Moral lessons in the story “Heart of a Dog. Reasoning on the pages of the story "Heart of a Dog" My thoughts on the pages of Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog"

I must say right away that I am not a literary critic and have never worked for one. I just wanted to parse the story "Heart of a Dog" from the point of view of a simple reader. Why this particular story? First, because Bulgakov is one of my favorite writers. And secondly, because the images taken from this work are very fond of using people of various political views and beliefs in their polemics. For some reason, for most people, this story by M.A. Bulgakov is associated with anti-Soviet ideas, which, in my opinion, was facilitated by literary criticism. It seems to me that those who share this point of view are in captivity of the delusions imposed by the criticism of the liberal-minded creative intelligentsia. I undertake to prove the opposite, to prove that "The Heart of a Dog" is not anti-Soviet propaganda, but a highly artistic, philosophical work of a completely different kind.

In my opinion, the story "Heart of a Dog" is primarily a subtle satire with social and political overtones. There is no exact correspondence between the images written by the author and the people who actually exist. Each character is a caricature of someone. These are bulging and absurd features that the author ridicules, so to say that Bulgakov described people and events from life with portrait accuracy, to put it mildly, is not correct. I would also like to note that just as there is nothing superfluous in the artist's picture, so there is nothing accidental in Bulgakov's work. Behind any character, event, word lies the author's intention. The “dearest dog” who has his own thoughts is not accidental, Klim Chugunkin is not accidental, Preobrazhensky is not accidental, the luminary of science, the scientist, and the random turn in the outcome of the operation is also not accidental. It is on these positions that I will try to build my analysis.

The events of the story develop in post-revolutionary Russia. This is a time of severe hunger trials, civil war. In Moscow, in one of the gateways, a homeless, sick, hungry dog ​​wanders, later called Sharik. He wanders and thinks: “I have experienced everything, I am reconciled with my fate, and if I cry now, it is only from physical pain and cold, because my spirit has not yet died out ... The spirit of a dog is tenacious.” It seems to me that this image of a hungry stray dog ​​contains the essence and character of the most destitute, lower class of Russian society of that time, accustomed to suffering from pain and hunger, but resigned to such a situation. And in Sharik's thoughts their words are guessed. The words of people thrown by fate into the dustbin of life, into the gateway, doomed to die without counting and, most importantly, those who are used to it. "Doggy Spirit Lives" Bulgakov very subtly groped for the tragedy of the contradiction within this part of Russian society. It lacks awareness of itself as a class, a force that can change something. Bulgakov emphasizes the complete political illiteracy of this part of society. Lack of understanding by the lower strata of society who the proletariat is. "A learned word, but God knows what it means," Sharik reflects on the threshold of the professor's apartment. And how does he perceive Preobrazhensky himself? Like a benefactor who promised him a sausage. "Kiss your pants, my benefactor!" or "... Follow you? Yes, to the ends of the world. Kick me with your felt boots, I won't utter a word," says Sharik. Suffering from physical pain and the absence of mental suffering from the realization of the whole burden of the situation, coupled with anger at everyone, this is how Bulgakov paints representatives of the class that was destined to become a support for the new Soviet power.

