What is the relevance of Bulgakov's work Dog's Heart. The relevance of the story Bulgakov's dog's heart essay

>Compositions based on the work Heart of a Dog

The relevance of the story

The story "Heart of a Dog" was written in 1925 and was the last satirical story to the writer. During this period, socialism was just emerging, and M. A. Bulgakov in his story touched on the problems that had arisen in society. He saw this period as an experiment, during which the old ideals on which tsarist Russia had long been kept were destroyed, and a new revolutionary-minded society was created with elements such as Sharikov, Shvonder. They did not like the intelligentsia and tried all sorts of ways to fight them by inciting, denunciations and even violence. They showed disrespect for any material and spiritual values ​​in their desire to build a just, communist society.

The story "Heart of a Dog" is also based on an experiment in which Professor Preobrazhensky, an outstanding surgeon and luminary of medicine, turns a dog into a man. Despite the fact that in the past the homeless dog Sharik begins to look like a person, he behaves like a creature with the makings of an eternally hungry, humiliated dog and an alcoholic, criminal Klim Chugunkin, whose organs were transplanted to him. As soon as the professor did not try to re-educate the new citizen, nothing came of it. Then the new chairman of the house committee, Comrade Shvonder, manages to influence him. He gives Sharik, now Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, to read Engels, “stuffs” him with ideas about building socialism, and also insists that the professor register a new tenant.

Shvonder acts as a kind of ideologist and spiritual mentor of the impudent Sharikov. Such as they are not ashamed of their low origin and lack of education, but on the contrary, they believe that gentlemen with a high mind and spirit should be humiliated and trampled into the mud. Only in this way could Sharikov and Shvonder rise to the occasion, which is not uncommon even today. However, at the end of the story, the professor performs another operation to return Sharik to his canine nature. The experiment went well. The society got rid of the annoying Sharikov, and the kind-hearted dog reappeared in Preobrazhensky's apartment.

In his story, M. A. Bulgakov focused on the fact that there can be as many Sharikovs in society as you like. Outwardly, they are no different from the rest, but inside they have a "dog" heart. Without hesitation, they will go over the heads of others for the sake of their goals, betray their loved ones, write a denunciation, set them up, etc. There are always plenty of such people. The story was, is and will be relevant, because the main threat to society in any era is a dog's heart in alliance with the human mind.

LITERATURE LESSON. GRADE 11.

Experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky.

(Lesson-reflection on the story of M.A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog")

Org.moment. An experiment with a question about coffee.

The story also describes the experiment. Who conducts it? The topic of our lesson:Experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. Write it down. What is the main question? What should we find out?

What are the results?

Write down the goal: Evaluate the experiment. Is the professor responsible?

Vocabulary work.Before we start our conversation, let's remember the meaning of the word experiment.

(Experiment - 1. Scientific experience. 2. In general - experience, an attempt to do, do something.)

How is it different from simple observation?An experiment is an experience, a trial.

Experiment (from lat. experimentum - test, experience), a method of cognition, with the help of which phenomena of reality are studied under controlled and controlled conditions. different fromobservations active operation of the studied object, experiment is carried out on the basis of a theory that determines the formulation of problems and the interpretation of its results. Often the main task experiment serves to test hypotheses and predictions of the theory, which are of fundamental importance (the so-called decisive experiment). For this reason, the experiment , as one of the forms of practice, performs the function of a criterion of the truth of scientific knowledge in general.

An experiment is an experimental study of the impact of a single factor (or several factors) on a variable of interest to the researcher.

Now pay attention to the words that occur in the text, their meaning may not be clear to you. (The work is carried out according to the table.)

Pituitary - gland at the base of the brain, which affects the growth, development, metabolic processes of the body.

Eugenics - the doctrine of “improving the human race”, based on the ideas and conclusions of genetics of the 20s of the twentieth century.

Evolution - development, the process of gradual continuous quantitative change of something or someone, preparing qualitative changes.

- Consider the composition of the story. How the experiment is described.

Part 1 - On whose behalf is the story being told?in part I, this is Sharik (especially in the 1st chapter) and the author, part II (5th chapter) opens with the diary of Dr. Bormental, and from the 6th chapter the story is again led by the author. Epilogue

Why does Bulgakov describe many of the events of the first part through the eyes of a dog?

To understand the essence of the experiment, fill in the table

1 group. Professor Preobrazhensky.

Task for the group.

Tell us about the professor: what does he do, how do others treat him: Sharik, servants, patients? List by chapter, what rules of life does the professor proclaim?Write on A4 paperWhat is the purpose of the professor's experimental operation?

Additional questions What does the name Preobrazhensky say about

2 group. Ball.

