to page 2
The work of M. A. Bulgakov is the largest phenomenon of Russian fiction of the 20th century. Its main theme can be considered the theme of “the tragedy of the Russian people”. The writer was a contemporary of all those tragic events that took place in Russia in the first half of our century. And the most frank views of M. A. Bulgakov on the fate of his country are expressed, in my opinion, in the story “Heart of a Dog”. The story is based on a great experiment. The protagonist of the story - Professor Preobrazhensky, who is the type of people closest to Bulgakov, the type of Russian intellectual - conceives a kind of competition with Nature itself. His experiment is fantastic: to create a new person by transplanting part of the human brain into a dog. Moreover, the action of the story takes place on Christmas Eve, and the professor bears the surname Preobrazhensky. And the experiment becomes a parody of Christmas, an anti-creation. But, alas, the scientist realizes all the immorality of violence against the natural course of life too late. To create a new man, the scientist takes the pituitary gland of the "proletarian" - the alcoholic and parasite Klim Chugunkin. And now, as a result of the most complicated operation, an ugly, primitive creature appears, who has completely inherited the “proletarian” essence of his “ancestor”. The first words he uttered were swearing, the first distinct word was “bourgeois”. And then - street expressions: “do not push!”, “scoundrel”, “get off the bandwagon” and so on. A disgusting “man of small stature and unsympathetic appearance” appears. A monstrous homunculus, a man with a dog disposition, whose “base” was a lumpen proletarian, feels himself the master of life; he is arrogant, arrogant, aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, Bormental and a humanoid being is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. Despite the discontent of the owner of the house, Sharikov lives in his own way, primitive and stupid: during the day he mostly sleeps in the kitchen, messing around, doing all sorts of outrages, confident that “at present everyone has his own right” . Of course, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is not trying to depict this scientific experiment in itself in his story. The story is based primarily on allegory. It is not only about the scientist's responsibility for his experiment, about the inability to see the consequences of his actions, about the huge difference between evolutionary changes and a revolutionary invasion of life. The story "Heart of a Dog" carries an extremely clear author's view of everything that happens in the country. Everything that happened around was also perceived by M. A. Bulgakov precisely as an experiment - huge in scale and more than dangerous. He saw that in Russia they were also striving to create a new type of person. A man who is proud of his ignorance, low origin, but who received huge rights from the state. It is such a person who is convenient for the new government, because he will put in the dirt those who are independent, smart, high in spirit. M. A. Bulgakov considers the reorganization of Russian life an interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous. But do those who conceived their experiment realize that it can also hit the “experimenters”, do they understand that the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural development of society, and therefore can lead to consequences that no one can control ? It is these questions, in my opinion, that M. A. Bulgakov poses in his work. In the story, Professor Preobrazhensky manages to return everything to its place: Sharikov again becomes an ordinary dog. Will we ever be able to correct all those mistakes, the results of which we still experience for ourselves?
The answer to these questions (any of them): 1) What is Bulgakov's satire directed against in the story "Heart of a Dog"? 2) What is the meaning of the namestory "Heart of a Dog"?
3) A new social situation and psychology in the story "Heart of a Dog"?
URGENT NODO, PLEASE HELP!
change the words so she doesn't notice it's from the internet Please help
We live in an age of scientific and technological progress. Are we lucky? Certainly yes. Cell phones, email, computers, etc. Live dogs are being replaced by robotic dogs. In Japan, lonely people buy themselves a robot - a friend with whom they can play chess, pour out their souls, and if they get bored, they can turn it off and put it in a corner. On the one hand, it seems to be not bad, a person is not alone, but on the other hand, can a robot replace communication with a living person? What distinguishes a living person from a robot? (Soul) Soul... And what is the soul? The great minds of mankind have struggled with this question. Let's do our part too. What words are attracted to the word "soul" and create its environment? Perhaps it will be not only words, but also sounds, gestures, colors. Don't let your soul be lazy! In order not to crush water in a mortar, the Soul must work Day and night, and day and night!