By the will of fate, Sharik catches the eye of Professor Preobrazhensky. He treats him with crappy sausage and brings him to his house. Who is this professor? Bulgakov describes it the way Sharik sees it. “This one eats plentifully and does not steal, this one will not kick with his foot, but he himself is not afraid of anyone, and is not afraid because he is always full. knights..." Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky is an intellectual, a luminary of science, a man favored by the new Soviet government because he is useful to her with his activities. Preobrazhensky lives in seven rooms, he has servants, he is well-fed and financially prosperous. The professor is loyal to the new government, but nevertheless he does not share the ideals and principles of this government. "Yes, I don't like the proletariat," says Preobrazhensky. In a conversation with Dr. Bormental, he explains his attitude towards the proletariat as follows: “And now, when he hatches all sorts of hallucinations out of himself and starts cleaning the sheds - his direct business - the devastation will disappear by itself. Two gods cannot be served! it's time to sweep the tram tracks and arrange the fate of some Spanish ragamuffins!No one succeeds in this, doctor, and even more so for people who, in general, 200 years behind the Europeans in development, still do not quite confidently button their own pants! ". Before us is a typical representative of the intelligentsia, reverent for Western civilization, representing the interests of the bourgeois class and accepting the principle of inequality as the norm of life. Some are born to clean sheds, others to manage those who clean them. And all the arguments about other Soviet meanings seem to him a hallucination, while the meanings of the liberal intelligentsia are absolutely applied in nature: carpets in the front door, clean galoshes, the ability to live and work in seven rooms and the desire to have an eighth. Remember how Lenin once said about the populists "they are too far from the people." Something similar is described in this story. An abyss of misunderstanding arose between the liberal intelligentsia and the popular masses. What is it? A veil of your own material well-being against the backdrop of the complexities of everything that is happening in Russia? Or maybe unwillingness to understand? Here it is another contradiction skillfully highlighted by the author. Who is for Professor Sharik? He gives him a short but precise definition - "the cutest dog." Following further by analogy, I ask the same question, who are the destitute, impoverished, disenfranchised people for the professor, those who will later be called the proletariat? The answer is obvious. These are, following the professor's logic, "animals" that need an owner and are devoted to him, like dogs. In this case, people of a different origin from the proletariat act as the owner. In my opinion, that says it all. It's all spiritual moral values our liberal intelligentsia. Further, this "cutest dog" gets on the operating table to the professor (in fact, for this he needed him in the house), where a wonderful metamorphosis takes place with him. Unexpectedly for everyone, including the professor, instead of an operation to study the role of hormones in rejuvenation, an operation takes place to turn a dog into a person.
Appears on the pages new hero- Sharikov. Rather, Sharikov is the one into whom Sharik developed as a result of the professor's manipulations. Some critics say that Sharikov is the creation of Shvonder, but we see that this is not so. The liberal intelligentsia of that time recognized the downtrodden, impoverished people, reduced to an animal state, the right to be human beings. And then the author raises a deeply philosophical question, what does it mean to "be human". Who do we see in front of us? After all, I repeat, the use of Klim Chugunkin as a donor is not accidental. Who is Klim? The professor himself says: "... two convictions, alcoholism, "divide everything", a hat and two gold pieces are gone ... - a boor and a pig ... In a word, the pituitary gland is a closed chamber that determines a given human face. Given!". Here it is the understanding of the formation of the human face, human essence by the Russian intelligentsia. This is a given, not subject to the desire and will of man. Well, it is not given to Klim Chugunkin to be a man. And Sharik with Klim's brains is the same Klim no matter how hard you try. Not able to? Not given? And what could the professor actually offer Sharik, besides a brain transplant? In addition to putting into your head the thought that he is no longer an animal, but a man? What actually makes a person a person? The professor does not answer this philosophical question. He only concludes that being able to speak does not mean being human. One cannot but agree with this idea. In my opinion, a person is not only a biological species. And the author conveys to the reader the idea that a person is something more. These are the meanings and values ​​of life. This is morality. Can the liberal intelligentsia become the backbone of the Soviet government in cultivating new meanings and values ​​in a person? Recognizing a person's right to be a person is not enough. The intelligentsia, for a long time cultivating patience and slavish psychology in the poorest strata, has nurtured and nurtured hatred of itself as the bearer of this psychology. And now she began to educate suddenly human personality? What? The intelligentsia could only bring up a semblance of itself. A semblance of a society where Soviet meanings are called hallucinations and are replaced by the rules of etiquette. And then the Sharikovs appear, who hate these liberal values, but do not understand the new ones. By the way, in a conversation with Professor Shvonder directly states: "... You created citizen Sharikov." It's impossible to argue with that.

What about Shvonder? This character appears at the beginning of the story. Shvonder personifies the Soviet power on the ground. This is the type of people who should carry the new Soviet principles to the broad masses of the people. What are we seeing instead? The education of the individual is reduced to familiarization with Engels' correspondence with Kautsky. Is this not a caricature of the Soviet nomenklatura, which reduces everything to a formality? Hence the primitive interpretation of Soviet principles as something like "take everything and divide it." However, as a new member of society, Sharikov must receive the rights guaranteed by the Soviet government. Shvonder is the guarantor of these rights. Not understanding why Sharikov is not able to appreciate this new acquisition, Shvonder is confused and does not know what to do with it.

Arguing on the topic of the correctness of Soviet principles and the Soviet system, many adherents of liberalism oppose Preobrazhensky, as the bearer of the liberal values ​​of Russia in the early 20th century, and Sharikov, as a representative of that class whose interests the Soviet government was supposed to protect. Much is said about the fact that the comparison of these heroes is not in favor of Sharikov, and therefore not in favor of the Soviet government. But is it possible to oppose Preobrazhensky and Sharikov? This seems inappropriate to me. How can one contrast a professor whose liberal logic breeds a beast in human form to that beast itself? It is wrong to oppose cause and effect, and the author draws our attention to the comic nature of such a juxtaposition. The whole satire of the story follows from this opposition.

