is convenient for the new government, because he will put into the dirt those who are independent, intelligent, and high in spirit. M. A. Bulgakov considers the restructuring Russian life interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous. But do those who conceived their experiment realize that it can also hit the “experimenters”? Do they understand that the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural development of society, and therefore can lead to consequences that no one can control? ? These are the questions, in my opinion, that M. A. Bulgakov poses in his work. In the story, Professor Preobrazhensky manages to return everything to its place: Sharikov again becomes an ordinary dog. Will we ever be able to correct all those mistakes, the results of which we are still experiencing?

"Friendship and Enmity"

"Friendship and Enmity"

Nadezhda Borisovna Vasilyeva "Loon"

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov "Oblomov"

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev "Destruction"

Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"

Daniel Pennac "Eye of the Wolf"

Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov "Hero of Our Time"

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"

Oblomov and Stolz

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

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Duel between Pierre and Dolokhov. (Analysis of an episode from L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace,” vol. II, part I, chapter IV, V.)

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy in his novel “War and Peace” consistently pursues the idea of ​​the predestined destiny of man. He can be called a fatalist. This is clearly, truthfully and logically proven in the scene of Dolokhov’s duel with Pierre. A purely civilian - Pierre wounded Dolokhov in a duel - a rake, a rake, a fearless warrior. But Pierre was completely unable to handle weapons. Just before the duel, second Nesvitsky explained to Bezukhov “where to press.”
The episode telling about the duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov can be called “Unconscious Act”. It begins with a description of a dinner at the English Club. Everyone sits at the table, eats and drinks, toasts to the emperor and his health. Present at the dinner are Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, and Bezukhoe. Pierre "does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, difficult and insoluble." He is tormented by the question: are Dolokhov and his wife Helen really lovers? “Every time his gaze accidentally met Dolokhov’s beautiful, insolent eyes, Pierre felt something terrible, ugly rising in his soul.” And after a toast made by his “enemy”: “To the health of beautiful women and their lovers,” Bezukhov realizes that his suspicions are not in vain.
A conflict is brewing, the beginning of which occurs when Dolokhov snatches a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The Count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it hesitantly, timidly, one might even think that the words: “You... you... scoundrel!.., I challenge you...” - accidentally escape him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and neither do the seconds: Nesvitsky, Pierre’s second, and Nikolai Rostov, Dolokhov’s second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits all night in the club, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill his opponent, but this is only an appearance, “his soul is restless. His opponent “has the appearance of a man busy with some considerations that are not at all related to the upcoming matter. His haggard face is yellow. He apparently did not sleep at night.” The Count still doubts the correctness of his actions and wonders: what would he do in Dolokhov’s place?
Pierre doesn't know what to do: either run away or finish the job. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupid. Dolokhov doesn’t want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal to reconcile, the duel does not begin for a long time due to the lack of awareness of the act, which Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: “For about three minutes everything was ready, and yet they hesitated to start. Everyone was silent.” The indecision of the characters is also conveyed by the description of nature - it is sparing and laconic: fog and thaw.
It has begun. Dolokhov, when they began to disperse, walked slowly, his mouth had the semblance of a smile. He is aware of his superiority and wants to show that he is not afraid of anything. Pierre walks quickly, straying from the beaten path, as if he is trying to run away, to finish everything as quickly as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, at random, flinching from the strong sound, and wounds his opponent.
Dolokhov, having fired, misses. Dolokhov's wounding and his unsuccessful attempt to kill the count are the climax of the episode. Then there is a decline in the action and a denouement, which is what all the characters experience. Pierre does not understand anything, he is full of remorse and regret, barely holding back his sobs, clutching his head, he goes back somewhere into the forest, that is, he runs away from what he has done, from his fear. Dolokhov does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, to whom he causes suffering.
In the outcome of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was accomplished. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house as a friend and helped with money in memory of an old friendship, disgraced Bezukhov by seducing his wife. But Pierre is completely unprepared for the role of “judge” and “executioner” at the same time; he repents of what happened, thanks God that he did not kill Dolokhov.
Pierre's humanism is disarming; even before the duel, he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helene's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. “Maybe I would have done the same thing in his place,” thought Pierre. “Even probably I would have done the same thing. Why this duel, this murder?”
Helene’s insignificance and baseness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his action; this woman is not worth taking a sin on her soul - killing a person for her. Pierre is scared that he almost ruined his own soul, as he had previously ruined his life, by connecting it with Helen.
After the duel, taking the wounded Dolokhov home, Nikolai Rostov learned that “Dolokhov, this brawler, brute, - Dolokhov lived in Moscow with his old mother and hunchbacked sister and was the most gentle son and brother...”. Here one of the author’s statements is proven that not everything is as obvious, clear and unambiguous as it seems at first glance. Life is much more complex and diverse than we think, know or assume about it. Great philosopher Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy teaches to be humane, fair, tolerant of the shortcomings and vices of people. In the scene of Dolokhov's duel with Pierre Bezukhov, Tolstoy gives a lesson: it is not for us to judge what is fair and what is unfair, not everything obvious is unambiguous and easily resolved.