"SHARIKOVSHINA". Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is one of the most significant writers and playwrights of the 20th century. Diverse in theme and style, his work is marked by the greatest artistic discoveries. Seeing and sharply criticizing all the shortcomings of the bourgeois system, the writer also did not recognize the idealized attitude towards the revolution and the proletariat. The topical criticism of the phenomena of social and political life of that time reaches its peak in the story "Heart of a Dog", filled with vivid grotesque and satirical images and paintings.
Having affirmed the cultural and spiritual values of mankind all his life, Bulgakov could not calmly relate to how, before his eyes, these values were being lost, deliberately destroyed, losing their meaning for a society subject to the “mass hypnosis” of revolutionary changes. The story "Heart of a Dog" was called by critics "a sharp pamphlet on modernity." But time has shown that the issues raised in the work are relevant not only for the era in which Bulgakov lived and worked. The phenomena described in the story and the images created by the author remain relevant today.
The writer perceived the revolution as a dangerous experiment with living life, when an accidental discovery is the basis of a thoughtless experiment leading humanity to disaster. And the main danger lies not in the changes taking place with people, but in the nature of these changes, in the way, by what methods these changes are achieved. Evolution also changes a person, but the difference lies in the fact that evolution is predictable, and the experiment is not, because it always hides unaccounted for opportunities. M. Bulgakov shows us what dramatic consequences this can lead to. Professor Preobrazhensky transplants the human pituitary gland into a mongrel named Sharik, resulting in a completely new creature - a homunculus named Sharikov.
“A new field is opening up in science: a homunculus has been created without any Faustian retort. The surgeon's scalpel brought to life a new human unit. A unique human experiment has been carried out. But how terrible this experiment will be, the heroes have yet to find out.
What happens when all these human and animal qualities are combined in a new being? “Here’s what: two convictions, alcoholism, “divide everything”, a hat and two gold coins are gone ... - a boor and a pig ...” Sharikov, whom his creator prevents from living the way he wants, seeks to destroy his “daddy” with the help of a political denunciation.
Of course, people from the breed of "simplifiers and equalizers" played an important role here, in whose person the revolutionary idea appeared in its hypertrophied appearance. Such people seek to undo the complex culture created by European humanity. Shvonder is trying to subordinate Sharikov to his ideology, but does not take into account the fact that the human race itself has degraded in Polygraph Poligrafovich, and therefore he does not need any ideology. “He does not understand that Sharikov is a more formidable danger for him than for me,” says Preobrazhensky. - Well, now he is trying in every possible way to set him on me, not realizing that if Someone, in turn, sets Sharikov on Shvonder himself, then only horns and legs will remain of him.
Bulgakov was very worried about such consequences of combining a revolutionary experiment with the psychology of a human crowd. Therefore, in his work, he seeks to warn people about the danger threatening society: the process of forming balls can get out of control and it will be disastrous for those who contributed to their appearance. At the same time, the blame falls equally on the "fools" of the Shvonderov and the "wise men" of the Preobrazhenskys. After all, the idea of an experiment with a person, born in a scientist's office, has long gone out into the street, embodied in revolutionary transformations. Therefore, the writer raises the question of the responsibility of thinkers for the development of ideas launched into life.
It is no coincidence that Sharikov so easily finds his social niche in human society. There are already masses of people like him, only created not in the laboratory of a scientist, but in the laboratory of the revolution. They begin to indiscriminately suppress everything that does not fit into the framework of their ideology - from the bourgeoisie to the Russian intelligentsia. The Sharikovs gradually occupy all the highest echelons of power and begin to poison the lives of normal people. Moreover, they take upon themselves the right to dispose of this life. “Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.”
An opponent of all violence, Professor Preobrazhensky, as the only possible way of influencing a rational being, recognizes only affection: “You can’t do anything with terror,” he says ... “I affirm this, I have affirmed and I will affirm. They think in vain that terror will help them. No-sir, no-sir, it won't help, no matter what it is - white, red and even brown! Terror completely paralyzes the nervous system*. Yet his attempts to instill elementary cultural skills in Sharikov fail.