There are many disputes about the fact that Shvonder is the face of the revolution and the Soviet government, which gave rights to people like Sharikov, which in itself should discredit this government in the eyes of the reader. I agree that Shvonder is a caricature of the Soviet government. But to what power? On the power that loses its content behind the form. Let us recall the words of Professor Preobrazhensky, which representatives of the liberal camp so often like to use: “What is this devastation of yours? ... devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads.". From the lips of the professor, these words sound very convincing. But what is the cause of this devastation in the minds? I have only one answer - a change of meanings and worldview. And this devastation in the minds must be fought, as they are struggling with the post-revolutionary and post-war devastation of the state, mobilizing all the forces of society. It is only necessary to mobilize all the intellectual and moral forces. It is necessary to take a new frontier of moral development, which, alas, neither the avant-garde of the intelligentsia, Preobrazhensky, nor Shvonder, who imagines this task in a too simplified form, could take.

Bulgakov is trying to tell us that a society that consists of the Sharikovs, Shvonders and Preobrazhenskys will be torn apart by contradictions and will soon begin to resemble the professor's apartment, where, along with that same "ruin in the heads", "ruin in the closets" came. And how long will such a society and the government that contributes to the formation of such a society last? The professor says: “Well, Shvonder is the most important fool. He does not understand that Sharikov is a more formidable danger for him than for me. Well, now he is trying in every possible way to set him on me, not realizing that if someone in turn will set Sharikov against Shvonder himself, then only horns and legs will remain of him. Of course, reading this story many years after it was written, looking back into the past of the country that disappeared from the map 20 years ago, these words seem prophetic. But does this mean that in Bulgakov's satire there is a verdict on the very Soviet meanings that our society so dreamed of at the beginning of the 20th century, with which we raised the economy in the post-war years? It seems to me that no. And the ending of the story is proof of that. We see how the intelligentsia in the person of Professor Preobrazhensky returns Sharikov (a collective image of the destitute, who have just begun to feel like people) to his original animal state. It turned out that at the end of the story we returned to its very beginning. Not development, but a vicious circle. Thus, Bulgakov tells us that without understanding and nurturing new values ​​and meanings in oneself and those around oneself, there will be no new society, there will be no development. We must change our idea of ​​ourselves, of the role of man in society. And those who consider themselves to be intellectuals, and those who do not want to recognize Sharik-Sharikov in themselves, and those who find it easier and calmer to be Shvonders. Otherwise, we are doomed to stagnate, torn apart by hatred for each other and contradictions within ourselves. To be slaves and masters. This is my philosophy of the author.
It seems to me that "Heart of a Dog", despite the time described in this story, acquires all relevance for us right now, at the beginning of the 21st century. And once again re-reading this brilliant work, I suddenly thought about who we are. What do we live? Have we traded something truly important, our chance to progress, for a collar, a leash, and a piece of Krakow...

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is a mystical writer, as he called himself, and what else, besides mysticism and magic, can explain the writer's foresight, his extraordinary ability to see our future, predict, and maybe even warn against it. Any work of this writer is a storehouse of thoughts, the richest Russian language and humor, often turning into satire and sarcasm. I would like to talk about the story Heart of a Dog, written by Bulgakov in 1925. The author obviously did not hope that in the foreseeable future his creation would see the light of day, appear in print, although, like any artist, he wanted to see his creation published.

Knowing that the story will not be published, Mikhail Afanasyevich takes his soul on its pages. Through the mouth of his hero, Professor Preobrazhensky, he says everything he thinks about Soviet power, about innovations and orders. The professor has no worthy opponent. There are grateful listeners in the person of Bormental's assistant and secretary Zina and opponents: Shvonder, Sharikov and their followers and associates. But Philip Philipovich speaks rather for himself.

He talks aloud, speaking sharply about the dangers of reading newspapers, which disrupt digestion. Bormental tries to object that, apart from Soviet newspapers, there are none, and Preobrazhensky categorically remarks: Don't read any.

The professor can afford to be a gourmet, he teaches Bormental the art of eating, so that it is not just a necessity, but a pleasure. This is already an occasion to talk about Soviet vodka. Bormenthal notices that the newly blessed one is very decent.

Thirty degrees. Philip Philipovich objects: Vodka should be at forty degrees, not thirty, then he prophetically adds: they can splash anything there. All these sarcastic remarks, seemingly trifles, actually create a complete picture of life in Moscow in the twenties. And the further Bulgakov unfolds the narrative, the clearer and clearer the picture of the life of those years rises before us.

