“Hero of Our Time” (1) - Lesson. Topic: “Hero of Our Time” - the first psychological novel in Russian literature. A novel about an extraordinary personality. outline of a lesson in literature on the topic Literature lesson hero of our time history of creation

SYSTEM OF LESSONS ON THE NOVEL BY M.YU. LERMONTOV “A HERO OF OUR TIME”

LESSON #1

Topic: “Hero of Our Time” - the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Main and secondary characters.

Purpose: review and discussion of the content of the novel; analysis of composition features; prove that the work is the first psychological novel in Russian literature; create conditions for a more complete understanding of the text; develop skills in analyzing a literary work through the features of plot and composition; identification reader's position students; development of monologue speech skills.

DURING THE CLASSES

“The Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development” (M.Yu. Lermontov)

I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT

II. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Working with an epigraph

III. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON

1. Teacher’s lecture (students take notes)

Lermontov's only completed novel was not originally conceived as a complete work. In "Domestic Notes" for 1839 were published “Bela. From an officer's notes about the Caucasus" and later "Fatalist" with a note that "M. Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories, both printed and unpublished.” In 1840 it was published there "Taman" and then comes out in two volumes, “Hero of Our Time.” The problematic aphoristic title was proposed by the experienced journalist A. A. Kraevsky instead of the original author’s “One of the heroes of our century.” The “collection of stories”, united by the image of the main character, turned out to be the first socio-psychological and philosophical novel in Russian prose , in terms of genre, also mastered numerous elements of dramatic action, especially in the largest and most significant story - "Princess Mary"

"Hero of Our Time" is "history of the human soul", one person who embodied in his unique individuality the contradictions of the whole historical period. Pechorin is the only main character(although “Eugene Onegin” is named after one hero, the image of Tatyana is extremely important in it,

as well as the Author). His loneliness in the novel is fundamentally significant. Only individual episodes of Pechorin’s biography are covered; in the preface to his journal, the travel officer reports a thick notebook, "where he tells his whole life" but, in essence, the reader already gets an idea of ​​the hero’s life path from childhood to death. This is the story of the futile attempts of an extraordinary person to realize himself, to find at least some kind of satisfaction for his needs, attempts that invariably turn into suffering and losses for him and those around him, the story of his loss of powerful vital forces and an absurd, unexpected, but prepared by everyone told death from having nothing to do, from his uselessness to anyone and to myself.

Lesson 3. “Hero of our time” (beginning)

Preface.First, I will post two excerpts from articles (for courses) that relate to the theory of the novel and the composition of the “hero”. They were not written exactly for a lesson, you can just look into them and not say it again (especially things that are quite well known).

– A novel is an “epic of private life”, in contrast to ancient epic poems dedicated to the life of the people (and not individual, even if the center of the story turns out to be, for example, the cunning Odysseus or the mighty Ilya Muromets).

– The novel tells the story of the formation and development of an individual personality, “unfolded” in artistic space and time, necessary for the history of this individual destiny to somehow “be determined”, gain or become aware of itself.

– The novel is a “free” genre, not constrained by rigid classicist “rules”: classicism considered the novel a “low” genre, suitable for describing corrupt modern morals and did not consider it necessary to describe its genre properties.

– A novel often “pretends” to be a description of a true (and not fictional) life story, and therefore the authors include supposedly authentic documents in it: letters, excerpts from a diary; the novel seems to be trying to erase the boundary between fiction and reality, art and life.

– No matter how skillful the writer who creates the novel may actually be, he voluntarily “pushes” his talent as a narrator into the background, because the main thing in the novel is the plot, the event, the novel’s “interest of continuation,” as M.M. called it. Bakhtin. (6) Epic and novel in the book: M.M. Bakhtin. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M., 1975, p. 474. This does not mean that writing a novel requires less skill than creating an ode or a tragedy (as one might naively believe in the 18th century, when the Russian novel eked out a rather miserable existence), but even the most virtuoso narrative technique in a novel remains only a means for creating characters , plot development, etc.

When determining the genre uniqueness of “A Hero of Our Time,” we will have to find out what novel differs from stories. If Pushkin created his novel based on the genre of a romantic poem, then Lermontov took as a basis a prose (but also mostly romantic) story: this genre in the 30s of the 19th century was also developed better than the Russian prose novel.

There are several points of view on what is unique about the genre of the story.

1. Relatively speaking, a “quantitative” approach: the story is a kind of “average” epic genre; it is larger than a story (in volume, number of characters and events, duration of action, etc.), but smaller than a novel. Sometimes supporters of this theory add that the novel touches on important social issues, and the story tends to describe private life. This approach now satisfies few people, since it cannot explain, for example, why “The Captain’s Daughter” is a story, and “Dubrovsky” is a novel, although in the first case the volume is larger, and the severity of “social issues” is no less than in second.