The October Revolution not only broke the old foundations of life and changed life, it also gave birth to a new, completely phenomenal type of person. This phenomenon, of course, interested writers, many of them tried to unravel it, and some, such as M. Zoshchenko, N. Erdman, V. Kataev, completely succeeded. The “new” man in the street, the so-called “homo soviticus,” not only adapted to the new government, he accepted it as his own, and found his place in it. The distinctive features of such a “homo soviticus” are increased aggressiveness, belief in one’s own infallibility and impunity, and peremptory judgments.

M. A. Bulgakov did not ignore this phenomenon either. Being an employee of the newspaper “Gudok” in the early 20s, he, of course, saw enough of such types, and the results of his observations were reflected in satirical stories “ Fatal eggs", "Diaboliad" and "Heart of a Dog".

The main character of the story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925, is professor of medicine Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky, who was dealing with the then fashionable problem of rejuvenating the human body. The surname that Bulgakov gives to his hero is not accidental, because the professor is engaged in eugenics, that is, the science of improvement, transformation biological nature person.

Preobrazhensky is very talented and dedicated to his work. Not only in Russia, but also in Europe he has no equal in his field. Like any talented scientist, he devotes himself entirely to his work: he sees patients during the day, and in the evening, or even at night, he studies specialized literature and performs experiments. In all other respects, he is a typical intellectual of the old school: he loves to eat well, dress tastefully, watch a premiere at the theater, and chat with his assistant Bormental. Preobrazhensky is not demonstratively interested in politics: the new government irritates him with lack of culture and rudeness, but things do not go further than poisonous grumbling.

Life as usual flows on a well-trodden rail, until one fine day a homeless dog Sharik, brought by the professor himself for an experiment, appears in Professor Preobrazhensky’s apartment. The dog immediately shows his quarrelsome and aggressive character. About the doorman at the entrance, Sharik thinks: “I wish I could bite him on his proletarian calloused foot.” And when he sees a stuffed owl in the professor’s waiting room, he comes to the conclusion: “This owl is rubbish. Impudent. We will explain it."

Preobrazhensky has no idea what kind of monster he brought into the house and what will come of it.

The professor's goal is grandiose: he wants to benefit humanity by giving it eternal youth. As an experiment, he transplants the seminal glands into Sharik, and then the pituitary gland dead person. But rejuvenation does not work - in front of the amazed eyes of Preobrazhensky and Bormental, Sharik gradually turns into a person.

Creation artificial person- the plot in literature is not new. Many authors turned to him. They created all sorts of monsters on the pages of their works - from Frankenstein to modern “transformers” and “terminators”, using them to solve very real, earthly problems.

So it is for Bulgakov: the plot of the “humanization” of the dog is an allegorical understanding of modernity, the triumph of rudeness, which has taken the form of state policy.

Surprisingly, for the half-man, half-beast Sharik (or Sharikov Poligraf Poligrafovich, as he decided to call himself) a social niche is very quickly found. “Takes him under her wing” and becomes his ideological inspirer chairman of the house management, demagogue and boor Shvonder. Bulgakov does not spare satirical colors to describe Shvonder and the rest of the house management members. These are faceless and sexless creatures, not people, but “labor elements” who, as Preobrazhensky says, have “ruin in their heads.” They spend their days singing revolutionary songs, holding political talks and solving issues of densification. Their main task is to divide everything equally, this is how they understand social justice. They are also trying to “compact” the professor who owns a seven-room apartment. The arguments that all these rooms are necessary for normal life and work are simply beyond their understanding. And if not for a high patron, Professor Preobrazhensky would hardly have been able to defend his apartment.