Without thinking about the moral side of the matter, the new masters of life requisition the extra living space from the bourgeoisie. Without a shadow of irony, Shvonder and his subordinates offer Professor Preobrazhensky to make room, since he already has seven rooms. When asked by Philipp Philippovich where he will have lunch, they answer him in chorus: In the bedroom ... The professor objected indignantly: I will have lunch in the dining room, operate in the operating room! ., and take food where all normal people take it ....

Preobrazhensky managed to defend his right to all the rooms thanks to strong patrons, but his neighbor Fyodor Pavlovich went for screens and bricks. Barriers will be installed. And after all, for many decades these partitions, which disfigured apartments, introduced the concept of a communal apartment into the Russian language, established themselves in a new life. Until now, we know that many people live in families in one room, not being able to retire, think, work out in a calm environment. Then the goal of life becomes not the mastery of a profession, the spiritual and cultural growth of the individual, but the desire to find a normal home by any means.

And for many, this goal remains unattainable. Bulgakov in the story The Heart of a Dog not only laughed at all aspects of a new life, when no one suddenly becomes everything, but also showed the sinister prospects of this metamorphosis. In order to build a new society, one must have not only the strength and desire to create it, but deep knowledge, including history, is necessary, since everything repeats itself in this life, first as a tragedy, and then as a farce. In the reasoning of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, a program is given that will be successfully implemented in Researcher for many years: Take everything and share ...

The matter is simple. And then what: one settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of trousers, and the other hangs around, looking for food in weed boxes .... And then Preobrazhensky, in my opinion, brilliantly explains the futility of such a state, which put everything on the ignoramus: ... you (Sharikov) are still an emerging, mentally weak being ...

And you allow yourself, with an absolutely unbearable swagger, to give some advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity on how to share everything .... Much more can be found in the story Heart of a Dog explaining our current collapse, which logically followed from everything laid down at the beginning of the formation of the USSR. I never cease to admire the genius of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov and his creations.

Combining the past of a stray dog ​​and a dissolute drunkard, Sharikov is born with one feeling of hatred for those who offended him. And this feeling somehow immediately falls into the general tone of the class hatred of the proletariat for the bourgeoisie (Sharikov reads the correspondence between Marx and Kautsky), the hatred of the poor for the rich (the distribution of apartments by the house committee), the hatred of the uneducated for the intelligentsia.

It turns out that all new world built on hatred of the old. It doesn't take much to hate. 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, chairman of the house committee Shvonder. Sharikov suits Shvonder, he is low social background and empty mind.

And Sharikov's career is truly amazing from a stray dog ​​to a commissioner for the extermination of stray cats and dogs. Well, cats are still understandably a relic of the past.

But what are the dogs for? And here one of the main features of Sharikov appears: 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. The desire to rise at the expense of others, and not at the cost of one's own efforts, is characteristic of the representatives of the so-called new world. Shvonder, who inspires Sharikov to exploits (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky's apartment), simply does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.

When Sharikov was a dog, one could feel sympathy for him. Completely undeserved deprivation and injustice accompanied his life. Maybe they give Sharikov and others like him the right to take revenge, because something made them so embittered and cruel. Does Preobrazhensky, who during times of famine and devastation live in five rooms and have a splendid dinner every day, think about the hungry beggars and social justice?

But the whole trouble is that the Sharkovs do not think about social justice either. They only think about themselves. Justice in their understanding is to enjoy the benefits that others used to enjoy. There is no question of creating something for everyone. This is what Professor Preobrazhensky says: "Devastation in the minds." Everyone ceases to do business, and is engaged only in the struggle, snatching a piece.

Why, after the revolution, it is necessary to walk in galoshes on carpets and steal hats in the front ones. People themselves create devastation and balls. In the new society, slaves come to power, who have not changed their slavish nature in any way.

Only instead of obsequiousness and obedience to their superiors, they have the same servile cruelty towards people dependent on them and the same as them. The power of the Sharkovs was obtained before culture, education, and the results of this mistake are monstrous. In Bulgakov's story, Professor Preobrazhensky himself corrects his mistake. It is much more difficult to do this in real life. The beautiful dog Sharik does not remember that she was authorized by Sharikov and destroyed stray dogs.

Real ballers do not forget this. Once they have received power, they will not voluntarily give it up. Therefore, social experiments, on the wave of which balls rise, are more dangerous than all other experiments. And therefore, the new Preobrazhenskys must have a good idea of ​​what exactly will come out of their discoveries, what their indifference will lead to. In life, one has to pay too high a price for mistakes. After all, even the reverse reincarnation of Sharik does not solve the problem as a whole: how to change the world, where all roads are open to balls and shvonders.