Task for the group.

Tell us about Sharik, how does he live in cold and hungry Moscow? What qualities of Sharik do you like, which ones do you not? What does Sharik notice in the reality around him and how does he react to it? How does the dog perceive the inhabitants of the apartment? Why does Bulgakov endow the dog with human feelings?Write on sheet A4, what qualities of Sharik disappeared after the operation?

3rd group. The consequences of the experiment. Sharikov.

Task for the group.

Tell us about Sharikov. And what did Sharikov inherit from Klim Chugunkin? What do we know about Klim from the text of the story? What is Sharikov gradually becoming? What requirements does Sh. make to the professor?Write on sheet A4, what qualities of quality appeared in Sharikovo after the operation?

Talking about the development of Sharikov, the author emphasizes the remaining dog features in him: affection for the kitchen, hatred for cats, love for a well-fed, idle life. A man catches fleas with his teeth, barks and yelps indignantly in conversations. But it is not the outward manifestations of dog nature that disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistenka. Insolence, which seemed sweet and harmless in a dog, becomes unbearable in a person who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, by no means intending to "learn and become at least an acceptable member of society." His morality is different: he is not a NEP man, therefore, a hard worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: this is how Sharikov shares the idea of ​​“sharing everything” that is captivating for the mob. Sharikov took the worst, most terrible qualities from both a dog and a person. The experiment led to the creation of a monster that, in its baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, betrayal, or murder; who understands only strength, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything to which he obeyed, at the first opportunity. A dog must remain a dog, and a man must remain a man.

There is very little information about Klim in the story. Almost all of them are given in the diary of Dr. Bormenthal:
"(In the notebook loose leaf)
Klim Grigoryevich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. Sued 3 times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time the origin saved, the third time - conditionally hard labor for 15 years. Theft. Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns. Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is enlarged (alcohol). Cause of death - a stab in the heart in a pub ... "
This short note by the doctor has a lot to tell the reader. The physique of Sharikov inherits from Klim, as, probably, the features of appearance, which testify to the general mental underdevelopment of its owner (one can reread the portrait of Sharikov given by Bulgakov in the 6th chapter). The writer focuses on alcoholism and Klim's criminal past, ironically over Soviet laws (an origin can save from punishment, 15 years of hard labor can be applied conditionally!). Klim is not even a proletarian: he is a lumpen, creating nothing, earning his livelihood by stealing and playing the balalaika (as it turns out, virtuoso, given the scarcity of the repertoire). The writer does not tell us anything about Chugunkin's views on life. Maybe because this person does not have any serious views at all: he lives as he lives, guided not by reason, but by the desire to satisfy his minimal needs, taking what he wants: to be full (theft) and drunk. But Bulgakov leaves Klima and human feelings - a balalaika. Agree, virtuoso playing any musical instrument requires not only technique, but also the soul. The "daring dexterity" that Professor Preobrazhensky hears in the sounds of the "cunning variation" is the hidden possibilities of Chugunkin's soul, which never fully humanized. Why? But this is a completely different problem.
At first glance, it may seem that Klim Chugunkin really embodied in Sharikov, who is similar to Klim in height and habits: he smokes, drinks, swears, plays the balalaika, rowdy and steals.

4 group. The consequences of the experiment. The life of a professor.

Task for the group.

Tell us what changes take place in the professor's life after Sharik becomes Sharikov. Why can't he continue his activities? What inconvenience does Sh. bring into his life? How does he feel about Sharikov? What educational measures are taken?Write on sheet A4, what new experience did the experience with Sharik bring to the professor's work?

5 group. Shvonder.

Tell us about Shvonder. Why does the professor say that "Shvonder is the most important fool"? Does he understand who he's dealing with? Why Sharikov and Shvonder so quickly find a common language? Write on sheet A4, what role did Shvonder play in the upbringing of Sharikov?

Shvonder hates the professor, because, feeling the hostility of the scientist, he is unable to prove it and "explain" his true anti-revolutionary essence (and here Shvonder cannot be denied intuition!) For Shvonder, Sharikov is an instrument of struggle with the professor: after all, it was Shvonder who taught Sharikov to demand housing , together they write a denunciation. But for Shvonder, this is the right thing to do, and denunciation is a signal, because the enemy must be brought to light and destroyed in the name of a future happy life. Shvonder's poor head does not fit in any way, why a person who, according to all signs, is an enemy of the Soviet regime, is under its protection!
So, the "godfather" of Polygraph Poligrafovich inspires his pupil with ideas of universal equality, fraternity and freedom. Once in the mind, which is dominated by bestial instincts, they only increase the aggressiveness of the "new man". Sharikov considers himself a full-fledged member of society, not because he did something for the good of this society, but because he is "not a Nepman." In the struggle for existence, Sharikov will stop at nothing. If it seems to him that Shvonder takes his place under the sun, then his aggressiveness will be directed at Shvonder. "Shvonder is a fool", because he does not understand that soon he himself will be able to become a victim of the monster that he is "developing" so intensely.

