M.A. Bulgakov opposed various experiments on personality. He saw what was happening in the country and with his story he wanted to show that any experiments can play a cruel joke on the experimenter himself. At that time, there were attempts to create a new society, supposedly more modern and enlightened. But you cannot interfere with natural processes, as the opposite effect may occur.
In Bulgakov's story, Professor Preobrazhensky decided on a unique experiment. He transplanted a human pituitary gland into a human from a dog. The man turned out, but the habits of the dog and the person whose organ the professor used remained. The result is an arrogant and cruel human being. It is precisely a creature, since the language does not turn out to call Sharikov a person.
He rejected everything that was good in society. But he behaved like the most ill-mannered and evil person. In addition, one person imposed certain slogans and ideas on him, and Sharikov obeyed him. Sharikov, like a dog, was ready to rush at whoever was pointed out to him. He was even able to get a position, despite his origin and lack of education.
Bulgakov tries to show the reader that there are many people like Sharikov in any society. These people lead the country to decline, and society under their influence decays. They are ill-mannered and ignorant, and even proud of this, considering themselves better than intelligent people. The problem raised in the story is relevant to this day. Modern society is literally teeming with such Sharikovs and this makes it scary for the future of the country.
the story "Heart of a Dog", written in 1926, is a vivid example of Bulgakov's satire. She develops Gogol's traditions, organically combining two principles: the fantastic and the realistic. This characteristic feature of the writer's satire is embodied in such works of his as "The Devil" and "Fatal Eggs". All three satirical stories contain a warning from the writer addressed to his contemporaries, which was not heard by them. Today we cannot but be amazed by the amazing perspicacity of Bulgakov, who was able to sense the danger of scientific discoveries that got out of control, urging people to be as careful as possible in handling the unknown forces of nature.
The center of the story "Heart of a Dog" is an experiment by Professor Preobrazhensky, which turned the lovely, glorious dog Sharik into a short man of unsympathetic appearance. In this creature, which appeared as a result of scientific experience, the inclinations of an eternally hungry and humiliated dog were combined with the qualities of its human donor - an alcoholic and criminal Klim Chugunkin. This heredity makes the process of bringing up Sharikov very difficult. On the one hand, Professor Preobrazhensky and his assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, are unsuccessfully trying to instill in him the rules of good manners, to develop and educate him. But of the entire system of cultural events, Sharikov likes only the circus, for he calls the theater counter-revolution, and does not have the slightest interest in books. On the one hand, life itself interferes with Sharikov's upbringing. First of all, in the person of the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, who seeks to turn yesterday's Sharik into a conscious builder of socialism as soon as possible, stuffing him with proletarian slogans and books such as the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky. Many of the statements of Polygraph Poligrafich are clearly borrowed from his benefactor Shvonder, who deliberately incites his pupil against the hated professor. The chairman of the house committee cannot forget his shameful defeat in Preobrazhensky's apartment, come to terms with the fact that the professor still occupies seven rooms and is not subject to any compaction, because the life of influential chiefs depends on his talent as a surgeon. This means that Shvonder sees in Sharikov a kind of instrument of revenge.
By showing how Sharikov's evolution takes place, how he gradually becomes more insolent and more aggressive, Bulgakov makes the reader, laughing merrily at comic situations and witty remarks, feel the terrible danger of Sharikovism, this new social phenomenon that began to emerge in the 1920s. The revolutionary government encourages snitching and denunciations, releasing the basest instincts of uncultured and uneducated people. It gives them a sense of power over smart, cultured, intelligent people. The Sharikovs, who have seized power, pose a terrible threat to society. Bulgakov also touches on the reasons for their appearance in his story. If Sharikov arose as a result of the scientific experience of Professor Preobrazhensky, then such people with a dog's heart may appear as a result of that risky experiment, which in our country was called the building of socialism, an experiment of enormous scale and very dangerous. An attempt to create a new just society, to educate a free and conscientious person by revolutionary, that is, violent methods, according to the writer, was initially doomed to failure. After all, the desire "to the ground" to destroy the old world with its eternal universal human moral values \u200b\u200band to build life on a fundamentally new basis means forcibly intervening in the natural course of things. The consequences of this intervention will be dire. Philip Philipovich understands this when he sadly reflects on why his brilliant scientific experiment gave rise to a real monster, which began to pose a mortal danger to everyone around him. This happened because the researcher violated the laws of nature, and this should never be done.
1. Is it possible to consider M. A Bulgakov's story only as an entertaining story of the transformation of a dog into a person and the transformation of a person into a dog?
2. "Sharikovism" and "Shvonderism" - how to understand these terms. Dog's heart.
3.Why do you think the story of a dog's heart turned out to be interesting to numerous readers and viewers many decades after its creation
1. The story is a masterpiece of Bulgakov's satire, which is helped by science fiction to reflect the reality of the 1920s.
E. Zamyatin called Bulgakov's prose "fiction, rooted in everyday life."
2. "Sharikovism" is petty vindictiveness, when the inability to bite may well be compensated for by yapping from a distance. This is raking in the heat with someone else's hands and the readiness to screech and curl the tail at any moment.