Reasoning on the pages of the story "Heart of a Dog"

Other essays on the topic:

1. Recently, the question of the responsibility of each person for the results of his work has become very acute. Labor in the broadest sense...
2. The story of Mikhail Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" can be called prophetic. In it, the author, long before our society abandoned the ideas of the revolution of 1917...
3. The basis of Sharikov's character and worldview is formed by the personalities, firstly, the dog Sharik, and secondly, the alcoholic, redneck and outcast Klim Chugunkin. Besides,...
4. Subject: So he said? - This does not mean to be a man "(M. Bulgakov. "Heart of a Dog") Learning goal: ...
5. The great Russian satirist M. A. Bulgakov created in his semi-fantastic works a very accurate and realistic image of the reality that arose ...
6. In the narrative structure of the story "Heart of a Dog" the image of the narrator is inconsistent. The narration is either on behalf of Sharik the dog (before the operation), or Dr. Bormental ...
7. In the story "The Heart of a Dog" M. A. Bulgakov not only describes the unnatural experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. The writer shows a new type of person who...
8. M. Bulgakov. "Heart of a Dog" M. A. Bulgakov came to literature already in the years of Soviet power. He was not an immigrant and...
9. Topic: "Intelligentsia and Revolution". Learning goal: when analyzing the text of a work, to follow the attitude of the writer to those changes that ...
10. The satirical story by M. A. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog” was written in 1925. It combines three genre-artistic forms: fantasy, social...
11. "A monstrous story", or What did the revolution "from the cutest dog". The study of the work of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is a serious methodological ...
12. Of the writers of the 20s and 30s of our century, we do not know even a tenth. Their works have sunk into oblivion, and ...
13. Preparing for the lesson, I read N. P. Bazhan's poem "Flight through the storm." I never would have thought that some little poem would cause...
14. Until the end of his days, Tolstoy sought out in modern literature a variety of options for manifesting the true truthfulness of humanistic principles, artistic perfection. His judgment...
15. Dostoevsky had a bright talent literary critic and polemicist. Back in 1847, he published several outstanding feuilletons in the St. Petersburg Vedomosti....
16. The introductory and final parts in an essay-reasoning can only be written correctly under one condition: if the main part contains the main elements ...
17. Creating broad epic pictures of military and civilian life, Tolstoy develops the idea of ​​the course of the historical process, the role of individuals and...

Sections: Literature

Class: 11

Content Goals:

Educational:

• contribute to the formation of the concepts of "satire", "satirical fiction", "pamphlet", continue work on text analysis, the ability to answer problematic questions, draw conclusions and generalizations
• create conditions for a deep understanding of the text, the views of M.A. Bulgakov, the image of the heroes of the story; understanding why the Sharikovs are so tenacious and the sound of the work is modern.
• to show Bulgakov's attitude to the experiment on a person and a country.

Developing:

• create conditions for mastering the main ways of mental activity (analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison, comparison, systematization);
• continue the development of skills to work with historical documents, literary text;
• continue the development of the ability to identify cause-and-effect relationships, draw conclusions, select the necessary information to solve cognitive problems;
• realization of opportunities for the development of students' speech.

Educational:

• on the example of the experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, to show what a revolution, and not the evolution of life, can lead to;
• to educate moral qualities from understanding the events and phenomena of history;
• by means of the lesson to promote the understanding that the concepts of "man", "morality", "power" are the value categories of modern society.

Teaching methods:

• reproductive,
• partial search,
• problem presentation.

Forms of organization of cognitive activity:

• collective,
• individual,
• group.

Means of education: M.A. Bulgakov story "Heart of a Dog"; worksheets with texts of documents; illustrative material; staging.

Preliminary tasks and questions:

1. Staging.

2. Group task. Life in Moscow in the 1920s.

3. Questions:

What is the essence of the professor's experiment? What does Bormental say about him (diary), Shvonder

Can human nature be changed? Prove.

Is there anything in common between the professor and Shvonder?

During the classes

I regret one thing: that the Soviet government was not present at this scene: that I show him with what material it is going to build a classless socialist society.

Bulgakov. Play "Adam and Eve"

1. Organizational moment.

2. Motivation and goal setting.

To his assistant Dr. Bormental, Professor Preobrazhensky says: “Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil:”

What happened as a result of the experiment and why?

Why are the Sharikovs dangerous?

What does the story warn about?