Before, before the fatal experiment, Philip Philipovich practically did not encounter representatives of the new government, but now he has such a representative at his side. Sharikov’s impudence is not limited to drunkenness, rowdy behavior, and rudeness; now, under the influence of Shvonder, he begins to claim his rights to living space and is going to start a family, since he considers himself one of the “labor elements”. Reading about this is not so much funny as it is scary. You can’t help but think about how many of these ball-carriers, both in these years and in subsequent decades, will find themselves in power and will not only poison the lives of normal people, but also decide their destinies, determine their internal and foreign policy countries. (Probably, similar thoughts appeared among those who banned Bulgakov’s story for many years).

Sharikov’s career is developing successfully: on Shvonder’s recommendation, he is accepted to public service as the head of the department in the MKH for catching stray cats (a suitable occupation for former dog!). Sharikov flaunts himself in a leather coat, like a real commissar, gives orders to the maid in a metallic voice and, following Shvonder, professes the principle of equalization: “But what about: one settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of pants, and the other hangs around in the trash bins looking for food." Moreover, Sharikov writes a denunciation against his benefactor.

The professor realizes his mistake too late: this half-man, half-animal, scoundrel and boor has already thoroughly established himself in this life and has completely fit into the new society. An unbearable situation is developing, from which Bormental is the first to propose a way out - they should destroy the monster they created with their own hands.

“Crime has matured and fallen like a stone...”

The professor and his assistant become accomplices in the crime, but they are criminals “by necessity.” Since the change social status Sharikov, the conflict between Preobrazhensky and Sharikov went beyond the home. And the professor decides on another operation - he returns Sharikov to his original state.

It would seem that M. Bulgakov’s story ends happily: Sharik in his natural form is quietly dozing in the corner of the living room and normal life the apartment has been restored. However, Shvonder, members of the house management and many other polygraph polygraph specialists, against whom medicine is powerless, remained outside the apartment.

The results of the local experiment could easily be annulled; the price paid for something unprecedented in history social experiment, carried out on the scale of an entire country, turned out to be prohibitive for Russia and the Russian people.

Vasil Bykov “Sotnikov”, “Obelisk” A striking example moral choice can be found in Vasil Bykov’s work “Sotnikov”. Partisan Sotnikov, faced with a choice between life and death, was not afraid of execution and admitted to the investigator that he was a partisan, and the others had nothing to do with it. Another example can be found in Vasil Bykov’s story “Obelisk”: teacher Moroz, having a choice to stay alive or die along with the students whom he always taught goodness and justice, chooses death, remaining a morally free person.

Arguments for the essay

A. S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" A hero with high moral qualities is Petrusha Grinev, a character in A. S. Pushkin’s story “The Captain’s Daughter.” Peter did not sully his honor even in those cases when he could have paid for it with his head. He was a highly moral person worthy of respect and pride. He could not leave Shvabrin’s slander against Masha unpunished, so he challenged him to a duel. Shvabrin is the complete opposite of Grinev: he is a person for whom the concept of honor and nobility does not exist at all. He walked over the heads of others, stepping over himself to please his momentary desires.

Happiness

Arguments for the essay

A.I. Solzhenitsyn “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” Everyone understands happiness differently. The hero of the story, for example, by A.I. Solzhenitsyn “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” recognizes himself as “happy” because he did not end up in a punishment cell, received an extra bowl of soup, did not get sick, but the main thing is that he rejoices in honest work. The writer admires the patience and hard work of the Russian people, who believes in God and hopes for his help.

Evil, good and artistic activity

Arguments for the essay

Akutagawa Ryunosuke "The Torments of Hell" Creates a psychological portrait of the elder artist Yoshihide, very famous in his area - primarily for his terrible, asocial character and corresponding paintings. The only thing that pleases his eyes is his only daughter. One day, the ruler ordered a painting from him depicting Hell and the torment of sinners in it. The old man agreed, however, on the condition that for greater realism he would see the death of a woman in a falling carriage. He was given this opportunity, however, as it turned out later, that woman turned out to be his own daughter. Yoshihide calmly works on the painting, but upon completion, he commits suicide. Thus, it is worth assessing art through morality, but this assessment entirely depends on the actual ideals of the assessing subject. Yoshihide had one value - his daughter, whom he lost because of art.