“At present, everyone has his own right,” Sharikov says to Professor Preobrazhensky, and behind the harmlessness of the phrase lies the very essence of “Sharikovism.” Indeed, in fact, this phenomenon is by no means new, it has always existed and, unfortunately, its eradication is not expected. But what is "Sharikovism"? Before giving an answer to this question, it is necessary to trace the character of the "Heart of a Dog" who was awarded the dubious honor of giving his name to an ancient problem like the world.
So, we have Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich, a man obtained by transplanting a stray dog with the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the murdered Klim Chugunkin. In other words, two people in one.
The first half of the character is Sharik, or rather a homeless dog, who was named so by the “typist of the IX category” Vasnetsova. In fact, he cannot find any special vices, but there are enough reasons for pity and sympathy: a burned side, the threat of starvation, naive dreams of summer, sausage skins and special medicinal herbs. And how touching are the thoughts of the dog in front of the mirror, when he, already fed and cured, is looking for the features of a purebred aristocratic dog in his mongrel appearance. “I am handsome. Perhaps an unknown incognito prince, ”he thinks, and reading these lines, it is absolutely impossible not to smile. But not because it's funny, but because it is so reminiscent of the fun of a child who imagines himself a machinist and enthusiastically "steers" a train from a pair of stools.
Sharik is a being who knows how to sincerely pity (the same typist Vasnetsova), who can be devoted and feel real gratitude. And let this gratitude look obsequious, but it is there, it is not hypocritical - where can hypocrisy come from next to the bitter lot of a tramp?
And the shortcomings that are also present in the future person are completely forgivable for a dog from the street. Dislike for cats, excessive curiosity, the result of which was a torn stuffed owl, a certain amount of cunning and impudence - all this is harmless. Moreover, without these qualities (with the exception of hatred of cats), a stray dog cannot survive. He must be able to sniff out something edible in the garbage, and steal a tidbit from a gaping person, and stand up for himself in competition with other stray dogs. Here, after all, the law of the jungle works in full force: it was not for nothing that Sharik prophesied his inevitable death due to a burned side.
A very clear evidence of Sharik's kindness is the phrase that flashed through his thoughts, in the thoughts of a frightened dog, confident in his doom, when he was stunned with chloroform to heal his wounded side. "Brothers flayers, why do you me?" - there is only resentment and nothing more. Even the knackers, fierce enemies of the wandering beast, Sharik calls "brothers."
But the second half of the brainchild of Professor Preobrazhensky is in some way the same devil that stands behind the left shoulder of every person. During his lifetime, Klim Grigoryevich Chugunkin had two convictions for theft, was sentenced to hard labor on probation, abused alcohol and hunted by playing the balalaika in taverns. He also died quite characteristically - from a knife blow. Especially for people like Chugunkin, there is a definition of "declassed element".
We can safely say that the unfortunate experimental dog was very unlucky with an organ donor for transplantation. A ball, which can be safely equated with a child, received a neighbor in his body of a criminal, a life-burner and a thief. In addition, a scoundrel, completely devoid of a sense of gratitude to the one who actually resurrected his worthless essence, who gave him a chance to live a little longer in this world.
Although, if you take a closer look, it becomes clear that gratitude cannot be taken from anywhere. Judge for yourself - well, what did he see in his life, this same Klim Chugunkin? - Tavern ragamuffins, walking girls, drunken brawls - the usual and terrible dirt of the city bottom in its everyday life. This is a swamp that does not let out an accidentally failed victim from its sticky embrace, but for the original inhabitants it is no less dear than a cozy apartment for a person, and a nest on a tall tree for a bird. The ugly and ugly creatures of this swamp swarm in the rotten mud, devour each other and do not even try to find a better fate for themselves. But at the same time, they see those who live differently. City lumpens, barefoot taverns, barefoot - their whole life goes from drinking to heavy sleep, from a hangover to odd jobs, then back to drinking. Sometimes the vicious circle expands with theft, robbery, robbery (additional livelihood), a fight, a fleeting affair with a shabby girl of no one knows how fresh. And on this, the habitat of thousands of Klimov Chuzhankins is closed, like a magic circle that does not let anyone or anything inside. But he does not hide the rest of the world. Expensive shops, lovely young ladies, sparkling cars (a rare and expensive ultimate dream), apartments with many rooms - these are just a small part of the reasons for fierce, black envy. And black envy is incapable of generating good feelings even for the one who pulled you from the brink of death. And again in the text we find a description of Chugunkin's soul, outlined in a few very apt words: "two convictions, alcoholism," to divide everything ", a hat and two gold pieces were gone."