Problem question. The story "Heart of a Dog" is a warning. What to warn about

gives Bulgakov's satirical fiction.

Working with terms (almanac, pamphlet, satire, fantasy)

3. Actualization of knowledge and skills.

History of creation.

The story "Heart of a Dog" is the second part of Bulgakov's satirical dilogy ("Fatal Eggs") and continues the theme begun in "Fatal Eggs" about the scientist's responsibility for the experiment. During the life of the writer, the story was not published, it was published only in 1987. Why does the work have such a difficult fate? It was written in 1925. The editor of the almanac "Nedra" Angarsky hoped to get the story into print, asking for help from one of the prominent leaders of the party and government, L.B. Kamenev. However, he commented on the "Heart of a Dog" as follows: "This is a sharp pamphlet on the present, it should not be printed under any circumstances." This review for more than 60 years made it impossible to publish the story in the USSR. The plot of "Heart of a Dog" is borrowed to some extent from Wells' novel "The Island of Doctor More" and is associated with the idea of ​​humanizing animals.

Bulgakov read the story in a literary circle, one of the listeners reported to the GPU:

"Bulgakov definitely hates and despises the entire Sovstroy, denies all its achievements: There is a faithful, strict, keen eye at the Soviet power-Glavlit, and if my opinion does not differ from his, then this book will not see the light of day."

1926 A search was carried out, the manuscripts of "Heart of a Dog" and the writer's personal diaries were confiscated. Only three years later, at the request of Gorky, the arrested manuscripts were returned to the writer.

4. Primary assimilation of the material.

What themes are raised in the story?

The theme of crime and punishment.

Subject of the experiment.

The role of the Russian intelligentsia in the life of society.

The theme of good and evil, etc.

Which of them are the main ones?

Why did the intelligentsia become the main character?

It is the intellectual potential of society, affects the spiritual, moral atmosphere of the life of the country. Bulgakov considered the intelligentsia the best layer of society, feeling a blood connection with it. Professor Preobrazhensky is the embodiment of the outgoing culture of aristocracy. The prototype of the professor was Bulgakov's uncle, the famous Moscow doctor N.M. Pokrovsky.

The complexity of the topics determined the importance of the problem that the author is thinking about. What is this problem.

Responsibility for their actions of each person, especially if he is endowed with power: spiritual, economic, political, etc.

The theme, the problem, the characters of the characters determined the originality of the genre of the story. This is satirical fiction.

Bulgakov believed: "I believe that it is impossible to create satire, it is created when a writer appears who considers current life not perfect and, indignantly, begins to expose it artistically. Believing that the path of such an artist will be very, very difficult."

What does Bulgakov's satirical fiction warn about? (Answer to the problematic question at the end of the lesson).

5. Awareness and comprehension of new material.

Fast forward to Moscow in the 1920s.

Group task Moscow during the NEP (through the images of Sharik, Preobrazhensky, Shvonder).

An ironic observation of the dog - the chairman of the house committee - a sign of the times - the focus of power and vulgarity - a critical attitude towards the professor's changes.

under construction new life, the experiment is underway.

Work with handouts (statements of scientists, writers). (Appendix to the lesson).

What is the connection of statements with Bulgakov's story.

This is a state experiment of an ideological, political and social nature. The experiment is one of the central themes of "Heart of a Dog", but this is a private experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky, it is of a scientific nature.

What is the essence of the experiment? What does Dr. Bomental, Schwonder, write about this experience?

The luminary of Moscow genetics, a brilliant surgeon, professor performs operations to rejuvenate people, aging ladies and elders. The author mercilessly laughs at the prosperous Nepmen. But the professor decided to change the nature of man and create a new man by transplanting a part of the human brain into a dog.

The action takes place on Christmas Eve, but the author emphasizes that everything that happens is unnatural, this is a parody of Christmas.

Scientific intuition and common sense never let the professor down. A risky failure occurred only once, when he transplanted Klim Chugunkin's pituitary gland into a mongrel.

Who is Klim Chugunkin? What did you find out about him?

What happened as a result of the experiment?

A monster arises with a dog's heart and the manners of a master of life.

What crime did the professor commit? What is its essence?

He tried to change the nature of man, his nature.

Can we change it? Prove it.

What did Sharikov inherit from his donor Chugunkin?

This ugly, primitive creature is a non-human who has completely inherited the essence of his "ancestor". (Portrait characteristic).

Dr. Bormental wrote in his diary: "The surgeon's scalpel brought to life a new human unit."