Does a person have freedom of choice?

Arguments for the essay

V. Zakrutkin "Mother of Man" The main character Maria, having met a wounded enemy (German), was faced with a moral choice: to kill him or not to kill him? for all their atrocities, but it was a boy, his cry of “mother” stopped her, the heroine could not take a desperate step, she managed to stop in time, realizing that the hatred that overwhelmed her would not lead to anything good. V. Rasputin "Farewell to Matera" On the shores of the Angara, the authorities planned to build a dam that would flood the nearby island, so the population had to move to another place. The main character, old lady Daria, is presented with the right to a moral choice: to leave, or to defend her right to happiness, to life native land.

The attitude of the crowd towards people who stand out from it

Arguments for the essay

Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov. Chatsky is a rebel, a rebel, rises up against the crowd, Moscow society of that time. Their habits are wild and alien to him; the morality of society amazes him. He is not afraid to speak his mind. In the monologue “Who are the judges?” its essence is fully revealed. The problem with the crowd is that they do not know how to listen and do not even want to listen to the truth. They consider as “truth” the precepts of their hypocritical fathers, which have long since become obsolete. Mayakovsky's work Mayakovsky's work is devoted to the theme of confrontation between the hero and the crowd. The crowd is vulgar people living spiritually. They don’t see beauty, they don’t understand real art. The hero is alone in his world. He does not shy away from the crowd, does not hide, but boldly challenges it, ready to fight misunderstandings. For example, in the poem “Could You?” a sharp line has been drawn between “I” and “you”.

National enmity

Arguments for the essay

A. Pristavkin “The golden cloud spent the night” The problem of national enmity is especially acute in A. Pristavkin’s story “The Golden Cloud Spent the Night.” The author shows us tragic events 40s of the twentieth century, associated with the resettlement of orphanages to the Caucasus, to territories “liberated” from local residents- Chechens. The revenge of people forcibly evicted from the land of their ancestors falls on innocent people, including children. We see how a brutal murder separates twin brothers Sashka and Kolka Kuzmenysh. It is symbolic that at the end of the story Kolka calls him his brother Chechen boy Alkhuzura. So the author convinces us that all peoples are brothers, that the humane human principle is stronger than evil, that the government that incites national hatred commits a crime against humanity and mankind.

The tragedy of the "little man"

Arguments for the essay

N.V. Gogol "The Overcoat" The problem of the “little man” is most fully revealed by the Russian writer, poet, critic N.V. Gogol. In the story “The Overcoat,” the playwright tells the reader about Akaki Akakievich, a poor titular councilor from St. Petersburg. He carried out his duties zealously and was very fond of manual copying of papers, but in general his role in the department was very insignificant, which is why young officials often laughed at him. In its tragedy of theft new overcoat the hero does not find any response from society.

Personality in history: Peter I

Arguments for the essay

A.S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman" A.S. Pushkin wrote in “The Bronze Horseman”...Nature here destined us to cut a window into Europe... These lines were written about Peter the Great. He is a man who changed the course of history, one of the most outstanding statesmen who determined the direction of Russia's development in the 18th century. Peter launched large-scale reforms of the Russian state, changed the social structure: he cut off the boyars’ sleeves and beards. He built the first Russian fleet, thereby protecting the country from the sea. Here he is, that person, that person who accomplished a lot of great and heroic things in his life, who made history. L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace" L.N. Tolstoy denied the possibility of active influence individual on history, believing that history is made by the masses and its laws cannot depend on the desires of an individual. He viewed the historical process as a sum made up of “countless human arbitrariness,” that is, the efforts of each person. It is useless to resist the natural course of events, it is in vain to try to play the role of the arbiter of the destinies of mankind. This position of the writer was reflected in the novel “War and Peace”. Using the example of two historical figures: Kutuzov and Napoleon, Tolstoy proves that it is the people who are the creator of history. Millions of ordinary people, and not heroes and commanders, unconsciously move society forward, create something great and heroic, and create history.