2. Another version suggests the existence of two types of epic prose: one belongs to the ancient oral traditions, the other took shape only in written literature. The first belongs story And story, to the second - “new” genres: novel And short story. “If in a novel the center of gravity lies in the holistic action, in the actual and psychological movement of the plot, then in a story the main gravity is often transferred to the static components of the work - positions, mental states, landscapes, descriptions, etc. (...) huge role in the story (and short story) the element of speech plays - the voice of the author or narrator.” (7)LES, p. 281.

3. The third version is based on compositional features story: in the story, events are presented chronically, in their natural sequence. (8) E.Ya. Fesenko Theory of literature: Tutorial. Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional –M., 2005. This “presentation of material” does not make concessions to the “interest of continuation”, conscientiously unfolding the picture of events in the order in which they appeared before the narrator.

The second and third versions are related and do not contradict each other. We invite the class, based on this theory, to find the features of the stories in those fragments that make up “A Hero of Our Time.” – Indeed, each of them unfolds in chronological order. As for the “element of storytelling,” it plays a big role in the first part of the novel - in the stories “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych”; “Pechorin's Journal” is an “originally” written, not narrated text and a typical novelistic device (imitation of “documentary”). However, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, and “Fatalist” are traditionally called stories, since they are the “building material” for the novel. However, the transmission of mental states, landscapes, and the voice of the narrator play a huge role in them.

In order to “assemble” a novel from these stories, Lermontov abandoned the chronological principle. Let’s offer the class a “classic” task:

– Restore the “correct” sequence of parts. – Most researchers are inclined to this option: “Pechorin’s Journal”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, “Preface to the “Journal”.

(Another answer is possible: so that the reader does not think that the character of the main character is shown to him in development. However, this is hardly the main thing in the author’s plan: it is enough that we do not see how this character was formed).

– But what is the “interest of a continuation” if the novel does not have a single plot? What plays the role of a “riddle” here, a question that requires an answer, and a plot that requires a solution? – Apparently, the very character of the main character, his personality.

– And one more “classic” question: try to explain the internal logic of the order in which Lermontov arranged the parts of the novel. (In other words, explain the main compositional principle to which “Hero of Our Time” is subordinated).

Usually schoolchildren easily notice that in the first part we see the hero “from the outside”, and in the second he reveals his inner world.

– Is there (within the first part) a difference between the view of Maksim Maksimych and the narrator? - Oddly enough, the narrator notices and understands more than Pechorin’s old friend. Why? – They are people of the same circle and experience; the narrator “understands the Pechorins,” Maxim Maksimych does not. So, already within the first part we see some approximation of the “solution”.

It is more difficult to see the logic of “approximation” inside Pechorin’s Journal, and if no one sees it right away, this issue can be returned to at the end of studying the novel. The main thing that the reader is trying to understand is the motives of Pechorin’s actions, the inner meaning of his “adventures”. In “Taman” the hero himself describes what is happening to him, but he touches on motives in passing and only teases the reader’s curiosity. In "Princess Mary" a complete psychological introspection is deployed; the hero explores himself at the level of emotions and passions and does not find a solution to his “strangeness.” In "Fatalist" it is described in highest degree a kind of “philosophical experiment”: Pechorin is trying to get an answer whether there is any higher being above him, fate, predestination, and whether there is for him in the world that “great destiny” that needs to be guessed - or whether he himself is the only master of his actions , and fate. And this is the last answer, the last “guess” that the author offers us.

– Can we say that in “A Hero of Our Time” the hero realized the logic of his fate, determined for himself its main meaning (as is typical for a novel hero)? - That’s the trouble with Pechorin, that he was looking for this meaning, but did not find it. The ending of the novel is sometimes interpreted as the final degradation of the hero, who has lost hope of finding answers to his questions. But the fact that death found him on the road can also be interpreted in the exact opposite way - especially considering that for romantics the road is a symbol of an endless path, the endless striving of the human spirit for ideal and perfection (and in Lermontov’s prose, as in his poetry , the influence of romanticism is very deep). Death on the way is a sign of ongoing searches and unbending perseverance: this hero continued to search for answers to the end.

Lesson 1.

1. Give a written survey: “What kind of person is Pechorin?” Clarifying questions:

– What is he looking for in life?

– What guides your actions?

– Does he have criteria for good and evil?