Professor Preobrazhensky is trying with the help of genetic engineering (the term of our time) to create a new artificial person. It's fantastic.

6. Application of knowledge.

What does Bulgakov's satirical fiction warn about?

The story warns that it is impossible to instill culture in a hasty surgical way. Bulgakov looked with great skepticism at attempts to accelerate the upbringing of a new person and, with his work, entered into a controversy with those who believed that it was possible to forcefully change the life and the person himself.

What thought does the professor come to as a result of the experiment? Can human nature be changed?

What punishment did Professor Sharikov prepare?

He swears, drinks, smokes, creates outrages, messes around. As soon as he stands on his hind limbs, Sharikov is ready to corner the "daddy" who gave birth to him. He demands a document, then writes a denunciation.

Staging of the episode "Sharikov requires a document and a residence permit". (Discussion).

Who came out victorious in this duel?

Sharikov is getting bolder every day, moreover, he finds an ally in the person of Shvonder.

What role did Shvonder play in the fate of Sharikov?

He is the ideologist of Sharikov, his spiritual inspirer. He maintains social status, gives books, points out enemies, helps to establish himself in society, arranges for the work of the head. subdepartment of cleaning Moscow from stray animals in the department of the ICC. The main ideological phrase that Shvonder equips Sharikov is "Take everything and share it." He has no ideals, he does not believe in any shrines, he feeds on shrines and ideals, speculating on them. Thus, lumpen Sharikov instinctively sensed the main credo of the new masters of life: rob, steal, take away everything created. The main principle of the new society is universal equalization, called equality. And no one will stop Sharikov on this path. The final chord of his activities was the denunciation of "dad", because he is alien to shame, conscience, morality.

Does Shvonder commit a crime?

Yes. Nona knows about this, as she is guided by the ideology of the new time.

Do you think there is anything in common between the professor and Shvonder?

They are different in spirit: one is an aristocrat, the other is a demagogue, both want to remake the world in their own way: Preobrazhensky - to fix the imperfect world, Shvonder - to remake it. The means of alteration is Sharikov, in which he invested a class program. Sharikov becomes dangerous not only for the professor, but also for Shvonder, because a man with a dog's heart is capable of anything.

7. Summing up.

Let's turn to the epigraph of the lesson (Discussion). The professor realized in time that nature does not tolerate violence against itself. A metamorphosis takes place in the story, but the Sharikovs turned out to be tenacious. It is no coincidence that the name Sharikov has become a household name. What does it mean?

8. Reflection.

Sharikovshchina: what is it?

Add an offer.

The story was written 89 years ago. Can it be considered modern? Why?

9. Homework.

The composition is a reflection on the story "Heart of a Dog".

Collection of essays: Reflections on the pages of the story "Heart of a Dog"

Praise and slander were accepted indifferently,

And don't argue with the fool.

Bulgakov is a mystical writer, as he called himself, and what else, besides mysticism and magic, can explain the writer's foresight, his extraordinary ability to see our future, predict, and maybe even warn against it.

Any work of this writer is a storehouse of thoughts, the richest Russian language and humor, often turning into satire and sarcasm. I would like to talk about the story "Heart of a Dog", written by Bulgakov in 1925.

The author obviously did not hope that in the foreseeable future his creation would see the light of day, appear in print, although, like any artist, he wanted to see his creation published. Knowing that the story will not be published, Mikhail Afanasyevich "takes his soul" on its pages. Through the mouth of his hero, Professor Preobrazhensky, he says everything he thinks about Soviet power, about innovations and orders.

The professor has no worthy opponent. There are grateful listeners in the person of Bormental's assistant and secretary Zina and opponents: Shvonder, Sharikov and their followers and associates. But Philip Philipovich speaks rather for himself. He talks aloud, speaking sharply about the dangers of reading newspapers, which disrupt digestion. Bormental tries to object that, apart from Soviet newspapers, there are none, and Preobrazhensky categorically remarks: "Don't read any."

The professor can afford to be a gourmet, he teaches Bormental the art of eating, so that it is not just a necessity, but a pleasure. This is already an occasion to talk about Soviet vodka. Bormenthal notes that “the newly blessed one is very decent. Thirty degrees." Philipp Philippovich objects: “Vodka should be at forty degrees, not thirty,” then he prophetically adds: “they can splash anything there.” All these sarcastic remarks, seemingly trifles, actually create a complete picture of life in Moscow in the twenties.