Rudeness

Arguments for the essay

M.A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" The main character of the story M.A. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog”, Professor Preobrazhensky is a hereditary intellectual and an outstanding medical scientist. He dreams of turning a dog into a human. So Sharikov is born with the heart of a stray dog, the brain of a man with three convictions and a pronounced passion for alcohol. As a result of the operation. the affectionate, albeit cunning Sharik turns into a boorish lumpen, capable of betrayal. Sharikov feels like the master of life, he is arrogant, swaggering, and aggressive. He quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to the servants, and turn his ignorance into a weapon against the education of the professor and his inhabitants. apartments become a living hell. Sharikov - image boorish attitude towards people. D.I. Fonvizin “Minor” Outraged by other people's rudeness, people often do not notice that they themselves sometimes behave just as outrageously. Perhaps this can best be seen in the relationship of parents to children. A person’s character is formed in the family, but what kind of person could Mitrofanushka become? He adopted all the vices from his mother: extreme ignorance, rudeness, greed, cruelty, contempt of others, rudeness. Not surprising, because parents are always the main role models for children. And what kind of example could Mrs. Prostakova set for her son if she allowed herself to be rude, rude, and humiliate those around him in front of his eyes? Of course, she loved Mitrofan, but due to this she spoiled him greatly.

False/true values, search for the meaning of life

Arguments for the essay

I. Bunin “Mr. from San Francisco” I. Bunin in the story “The Gentleman from San Francisco” showed the fate of a man who served false values. Wealth was his god, and this god he worshiped. But when the American millionaire died, it turned out that true happiness passed the man by: he died without ever knowing what life was. W. S. Maugham "The Burden of Human Passions" The novel by the famous English writer W. S. Maugham, “The Burden of Human Passions,” touches on one of the most important and burning questions for every person - is there meaning in life, and if so, what is it? The main character of the work, Philip Carey, painfully searches for the answer to this question: in books, in art, in love, in the judgments of friends. One of them, the cynic and materialist Cronshaw, advises him to look at Persian carpets and refuses further explanation. Only years later, having lost almost all his illusions and hopes for the future, Philip understands what he meant and admits that “life has no meaning, and human existence is purposeless. Knowing that nothing makes sense and nothing matters, a person can still find satisfaction in choosing the various threads that he weaves into the endless fabric of life. There is one pattern - the simplest and most beautiful: a person is born, matures, gets married, gives birth to children, works for a piece of bread and dies; but there are other, more intricate and amazing patterns, where there is no place for happiness or the desire for success - perhaps some kind of alarming beauty is hidden in them.”

Self-realization, aspirations

Arguments for the essay

And A. Goncharov “Oblomov” A good, kind, talented person, Ilya Oblomov, was unable to overcome himself, his laziness and promiscuity, and did not reveal his best traits. The absence of a high purpose in life leads to moral death. Even love could not save Oblomov. U.S. Maugham "The Razor's Edge" In his late novel"The Razor's Edge" by W.S. Maugham_draws life path young American Larry, who spent half his life reading books, and the other half in travel, work, search and self-improvement. His image stands out clearly against the background of young people of his circle, wasting their lives and extraordinary abilities on fulfilling fleeting whims, on entertainment, on a carefree existence in luxury and idleness. Larry chose his own path and, not paying attention to the misunderstanding and reproach of loved ones, sought the meaning of life in hardships, wanderings and wanderings around the world. He devoted himself entirely to the spiritual principle in order to achieve enlightenment of the mind, purification of the spirit, and discover the meaning of the universe. D. London "Martin Eden" Main character novel of the same name American writer Jack London Martin Eden - a working guy, a sailor, coming from the lower classes, about 21 years old, meets Ruth Morse - a girl from a wealthy bourgeois family. Ruth begins to teach the semi-literate Martin the correct pronunciation. English words and awakens his interest in literature. Martin learns that magazines pay decent fees to the authors who publish in them, and firmly decides to make a career as a writer, earn money and become worthy of his new acquaintance, with whom he has fallen in love. Martin is putting together a self-improvement program, working on his language and pronunciation, and reading a lot of books. Iron health and unbending will move him towards his goal. In the end, after going through a long and thorny path, after numerous refusals and disappointments, he becomes a famous writer. (Then he becomes disillusioned with literature, his beloved, people in general and life, loses interest in everything and commits suicide. This is just in case. An argument in favor of the fact that fulfilling a dream does not always bring happiness) Scientific facts If a shark stops moving its fins, it will sink to the bottom like a stone; a bird, if it stops flapping its wings, will fall to the ground. Likewise, a person, if his aspirations, desires, goals fade away, will collapse to the bottom of life, he will be sucked into the thick quagmire of gray everyday life. A river that stops flowing turns into a stinking swamp. Likewise, a person who stops searching, thinking, striving, loses the “beautiful impulses of his soul”, gradually degrades, his life becomes aimless, miserable vegetation.