"Sharikovshchina" is a reluctance to escape from its limited and often dirty environment. This ostentatious darkness - "there is absolutely no need to learn to read, when meat already smells a mile away."
This is the ability to draw primitive conclusions from even the smartest things, subordinate to selfish interests.
Sharikovism is ingratitude in all its manifestations, even to those who gave you life. It's painful pride - "I didn't ask you."
This is selfishness and unwillingness to understand people who differ in the way of thinking. It is much easier to declare them irresponsible - it is always easier to blame the other for the meager mind than to admit your own poverty of mind.
Sharikovism is an elementary everyday meanness. This is a carrot-and-stick method for a knowingly defenseless person. You should be mine. And if today you give up cars and pineapples, then tomorrow you will be downsized. One could continue, but everything is already clear. Clear and scary. After all, "Sharikovism" is not only the focus of abomination and vices. It is also the surest way to survive among people. Anyone who lives by the method of Polygraph Poligrafovich is invulnerable. He will be able to get out of any turmoil, he will defeat any opponent, he will overcome any obstacle.
Sharikov's main ally is the chairman of the house committee Shvonder. Shvonder generates "Sharikovism" no worse than Polygraph Poligrafovich himself.
Shvonder sees in Sharikov his twin, brother. And therefore he takes an active part in shaping the fate of the experiment product. And he gives him a name and subsequently suits him for a position. And Sharikov only needs that - he grows in his own eyes, he has more and more courage and impudence to stick out his chest in front of Bormental and Preobrazhensky. Indeed, there is actually an exact repetition of the domestication of the vagrant. There was a homeless dog Sharik - he became a professor's favorite, was a rootless product of medical experience - he became the head of cleaning. Only now Sharikov is being tamed by Shvonder.
3.Sharikovism proved to be tenacious.
No ... this is an allegorical description ... of reality at the time. ...
Sharikovshchina ... He talks about how in those days ... bloody massacres narrow-minded people from the street rabble ... could decide the fate of people .. (bloody executions of the troika)
Everyone finds something of their own in his stories ... but you cannot drive the answer into some framework
LITERATURE LESSON. GRADE 11.
Experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky.
(Lesson-reflection on the story of M.A.Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog")
Org moment. Experiment with the coffee question.
The story also describes an experiment. Who is conducting it? The topic of our lesson:Experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. Write it down. What is the main question? What do we need to find out?
What are the results?
Write down the goal: to evaluate the experiment. Does the professor have a responsibility?
Dictionary work.Before we start our conversation, let's remember the meaning of the wordexperiment.
(Experiment - 1. Scientific experience. 2. In general - experience, an attempt to do, to undertake something.)
How is it different from simple observation?Experiment - experience, trial.
Experiment (from lat. experimentum - trial, experience), a method of cognition, with the help of which the phenomena of reality are investigated in controlled and controlled conditions. Differing fromobservation active operation of the object under study,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 taskexperiment serves to test hypotheses and predictions of a theory that are of fundamental importance (the so-called decisiveexperiment). In this regard, experiment , as one of the forms of practice, serves as a criterion for the truth of scientific knowledge as a whole.
An experiment is an experimental study of the effect of a single factor (or several factors) on a variable of interest to the researcher.
Now pay attention to the words that are found 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 "about the improvement of the human breed", based on the ideas and conclusions of genetics of the 20s of the twentieth century.
Evolution - development, a process of gradual continuous quantitative change of something or someone, preparing qualitative changes.
- Let us recall the composition of the story. How the experiment is described.
Part 1 - From whom is the story told? in part I it is Sharik (especially in chapter 1) and the author, part II (chapter 5) opens with the diary of Dr. Bormental, and from chapter 6 the story is again led by the author.Epilogue
Why does Bulgakov give 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, what is the attitude of those around him: Sharik, servants, patients? List by chapter what rules of life the professor proclaims?Write on A4 sheet, with what is the purpose of the professor conducting an experimental operation?
Additional questions What does the name Preobrazhensky say
Group 2. 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 and what are not? What does Sharik notice in the surrounding reality 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?
Group 3. 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? How is Sharikov gradually becoming? What are the requirements of Sh. To the professor?Write on sheet A4, what qualities of qualities appeared in Sharikov after the operation?
Talking about the development of Sharikov, the author emphasizes the remaining canine traits 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 barks indignantly in conversations. But it is not the outward manifestations of a dog's nature that disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistenka. The impudence that seemed sweet and harmless in a dog becomes unbearable in a person who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, not at all intending to "learn and become at least some acceptable member of society." His morality is different: he is not a NEPman, therefore, he is a worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: in this way Sharikov shares the idea of \u200b\u200b"sharing everything" that is captivating for the mob. Sharikov took on the worst, most terrible qualities of both a dog and a man. The experiment led to the creation of a monster that, in its baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, or at betrayal, or at murder; who understands only strength, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything that he obeyed at the first opportunity. A dog should remain a dog, and a person should remain a person.