Without thinking about the moral side of the matter, the new masters of life requisition "extra living space from the bourgeoisie." Without a shadow of irony, Shvonder and his subordinates offer Professor Preobrazhensky to make room, since he has "as many as seven rooms." When asked by Philipp Philippovich where he will have lunch, they answer him in chorus: “In the bedroom ...” The professor objected indignantly: “I will have lunch in the dining room, operate in the operating room!., and eat food where all normal people take it ... ".

Preobrazhensky managed to defend his right to all the rooms thanks to strong patrons, but his neighbor “Fyodor Pavlovich went for screens and bricks. Barriers will be put up. And after all, for many decades these “partitions”, which disfigured apartments, introduced the concept of “communal apartment” into the Russian language, established themselves in a new life. Until now, we know that many people live in families in one room, not being able to retire, think, work out in a calm environment. Then the goal of life becomes not the mastery of a profession, the spiritual and cultural growth of the individual, but the desire to find a normal home by any means. And for many, this goal remains unattainable.

Bulgakov in the story "The Heart of a Dog" not only laughed at all aspects of a new life, when "no one" suddenly becomes everything, but also showed the ominous prospects of this metamorphosis.

In order to build a new society, one must have not only the strength and desire to create it, but deep knowledge, including history, is necessary, since everything repeats itself in this life - “at first - like a tragedy, and then - like a farce.”

In the reasoning of Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, a program is given that will be successfully carried out for many years in the “Resefeser”: “To take everything and share it ... is a simple matter. And then what: one settled in seven rooms, he has forty pairs of trousers, and the other wanders around, looking for food in weed boxes ... ".

And then Preobrazhensky, in my opinion, brilliantly explains the futility of such a state, which put everything on the ignoramus: “... you (Sharikov) are still an emerging, mentally weak being ... and you allow yourself, with an absolutely unbearable swagger, to give some advice cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity about how to divide everything ... ".

Much more can be found in the story "The Heart of a Dog" explanations for our current collapse, which logically followed from everything laid down at the beginning of the formation of the USSR.

I never cease to admire the genius of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov and his creations.

A short essay-reasoning on the topic "Dog's heart: moral lessons" in literature

The story "Heart of a Dog" was not written by Bulgakov for frivolous reading. It contains very important moral lessons that every person needs to receive in a timely manner. In a light humorous form, the author talks about very important things regarding morality, spirituality and interpersonal relationships. What does Bulgakov teach in the story "Heart of a Dog"?

One of the main moral lesson ov in the story is the ethical impossibility of a person to invent new way the birth of people. Philip Philipovich challenged nature when he went against her laws. Therefore, his creation was terrible and unnatural. He was recognized in society as an equal, only to be used as a trump card against the "bourgeois" professor. In fact, he was perceived as a laboratory rat, and such artificial people will not take root in society, they will always be humiliated, underestimated and used for their own purposes, taking advantage of their gullibility. This means that through such operations humanity will be able to make itself slaves, inferior and oppressed.

With the help of Sharikov, Bulgakov showed his attitude to such experiments: science cannot recreate people artificially, because birth must be followed by upbringing, moreover, within the framework of the main social institution - the family. The creation of the professor cannot claim the status of a person, since it has not passed through the most important stage in the formation of personality - education. We see the consequences of this omission: Sharikov behaves phenomenally immorally and without culture. The need for family education is another moral lesson of the writer.

It is noteworthy that Sharikov's comrades do not behave much better. This is caused, again, by gaps in education. Their parents worked around the clock in factories, were poor and disenfranchised. Therefore, the children of workers are initially deprived of the opportunity to get an education and learn good manners. They are almost orphans. This means that “destruction in the minds” is not the fault of the Bolsheviks or the consequence of a disastrous revolution, even the general spread of atheism has nothing to do with it. This is a vice of pre-revolutionary society and the unjust tsarist regime. Having mutilated the parents, the gentlemen received the revenge of the children, who had no one to teach mercy and forgiveness. Thus, Bulgakov teaches us to look for reasons that are deeper and more truthful than those lying on the surface. He also encourages all of us to think ahead, because the consequences of our mistakes can be terrible.

In addition, Bulgakov severely punishes the proud man who dared to replace God. The professor repents of his deed and almost pays with his life for his immoral experiment. He sees what his ambitions led to: Sharikov never became a man, but he felt that, as a man, and lived among us. Moreover, he could not become equal, people would not recognize him. This means that the professor doomed his offspring to an unhappy and inferior life, and made it clear to society that anyone can be resurrected, and this creates a huge mass of problems.

Thus, Bulgakov not only wrote a fascinating story, but also put very important moral messages into it. It provides useful food for thought and answers to many of the difficult questions that we ask ourselves all our lives.