Sharing someone else's is also their special ability, which has reached the level of art. And also an argument to justify their own insignificance: why bend your back for years, if you can right now claim your share from someone who is richer. Motive? Yes, because all people should be equal. Oh, the lumpen supported this slogan of the revolution especially strongly - it gave them a sense of their own significance, justified the thirst for someone else's, gratuitous good. "Why are we worse?!" - the Klimas of the Chuzhkinkins were surprised - and reveled in the opportunity to sleep on downy featherbeds, eat silverware from expensive china, wear patent leather shoes and sculpt partitions in apartments that once belonged to the rich.
However, let us return to Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. For all its vileness, this character deserves close consideration. There is no need to justify him in any way - he didn’t deserve it, but he should be understood, because otherwise “Sharikovism” will not be recognized in all its abomination, which means that we will not receive proper immunity to it.
Klim Chugunkin becomes a crooked mirror, disfiguring all the features that Polygraph Poligrafovich inherited from the dog. Even the typist Vasnetsova, whom Sharik felt so sorry for at the beginning of the story, at the end becomes a victim of the newly-minted "head of the subdepartment for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals." Although the "cunning" Sharikov is trying to hide his fraud behind the desire for good for the unfortunate woman. Well, at least it didn’t come to declarations of love, otherwise the vile trace of a half-human trapper, stinking no less strongly than he himself, would have remained here. By the way, in what terrible flesh the eternal hostility of cats and dogs has been clothed! Previously, a dog could chase a meowing victim, drive it up a tree, and bark. But it is unlikely that he could cause real harm to the cat. After all, she, too, has teeth and claws and is capable of excellently standing up for herself, defending herself from anyone, provided that this "someone" walks on four legs. Neither a tooth nor a claw will save from a person; even quick paws are a very bad remedy against him. He is smarter, he is armed, he is ruthless even without a dog's heart, and with him ... "they will go to the polls, we will make squirrels out of them for a working loan." I wonder if it came to hunting stray dogs? However, the quirky ingenuity of the balalaika player Chugunkin would certainly have prompted Sharikov here as well how to maintain a “clear conscience”. And cats - why stand on ceremony with them? Especially if you are a dog in the past.
In general, not in the past. The human form has become just a screen for the animal essence of Polygraph Poligrafovich. No wonder the fleas tormented him even when the transformation took place completely. They, primitive, guided only by the simplest instincts, cannot be confused. All the time, from that blizzard evening when the stray dog first crossed the threshold of the professor's apartment, and right up to the last paragraph of the story, an animal lived under the same roof with the surgical genius Philip Philipovich. Only his character changed from good to nightmarish.
From his homeless life, Sharik-Sharikov retained his cowardice, combined with his readiness to bite at a convenient opportunity. When Dr. Bormenthal took the impudent one by the throat, he tucked his tail in and whined. But there were, after all, anonymous letters with ridiculous accusations, and a threat with a revolver, and an instant change in behavior - as soon as Polygraph Poligrafovich got documents. Nothing surprising either - well, which of the disenfranchised stray dogs will miss the opportunity to take revenge on the offender? Figuratively speaking, documents are the same fangs, only prepared and sharpened specifically for a person, making it possible to tear him to pieces so as not to be guilty and not go to jail. In humans, too, the laws are not very different from those of animals. Only if the law of the jungle does not recognize allies, then the law of man welcomes them and even partially generates them.
Sharikov's main ally is the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder. And since we are not considering Sharikov, but "Sharikovism", it is necessary to study him as if under a magnifying glass, for Shvonder generates "Sharikovism" no worse than Polygraph Poligrafovich himself.
First, Shvonder has no name. Only a surname, and even then more like a nickname, and at the same time a biting and unpleasant word "trash". You can't think of a better illustration for the saying "from rags to riches". He, too, underwent a transformation, ascending from a thief of galoshes to the chairman of a housing association. What is characteristic - give him free rein - he will continue to steal galoshes even now.