So, the professor did not expect such consequences of the experiment. Why did the scientists fail to educate Sharikov?
It is good if students think about what education is and why it is ineffective. In Bulgakov's story, the main condition of the educational process is violated - its two-sided character, its dialogic nature; There is no communication between teacher and student. For everyone, this is an involuntary matter, imposed by circumstances, preventing them from living the way they want. In addition, Sharikov has another teacher - Shvonder. This one educates with inspiration (after all, the Bolsheviks strive to remake everyone), and his science is much simpler than that of a professor - "to divide everything."

Conclusion. Can we say that the experiment was successful? Why?
The professor discovered that he was mistaken in his assumptions and received an unexpected result for himself - not rejuvenation, but complete humanization. He did not aspire to this at all. The miscalculation made Philipp Philippovich think and understand that the researcher must "go in parallel and grope with nature," and not "force the question and lift the veil." The law of evolutionary development is the main law of nature, and it is dangerous to violate it.

The scientist, according to Bulgakov, should be responsible for his research. If this story was devoted to the topic of scientific discoveries, it would not be banned in the USSR.

Why was she banned?

The writer uses an allegory - is it? Allegory, - allegory ; in broad use - a hidden form of expression, a literary device

Is it possible to compare the experiment of Dr. Preobrazhensky with the social experiment that the Bolsheviks conducted in 1917? Why did both experiments fail?

Through allegory, fantastic assumption, the writer considers the possibility of peaceful coexistence of the old, patriarchal philistine society of pre-revolutionary Russia and the emerging Soviet system, the new order. The story was written in 1925, when it was still possible not only to fear a gloomy, unpredictable future, but also to experience hope for a successful outcome of troubled times. It turns out that it is easier to carry out the most complicated operation than to re-educate (rather than educate) an already formed “person”, when he does not want, does not feel an inner need to live as he is offered. And again, one involuntarily recalls the fate of the Russian intelligentsia, who prepared and practically accomplished the socialist revolution, but somehow forgot that it was necessary not to educate, but to re-educate millions of people, who tried to defend culture, morality and paid with their lives for illusions embodied in reality.

Is the epilogue of the story optimistic?
Forced self-defence, of course, somewhat softens in the eyes of the author and the reader the responsibility of scientists for the death of Sharikov, but we are once again convinced that life does not fit into any theoretical postulates. The genre of the fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to safely resolve the dramatic situation. But the author's thought about the responsibility of the scientist for the right to experiment sounds warning. Any experiment must be thought through to the end, otherwise its consequences can lead to disaster.

What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand as a result of his experiment? Does the position of the professor coincide with the opinion of the author?In 1925, the story was subtitled "A Monstrous Story".Do you feel the author's attitude to everything that happened to Sharikov?He calls the story of Sharik's transformation into Sharikov monstrous.

- Read the ending. Why does the seemingly happy ending of the story "The Heart of a Dog" not make an optimistic impression on readers?

Why is the story "Heart of a Dog" interesting to the modern reader?