Self-sacrifice

Arguments for the essay

M. Gorky “Old Woman Izergil” In the story of the Russian writer, prose writer and playwright Maxim Gorky, “The Old Woman Ivergil,” the image of Danko is striking. This is a romantic hero who sacrificed himself for the sake of people. Danko was “the best of all, because a lot of strength and living fire shone in his eyes.” He led people through the forest with calls to defeat the darkness. But weak people During the journey they began to lose heart and die. Then they accused Danko of mismanaging them. He overcame indignation and in the name of his great love He tore open his chest to the people, took out his burning heart and ran forward, holding it like a torch. People ran after him and overcame the difficult road. And then they forgot their hero. And Danko died. F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" In his work “Crime and Punishment” F.M. Dostoevsky addresses the theme of self-sacrifice for the sake of saving someone else’s soul, revealing it using the example of the image of Sonechka Marmeladova. Sonya is a poor girl from a dysfunctional family who follows Raskolnikov to hard labor in order to share his burden and fill him with spirituality. Out of compassion and a sense of high social responsibility, Sonya goes to live “on a yellow ticket,” thus earning bread for her family. People like Sonya, who have “infinitely insatiable compassion,” are still found today. (another option) Self-sacrifice, compassion, sensitivity and mercy are a controversial issue. This is clearly visible in the work of the great Russian playwright F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”. His two heroines, Sonechka Marmeladova and Dunya Raskolnikova, sacrifice themselves in the name of the people dear to them. The first sells her own body, thus earning bread for her family. The girl suffers severely, is ashamed of herself and her life, but even refuses to commit suicide, because she understands that her family will be lost without her. And the family gratefully accepts her sacrifice, practically idolizes Sonya, her self-sacrifice goes for the good. The second is going to marry a low, vile, but rich man in order to help her beggar brother.

Compassion, love for one's neighbor

Arguments for the essay

A.I. Solzhenitsyn "Matryonin's yard" In the story “Matryonin’s Dvor” by the Russian writer, Nobel Prize winner in literature A.I. Solzhenitsyn is struck by the image of the peasant woman Matryona, her humanity, selflessness, compassion and love for everyone, even strangers. Matryona “helped strangers for free”, but she herself “didn’t chase after the acquisition”: she didn’t start “good”, didn’t try to get a tenant. Her mercy is especially evident in the situation with the upper room. She allowed her house (where she lived all her life) to be dismantled into logs for the sake of her pupil Kira, who had nowhere to live. The heroine sacrifices everything for the sake of others: the country, neighbors, relatives. And after her quiet death, a description arises of the cruel behavior of her relatives, who are simply overwhelmed by greed. Thanks to her spiritual qualities, Matryona made this world a better and kinder place, sacrificing herself and her life. Boris Vasiliev “My horses are flying...” In the work “My Horses Are Flying...” Boris Vasiliev tells a story about a wonderful man - Doctor Jansen. Out of compassion, the doctor, at the cost of his life, saved the children who had fallen into the sewer pit! L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace" Having been captured, Pierre Bezukhov met there a simple soldier Platon Karataev. Plato, despite his suffering, lived lovingly with everyone: with the French, with his comrades. It was he who, with his mercy, helped Pierre gain faith and taught him to value life. M. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man The story tells about the tragic fate of a soldier who lost all his relatives during the war. One day he met an orphan boy and decided to call himself his father. This act suggests that love and the desire to do good give a person strength to live. F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" Out of compassion, Raskolnikov gives his last money for Marmeladov’s funeral.