Shvonder is a typical brainchild of its time. Being absolutely useless in the role of a productive unit, he is very much in his place where you need to take away and divide. In any case, the manager of the house would have seized Preobrazhensky with a death grip and probably would have bitten off an eyesore kush - supposedly an extra room. But the professor found powerful patrons, and Shvonder had to behave quite like a dog: to tuck his tail and squeal in fright, and when the immediate danger to the skin recedes, to assert himself at least by yelping after him. Let's remember the note in the newspaper, signed "Shv ... r". The very one: “Everyone knows how to occupy seven rooms until the shining sword of justice flashed over him with a red beam.” To speak beautifully is the strong point of a lumpen who has seized upon the leadership of at least the most insignificant structure.
Through Polygraph Poligrafovich, Shvonder hopes to find the weak spot of Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. The professor himself is a high-flying bird, but on the other hand, Sharikov is supposedly registered in his apartment at sixteen arshins, and his petty mutt psychology can easily be influenced. Let Preobrazhensky still have seven rooms, but on the other hand, the conscious element Poligraf Poligrafovich will also live there, who, from reading the correspondence between Marx and Kautsky, learned for himself the main thing: “Take everything and divide it up.” Otherwise, the head will swell.
Shvonder sees in Sharikov his twin, brother. And therefore takes a lively part in shaping the fate of the product of the experiment. And he gives him a name and subsequently arranges for a position. And Sharikov only needs this - he grows in his own eyes, he has more and more courage and impudence to puff out his chest in front of Bormental and Preobrazhensky. After all, in fact, there is an exact repetition of the domestication of the tramp. There was a homeless dog Sharik - he became a professor's pet, there was a rootless product of medical experience - he became the head of cleaning. Only now Sharikov is tamed by Shvonder.
And now we can talk about "Sharikovism". So what is it? Random ingratitude or long-established social phenomenon? Rather, the second. Because at all times there were denunciations and envy of those who succeeded. There has always been vindictiveness and a willingness to bite from behind, and even if it is scary to do this, then at least the opportunity to bark at a person.
Is it really only in Polygraph Poligrafovich that petty swagger can be found, the dimensions of which are many times greater than the actual significance of the position he occupies. Why go far for examples? How many petty officials are there who consider themselves the masters of this world, how many porters imagine themselves superior to the director? Is it really only on the pages of "The Heart of a Dog" that we come across the primitiveness of judgments, hiding under the guise of worldly experience and wisdom?
And is illegibility in ends and means only a literary fiction? Of course no. The story with the typist Vasnetsova could well have been taken from a real, non-bookish life. How many of them are there in the world - women who are not considered human by all sorts of "benefactors", who are quite capable of giving phildepers stockings and promising pineapples, but only in exchange for dog-like, unconditional devotion. Shvonder's anonymous letters seem childish compared to the tricks that people use not in books to get the coveted living space. Cat hunting is nothing compared to the baiting that a person is able to arrange for his fellow. At least a coat will be sewn from the skin of a dead cat, but a person will simply be mixed with mud. There is no practical benefit, but self-satisfaction is of the highest class.
Singing in a choir instead of doing business is also familiar to each of us, not only from the words of Bulgakov. And this is also one of the manifestations of Sharikovism. In dogs, it looks like howling at the moon. A person, as usual, has an ideological base for everything. Domkom led by Shvonder cannot but sing. Then their service to proletarian ideals will be incomplete. Jackals who have torn apart the victim always declare their success with a joyful squeal. And if Professor Preobrazhensky declares that the devastation in the country is precisely due to the fact that people sing in chorus instead of doing business, then this statement comes from him, the professor, bourgeois irresponsibility. “If there were a discussion now,” the woman began, agitated and blushing, “I would prove to Pyotr Alexandrovich ...” Of course, it is much easier to engage in verbal duels than to build the very housing that the class-conscious proletarians engaged in ebullient revolutionary activity are always lacking.