The story "Heart of a Dog", written in 1925, M. Bulgakov did not see printed, as it was confiscated from the author along with his diaries by the OGPU during a search. "Heart of a Dog" - the last satirical story of the writer. Everything that was called the construction of socialism was perceived by the writer Bulgakov as an experiment. The author of the story is skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society by revolutionary, that is, not excluding violence, methods and methods of educating a new person. For him, this was an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous, including for the "experimenters" themselves. This is what the author warns readers about with his work. The story is based on a risky experiment. When Professor Preobrazhensky, in the course of his scientific experiments, unexpectedly for himself, gets a human out of a dog and then tries to educate this creature, he has reason to count on success. After all, he is a great scientist, a man of high culture and high moral standards. But he is defeated. Why? Partly because life itself intervenes in the process of Sharikov's upbringing. First of all, in the person of the pre-house committee Shvonder, who strives to immediately turn this child of experiment into a conscious builder of socialism. He is "stuffed" with slogans. Engels gives to read. This is for yesterday's Sharik. And what about heredity?.. The makings of a homeless, eternally hungry and humiliated dog combined with the makings of a criminal and an alcoholic. This is how Sharikov turned out - a creature, by nature aggressive, arrogant and cruel. He lacked only one thing: the famous revolutionary slogan: "Who was nothing, he will become everything." Shvonder armed Sharikov with an ideological phrase, that is, he is his ideologist, his "spiritual shepherd." The paradox is that, while helping a being with a "dog heart" to establish itself, he is also digging a hole for himself. Setting Sharikov against the professor, Shvonder does not understand that someone else can easily set Sharikov against Shvonder himself. It is enough for a man with a dog's heart to point at anyone, to say that he is an enemy, and Sharikov will humiliate him, destroy him. How it reminds of the Soviet era, and especially the thirties ... Yes, this happens even today. The end of the story with the professor's experiment is almost idyllic. Preobrazhensky returns Sharikov to his original state, and since then everyone has been doing his own thing: the professor - science, Sharik - dog service to the professor. People like Sharikov are proud of their low origin, "average" education, because this distinguishes them from those who are high in spirit and mind, and therefore, in their opinion, should be trampled into the dirt. Only in this way will Sharikov rise above them. You involuntarily ask yourself the question: how many of them were there and how many of them are among us now? Thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands? Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us. This is, for example, a people's judge who, in the interests of a career and the fulfillment of a plan to solve crimes, condemns an innocent. This may be a doctor who turns away from the patient, or an official whose bribes have already become the order of the day. This is a well-known deputy who, at the first opportunity to grab a tidbit, throws off his mask, and, showing his true nature, is ready to betray his voters. Everything that is loftiest and most holy turns into its opposite, because an animal always lives in such people. The Sharikovs, with their truly canine vitality, do not look at anything, they will go everywhere over the heads of others. The heart of a dog in union with the human mind is the main threat of our time. That is why this story, written at the beginning of the century, remains relevant today and serves as a warning to future generations.

The story "Heart of a Dog", written in 1925, M. Bulgakov did not see printed, as it was confiscated from the author along with his diaries by the OGPU during a search. "Heart of a Dog" - the last satirical story of the writer. Everything that was called the construction of socialism was perceived by the writer Bulgakov as an experiment. The author of the story is skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society by revolutionary, that is, not excluding violence, methods and methods of educating a new person. For him, this was an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous, including for the "experimenters" themselves. This is what the author warns readers about with his work. The story is based on a risky experiment. When Professor Preobrazhensky, in the course of his scientific experiments, unexpectedly for himself, gets a human out of a dog and then tries to educate this creature, he has reason to count on success. After all, he is a great scientist, a man of high culture and high moral standards. But he is defeated. Why? Partly because life itself intervenes in the process of Sharikov's upbringing. First of all, in the person of the pre-house committee Shvonder, who strives to immediately turn this child of experiment into a conscious builder of socialism. He is "stuffed" with slogans. Engels gives to read. This is for yesterday's Sharik. And what about heredity?.. The makings of a homeless, eternally hungry and humiliated dog combined with the makings of a criminal and an alcoholic. This is how Sharikov turned out - a creature, by nature aggressive, arrogant and cruel. He lacked only one thing: the famous revolutionary slogan: "Who was nothing, he will become everything." Shvonder armed Sharikov with an ideological phrase, that is, he is his ideologist, his "spiritual shepherd." The paradox is that, while helping a being with a "dog heart" to establish itself, he is also digging a hole for himself. Setting Sharikov against the professor, Shvonder does not understand that someone else can easily set Sharikov against Shvonder himself. It is enough for a man with a dog's heart to point at anyone, to say that he is an enemy, and Sharikov will humiliate him, destroy him. How it reminds of the Soviet era, and especially the thirties ... Yes, this happens even today. The end of the story with the professor's experiment is almost idyllic. Preobrazhensky returns Sharikov to his original state, and since then everyone has been doing his own thing: the professor - science, Sharik - dog service to the professor. People like Sharikov are proud of their low origin, "average" education, because this distinguishes them from those who are high in spirit and mind, and therefore, in their opinion, should be trampled into the dirt. Only in this way will Sharikov rise above them. You involuntarily ask yourself the question: how many of them were there and how many of them are among us now? Thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands? Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us. This is, for example, a people's judge who, in the interests of a career and the fulfillment of a plan to solve crimes, condemns an innocent. This may be a doctor who turns away from the patient, or an official whose bribes have already become the order of the day. This is a well-known deputy who, at the first opportunity to grab a tidbit, throws off his mask, and, showing his true nature, is ready to betray his voters. Everything that is loftiest and most holy turns into its opposite, because an animal always lives in such people. The Sharikovs, with their truly canine vitality, do not look at anything, they will go everywhere over the heads of others. The heart of a dog in union with the human mind is the main threat of our time. That is why this story, written at the beginning of the century, remains relevant today and serves as a warning to future generations.