Ingratitude of children parental love

Arguments for the essay

A. S. Pushkin “Station Warden” Samson Vyrin, the main character of the story, has a daughter, Dunya, whom he dotes on. But a passing hussar, who has his eye on the girl, tricks her into taking her away from her father’s house. When Samson finds his daughter, she is already married, well dressed, lives much better than him and does not want to return. Samson returns to his station, where he subsequently drinks himself and dies. Three years later, the narrator drives through those places and sees the grave of the caretaker, and a local boy tells him that in the summer a lady came with three young children and cried for a long time at his grave. F.M. Dostoevsky "Humiliated and Insulted" Natasha, the heroine of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Humiliated and Insulted", betrays his family by running away from home with his lover. The girl’s father, Nikolai Ikhmenev, is sensitive to her leaving for the son of his enemy, considering it a shame, and curses his daughter. Rejected by her father and having lost her beloved, Natasha is deeply worried - she has lost everything that was valuable in her life: good name, honor, love and family. However, Nikolai Ikhmenev still madly loves his daughter, no matter what, and after many years mental anguish, at the end of the story, finds the strength to forgive her. In this example, we see that parental love is the strongest, selfless and forgiving. D. I. Fonvizin “Minor” Despite the fact that Mrs. Prostakova is a rude, greedy landowner, she loves her only son Mitrofan and is ready to do anything for him. But the son turns away from her at the most tragic moment. This example shows us that parents try to do everything for the benefit of their children. But children, unfortunately, cannot always appreciate and understand this. A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” The Russian writer A. S. Griboedov did not ignore the problem of fathers and children in his work “Woe from Wit.” The comedy traces Famusov's relationship with his daughter Sophia. Famusov, of course, loves his daughter and wishes her happiness. But he understands happiness in his own way: happiness for him is money. He accustoms his daughter to the idea of ​​profit and thereby commits a real crime, because Sophia can become like Molchalin, who adopted only one principle from her father: to seek profit wherever possible. The fathers tried to teach their children about life, in their instructions they conveyed to them what was most important and significant for themselves.

Generation Conflict

Arguments for the essay

I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons” The novel by the Russian writer I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons.” We see a conflict of generations in the relationship between Bazarov and his parents. The main character has very contradictory feelings towards them: on the one hand, he admits that he loves his parents, on the other, he despises the “stupid life of his fathers.” What alienates Bazarov from his parents is, first of all, his beliefs. If in Arkady Kirsanov we see superficial contempt for the older generation, caused more by the desire to imitate a friend, and not coming from within, then with Bazarov everything is different. This is his position in life. With all this, we see that it was to the parents that their son Evgeniy was truly dear. The old Bazarovs love Evgeny very much, and this love softens their relationship with their son, the lack of mutual understanding. It is stronger than other feelings and lives even when main character dies.

Teacher influence

Arguments for the essay

In the story by V.G. Rasputin "French Lessons" An ordinary rural boy is forced by hard fate and hunger to contact local boys and start gambling for money. Having found out that the child is malnourished and has no other way to get the funds he needs, a young French teacher, Lidia Mikhailovna, invites the boy to take additional French classes. But this is only a plausible excuse. In reality, she strives to somehow help a child who finds himself in a difficult situation, but out of pride he refuses to have dinner with his teacher and indignantly returns the parcel of food to her. Then she offers to play with her for money, knowing for sure that he will beat her, receive his treasured ruble and buy the milk that he so needs. She deliberately commits a crime from a pedagogical point of view, breaks all existing rules for the sake of her student, showing genuine philanthropy and unostentatious courage. The school director, however, considered playing with a student a crime, seduction, and fired Lydia Mikhailovna. Having gone to her home in Kuban, the woman did not forget the boy and sent him a parcel to school with food and even apples, which the boy had never tried, but had only seen in pictures.

Globalization, technical and scientific progress, their impact on individuals and society

Arguments for the essay

E.I. Zamyatin - Russian writer of the early 19th, late 20th centuries “We” In the novel “We” by Evgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin, the main character, D-503, describes his life in the totalitarian “Unified State”. He talks enthusiastically about the mathematics-based organization and community life. The author in his work warns people about the harmful influence of scientific and technological progress, about its worst sides, that scientific and technological progress will destroy morality and human feelings, since they are not amenable to scientific analysis. M.A. Bulgakov - Russian Soviet writer and 20th century playwright "Fatal Eggs" The problem of scientific and technological progress is reflected in M. Bulgakov’s story “Fatal Eggs”. Pursuing only his own goals, Professor Rokk thoughtlessly uses Persikov’s invention and raises giant reptiles, ostriches. Rocca's wife Manya, thousands of people and Persikov himself die in this ridiculous disaster. M. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog” The problem of interaction between people and nature is also reflected in literature. In M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog,” Professor Preobrazhensky performs an operation to transform a dog into a human. In the work, the reader sees how the pretty dog ​​Sharik turns into the disgusting Sharikov. “The moral of this fable is this” - you cannot interfere with the natural processes of nature without predicting the nature of the consequences.