"Sharikovism" is omnipresent and all-pervading. Each person, regardless of the conditions and circumstances of his birth and upbringing, lives his own Polygraph Poligrafovich. Only some manage to take him by the throat, becoming like Bormental, while others simply let the creature go free and do not notice that the heart beating in their chest is no longer human, but canine.
Well, it remains to draw a conclusion, to give the final formulation of "Sharikovism". Having studied Polygraph Poligrafovich, looking closely at Shvonder, comparing what is described in the story with the realities of life, we can do this.
"Sharikovshchina" is a petty vindictiveness, when the impossibility of biting may well be compensated by yelping from afar. This is the raking of heat with the wrong hands and the readiness to squeal and tuck your tail at any moment.
"Sharikovshchina" is the unwillingness to break out of one's limited and often dirty environment. This demonstrative darkness - "learning to read is absolutely useless when the meat smells like that from a mile away." This is the ability to draw primitive conclusions, subordinated to selfish interests, even from the most intelligent things.
"Sharikovschina" is ingratitude in all its manifestations, even to those who gave you life. It's a painful pride - "I didn't ask you." This is selfishness and unwillingness to understand people who differ in their way of thinking. It is much easier to declare them unconscious - it is always easier to accuse another of stupidity than to admit one's own poverty of the mind.
"Sharikovshchina" is an elementary worldly meanness. This is a method of stick and carrot to a deliberately defenseless person. You must be mine. And if today you refuse cars and pineapples, then tomorrow you will be laid off.
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. The one who lives according to the method of Polygraph Poligrafovich is invulnerable. He will be able to get out of any trouble, he will defeat any opponent, he will overcome any obstacle.
And in his eyes, victory will be cheap - what can be more useless than another person? Elephants - and those creatures are needed.
"Sharikovshchina" cannot be obeyed. Because, as Professor Preobrazhensky wisely remarked: "Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people."
Composition on the topic: WHAT IS "SHARIKOVSHINA"
The concept of "Sharikovism" appeared in our language thanks to the story of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog", created by the writer in 1925. It is traditionally believed that this work was conceived as a political satire, the purpose of which was to expose the vices of post-revolutionary society and question the very idea of interfering with the natural course of history.
The plot of the story is based on an experiment conducted by Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky on the yard dog Sharik. The scientist was looking for a way to rejuvenate the body, and for this he transplanted the internal organs of the recently deceased drunkard and rowdy Klim Chugunkin to the dog.
This experiment was a success, and from an ordinary mongrel Sharik turned into a man who proclaimed himself Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. This character is a collective image and personifies a typical representative of the proletariat and the bearer of the values of this social class.
After the revolution, such people received an unexpectedly large number of rights, which, according to Bulgakov, led to the discovery of their true nature. Selfishness, encroachment on other people's property, a complete lack of moral principles and absolute illiteracy - this is commonly understood as the phenomenon of Sharikovism.
How is Sharikov behaving? He drinks, swears with swear words, rowdy and does not recognize authorities. However, this does not prevent him from quickly picking up the Bolshevik ideas about social equality: “Well, then: one settled in seven rooms ... and the other wanders around, looking for food in trash boxes.”
Bulgakov's creative path is full of drama. He entered literature with rich life experience. After the university, which he graduated from in the medical field, Bulgakov worked as a zemstvo doctor in the Nikolskaya hospital of the Sychevsky district. In 1918-1919 he ended up in Kyiv and witnessed Petliura's Odyssey. These impressions were reflected in many of his novels, up to the novel The White Guard and the play Days of the Turbins. Bulgakov did not immediately accept the revolution. After the war, Bulgakov began working in the theater and newspapers. Arriving in Moscow in the autumn of 1921, Bulgakov took up journalism. Bulgakov strove to solve the most acute problems of the time, to be more original - both in philosophical views and in satire. The result of this was sharp contradictions in his works. One of them was "Heart of a Dog".
The plot events in the work were based on a real contradiction. Professor Preobrazhensky, a world-famous physiologist, discovered the secret of the pituitary gland - an appendage of the brain. The operation that the scientist performed on the dog, transplanting the human pituitary gland into his brain, gave unexpected results. Sharik not only acquired a human appearance, but he was inherited in the genes by inheritance all the character traits and features of the nature of Klim Chugunkin, twenty-five years old, a drunkard, a thief.