There is very little information about Klim in the story. Almost all of them are given in Dr. Bormental's diary:
"(A loose leaf in the notebook)
Klim Grigorievich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. He was tried 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). The cause of death is a stab in the heart in a pub ... "
This short note of the doctor has a lot to tell the reader. The physique of Sharikov inherits from Klim, as, probably, the features of appearance, which indicate the general mental underdevelopment of its owner (you can re-read the portrait of Sharikov, given by Bulgakov in Chapter 6). The writer focuses on alcoholism and Klim's criminal past, sneering at Soviet laws (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 a livelihood by stealing and playing the balalaika (as it turns out, virtuoso, given the paucity 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 - balalaika. You must agree that a virtuoso playing on any musical instrument requires not only technique, but also a soul. The "dashing dexterity" that Professor Preobrazhensky hears in the sounds of the "cunning variation" is the latent possibilities of Chugunkin's soul, which has not finally become human. 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, makes a brawl 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 inconveniences do Sh. Bring into his life? How does he feel about Sharikov? What educational measures is taking?Write on sheet A4, what new experience did the Sharik experience bring to the professor's work?
5 group. Shvonder.
Tell us about Shvonder. Why does the professor say that "Shvonder is the main fool"? Does he understand who he is dealing with? Why do Sharikov and Shvonder find a common language so quickly? Write on sheet A4, what role did Shvonder play in Sharikov's education?
Shvonder hates the professor, because, feeling the scientist's hostility, he is unable to prove it and "explain" his true anti-revolutionary essence (and here you cannot refuse Shvonder's intuition!) For Shvonder, Sharikov is an instrument of struggle with the professor: after all, it was Shvonder who taught Sharikov to demand living space , 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 out into the open and destroyed in the name of a future happy life. Shvonder’s poor head doesn’t understand why a man, who by all accounts is an enemy of the Soviet regime, is under its protection!
So, the "godfather" of Polygraph Poligrafovich instills in his pupil the idea of \u200b\u200buniversal equality, brotherhood and freedom. Getting into a consciousness dominated by animal instincts, they only multiply 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 is taking 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, which he "develops" so hard.
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 can be ineffective. Bulgakov's story violates the main condition of the educational process - its two-sided character, its dialogical nature; there is no connection between teacher and student. For everyone, this is an involuntary matter, imposed by circumstances, interfering with living as he wants. In addition, Sharikov has another teacher - Shvonder. This one brings up with inspiration (after all, the Bolsheviks are striving to remake everyone), and its science is much simpler than a professor's - "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 strive for this at all. The miscalculation made Philip Philipovich think and understand that a researcher should "walk in parallel and groping 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 have been banned in the USSR.
Why was it banned?
The writer uses an allegory - is this?Allegory, - allegory ; in broad use - a latent form of expression, literary device
Is it possible to compare the experiment of Dr. Preobrazhensky with the social experiment carried out by the Bolsheviks in 1917? Why did both experiments fail?
Through allegory, a 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, a new order. The story was written in 1925, when it was still possible not only to fear a gloomy, unpredictable future, but also to feel hope for a successful outcome of the troubled time. It turns out that it is easier to carry out a complex operation than to reeducate (and not educate) an already formed “person” when he does not want, does not feel the 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 they had not to educate, but to reeducate millions of people, who tried to defend culture, morality and paid with their lives for the illusions embodied in reality.
Is the epilogue of the story optimistic?
Forced self-defense, of course, somewhat softens in the eyes of the author and the reader the responsibility of scientists for Sharikov's death, but we are once again convinced that life does not fit into any theoretical postulates. The genre of the fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to successfully 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 out 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 had the subtitle "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 doesn't the seemingly happy ending of the story "Heart of a Dog" make an optimistic impression on the 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 in print, since it was confiscated from the author together in his diaries by OGPU officers during a search. "Heart of a Dog" is 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, it was an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be dire, including for the "experimenters" themselves. It is about this that the author warns readers 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 man out of a dog and then tries to educate this creature, he has reason to count on success. After all, he is an outstanding scientist, a man of high culture and high moral standards. But he is defeated. Why? Partly because life itself interferes with Sharikov's upbringing. First of all, in the person of the pre-house committee of Shvonder, who strives to immediately turn this child of the experiment into a conscious builder of socialism. He "stuffs" it with slogans. Engels gives to read. This is yesterday's Shariku something. And heredity? .. The makings of a homeless, eternally hungry and humiliated dog combined with the makings of a criminal and an alcoholic. And so it turned out Sharikov - a creature, by nature, aggressive, arrogant and cruel. Only one thing he lacked: the well-known 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, helping to establish a creature with a "dog's heart", he is digging a hole for himself. While 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 resembles the Soviet era and especially the thirties ... Yes, and today it happens. The ending of the story with the professorial 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 mind, should be trampled into the mud. Only in this way will Sharikov rise above them. You involuntarily ask yourself the question: how many were there and how many are there 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, the people's judge, who, in the interests of his career and the fulfillment of the plan to solve crimes, condemns an innocent. It can be a doctor who turns away from a patient, or an official whose bribes have already become the order of things. This is a well-known deputy who, at the first opportunity to grab a tidbit, throws off his mask, and, showing his true essence, is ready to betray his voters. All the highest and most sacred 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 alliance 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.