Memory of the heroic deeds of soldiers

Arguments for the essay

K. Simonov The poet Konstantin Simonov, who during the war years worked as a correspondent for the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper and was constantly in the active army, writes: “Don’t forget about the soldiers who fought with all their might, moaned in bandages in the medical battalions and so hoped for peace!” I am sure that none of those soldiers about whom Simonov wrote will ever be forgotten, and their feat will forever remain in the memory of descendants.

Arguments for the essay

M.A. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man” The main character, Andrei Sokolov, fought to save his homeland and all humanity from fascism, losing relatives and comrades. He suffered the most difficult trials at the front. The hero was hit by news of the tragic death of his wife, two daughters, and son. But Andrei Sokolov is a Russian soldier of unbending will, who endured everything! He found the strength in himself to commit not only military, but also moral feat, having adopted a boy whose parents were taken away by the war. A soldier in the terrible conditions of war, under the onslaught of enemy force, remained human and did not break. This is the real feat. It was only thanks to such people that our country won a very difficult fight against fascism. Vasiliev “And the dawns here are quiet” Rita Osyanina, Zhenya Komelkova, Liza Brichkina, Sonya Gurvich, Galya Chetvertak and Sergeant Major Vaskov, the main characters of the work, showed real courage, heroism, and moral restraint while fighting for their Motherland. More than once they could save their lives; they just had to give up their own conscience a little. However, the heroes were sure: they couldn’t retreat, they had to fight to the end: “Don’t give the Germans a single scrap... No matter how hard it is, no matter how hopeless it is, to hold on...”. These are the words true patriot. All the characters in the story are shown acting, fighting, dying in the name of saving the Motherland. It was these people who forged the victory of our country in the rear, resisted the invaders in captivity and occupation, and fought at the front. Boris Polevoy "The Tale of a Real Man" Everyone knows the immortal work of Boris Polevoy “The Tale of a Real Man”. At the heart of the dramatic story - real facts biography of fighter pilot Alexei Meresyev. Shot down in battle over occupied territory, he made his way through secluded forests for three weeks until he ended up with the partisans. Having lost both legs, the hero subsequently shows amazing strength of character and adds to his tally of aerial victories over the enemy.

Love for the Motherland

Arguments for the essay

S. Yesenin, poem “Rus” The theme of love for the homeland permeates the work of S. Yesenin: “But most of all, Love for my native land tormented, tormented and burned me.” Wishing with all his soul to help the Fatherland in difficult times, the poet writes the poem “Rus”, in which the voice of the people’s anger is heard. Yesenin fully reveals the theme of love for the Fatherland: “If the holy army shouts: “Throw away Rus', live in paradise!” I will say: “There is no need for paradise, Give me my homeland.” A. Blok A. Blok's lyrics are filled with a very special love for Russia. He spoke about his homeland with infinite tenderness, his poems are full of sincere hope that his fate and the fate of Russia are inseparable: “Russia, poor Russia, Your gray huts are to me, Your wind songs are to me, Like the first tears of love!..” Legend There is a legend that one day the wind decided to knock down a mighty oak tree that grew on a hill. But the oak only bent under the blows of the wind. Then the wind asked the majestic oak tree: “Why can’t I defeat you?” The oak replied that it was not the trunk that was holding it up. Its strength lies in the fact that it is rooted in the ground and clings to it with its roots. This simple story expresses the idea that love for the motherland, a deep connection with national history, with the cultural experience of their ancestors makes the people invincible. Blok, “Sin shamelessly, uncontrollably” The lines of the poem trace Russian everyday life, reflecting the dullness and inertia of its social system. The main idea is contained in the lines: Yes, and so, my Russia, You are dearer to me than anyone else. What a strong feeling the poet has for his native land! He believes that a true patriot must love Russia as it is. Despite the imperfections of their country, its troubles and difficulties, everyone needs to experience bright feelings for it. This example of sincere and selfless love for the Motherland may help someone take a different look at their father’s home.