Bulgakov transfers the scene of the “Heart of a Dog” to Moscow, to Prechistenka. Moscow is real, even naturalistic, conveyed through the perception of Sharik - a homeless mongrel dog, "knowing" life from the inside, in its unsightly form.
New Economic Policy Moscow: with chic restaurants, “a canteen of normal food for employees of the Central Council of the National Economy”, where cabbage soup is cooked “from stinky corned beef”. Moscow, where "proletarians", "comrades" and "gentlemen" live. The revolution only distorted the face of the ancient capital: it turned inside out its mansions, its tenement houses (like, for example, the Kalabukhovsky house, where the hero of the story lives).
One of the main characters of the story, Professor Preobrazhensky, a world-famous scientist and doctor, belongs to such “condensed” and gradually ousted from life. They don’t touch him yet - fame protects. But representatives of the house management have already visited him, showing tireless concern for the fate of the proletariat: is it not too great a luxury to operate in the operating room, eat in the dining room, sleep in the bedroom; it is quite enough to connect an observation room and an office, a dining room and a bedroom.
Since 1903, Preobrazhensky has been living in the Kalabukhov house. Here are his observations: until April 1917, there was not a single case that at least one pair of galoshes would disappear from our front door downstairs with the common door unlocked. Notice there are twelve apartments here, I have a reception. On April 17, one fine day, all the galoshes disappeared, including two pairs of mine, three sticks, an overcoat and a samovar from the porter. And since then, the galoshes stand has ceased to exist. Why, when this whole story began, did everyone start walking in dirty galoshes and felt boots up the marble stairs? Why was the carpet removed from the front stairs? Why the hell were the flowers removed from the grounds? Why is the electricity that went out twice for 20 years now gently going out once a month?” - “Devastation,” answers the interlocutor and assistant, Dr. Bormental.
something that has gone out twice for 20 years, now goes out neatly once a month?” - “Devastation,” answers the interlocutor and assistant, Dr. Bormenthal.
“No,” Philipp Philippovich objected quite confidently, “no. What is this ruin of yours? An old woman with a stick? Yes, it doesn't exist at all. The devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads.”
Devastation, destruction... The idea of destruction of the old world, of course, was born in the minds, and the minds of the thinking, enlightened, and long before the appearance of the chairman of the house committee Shvonder and his team.
Along with this problem of the reorganization of society, the problem of what the revolution brought to human life, there appears the problem of the formation of a new Soviet person.
The “wild” man Sharikov experiences the influence of the word. He becomes the object of verbal attacks by Shvonder, who defends the interests of Sharikov “as a worker”.
Sharikov is not at all embarrassed by the fact that he lives and feeds himself at the expense of Preobrazhensky. It is Sharikov, who came out of the people, who “tryes on” the professor’s apartment. Sharikov's principle is simple: why work if you can take it away; if one has a lot, and the other has nothing, you need to take everything and share it. Here it is, Shvonder's processing of Sharikov's primitive consciousness!
Similar work has been done on millions of people. As you know, Lenin's slogan "Rob the loot!" was one of the most popular during the revolution. The lofty idea of equality instantly degenerated into a primitive egalitarianism. The experiment of the Bolsheviks, conceived in order to create a “new”, improved man, is not their business, it is the business of nature. According to Bulgakov, the new Soviet man is a symbiosis of a stray dog and an alcoholic. We see how this new type is gradually turning into the master of life, "recommending the dialectic of Marx and Engels for reading."
The fantastic operation of Professor Preobrazhensky turned out to be as unsuccessful as the great communist experiment with history. “Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people. So I tried, but only unsuccessfully, as you can see. I talked and began to turn into a primitive state, ”Preobrazhensky admits.
Bulgakov in the story "The Heart of a Dog" with great impressive force, in his favorite manner of grotesque and humor, raised the question of the power of dark instincts in human life. As a writer, Bulgakov does not have faith that these instincts can be changed. Sharikovism is a moral phenomenon, and everyone must struggle with it within themselves.