Brief summary: this novel is based on one question, one mystery - the character of the main character. What is he like, why does he live the way he does, what does he do, what does he need from life? Our task is to figure this out.

2. Restore the chronology of events and understand the composition (see above). We find out that the novel is structured like this - as an approach to the solution. I draw an acute angle on the board, abutting a point - Pechorin.

3. What do the plots of all the stories have in common? - Children see that Pechorin always brings misfortune to those with whom he deals (he ruins all his toys, even Maxim Maksimych). And that every time he risks his life along with his main opponent. Each time he may die, but another one dies.

But they don’t see that here, as in Belkin’s Tales, new patterns are being embroidered on the old canvas. All these plots are more or less typical of romantic prose and poems (stories with undines, adventures with mountain beauties, secular duels...). One could even say that Pechorin seemed to be trying to penetrate the magical world of romantic stories, but that was not the case. Something similar to the story with Pinocchio and the painted hearth happens: he stuck his nose into the picture, tore it, but couldn’t get inside. This is very noticeable in “Taman”: the world remained magical and beautiful, but the fairy tale collapsed and slipped away.

4. If there is time left, we start talking about “Bel”. Chronologically it's pretty late history, but it all starts with her. And here the first questions about Pechorin appear. You can first ask what M.M. thinks about Pechorin. (“strange” – and a list of oddities, some of which are clearer to us than to the narrator; “spoiled” and ready to do anything to fulfill his momentary desire). Which one is older?

Then the story of Bela's kidnapping.

– Whose idea? - Azamata. And his execution, Pechorin only played along slightly.

– Who overcomes what prohibitions along the way? (Azamat - fear of his father, Bela - of Allah, M.M. - of his superiors). And Pechorin? We find out in detail what M.M. had to say: why can’t a Russian officer steal a mountain girl, even if he wants to (as Pechorin says)? – Not according to the customs of our faith and not according to the laws of our country. However, M.M. doesn't say that. Why? – Partly he understands that it is useless, partly because he himself, having lived for years among the mountaineers, became infected with moral relativism: one people has one laws and faith, another has another... And it seems that they are equally possible...

– And so we “ran into” Pechorin’s question: what if there are some moral laws that are mandatory for all people, regardless of folk customs (which are quite conventional)? Or is all morality a convention? Let us ask: what law is Pechorin guided by in this story? – Formally – mountainous, in essence – by one’s own desire. The mountain law here is only a tool for manipulating Azamat. – How seriously does Pechorin perform it? - He is forced to finish the game in all seriousness, because the highlanders have one law - blood feud (here it is - this equal risk, willingness to pay own life for their actions).

– Who is to blame for Bela’s death? – Kazbich, Azamat, Pechorin, partly – M.M. – Who admits his guilt? - Only Pechorin (by the way, blood feud does not imply any special mental anguish and conscience: the ancient Greeks, they say, had no trace of conscience). – How sincere? - More than that: he doesn’t say any words - he laughs terribly and is sick for a long time.

So, an intermediate result: we found out that for Pechorin there are no sacred laws that go back to the faith and custom of any people. He is ready to play according to the rules of any human world: with smugglers - according to their robber laws, with secular people - according to the laws of secular honor, with a player - in his manner. But his soul takes responsibility for everything that happens through his fault.

Lessons 2 – 3. Pechorin’s character: psychological analysis

1. Let's understand Pechorin further: the author gives us his portrait. We write down: the first in Russian literature psychological picture . What does it mean? And the fact that the narrator reads Pechorin like a book: every outer line explains with a comment about his character. It looks casual, but try to describe, for example, your desk neighbor like this: his clothes mean this, his laugh means this, the way he looks, sits, moves - everything makes sense, but not everything is easy to interpret. Question: is there any pattern in the description of Pechorin? – There is duality. He looks sometimes young, sometimes not very young, sometimes strong, sometimes exhausted, sometimes sad, sometimes angry; the gloves are dirty - the linen is dazzling... Sometimes someone jokes and says that Pechorin has a typical elven appearance. What can I say? Did the Lermontov or Scottish genes take their toll?

2. We ask about his attitude towards Maxim Maksimych. Why does he avoid him so pointedly? Neglects a simple person(as M.M. himself thinks)? – Some say: because he is an egoist who thinks only about his own pleasure. Others note that the meeting with M.M. he feels bad. With M.M. we will have to talk. About what? About Bel, of course. For M.M., as we already know, this is an interesting, exciting story. And for Pechorin? “He doesn’t forget anything, he remembers his guilt. He doesn’t want to bring up all this, especially with a person who doesn’t feel how painful it is.

Now about what happened to M.M. He turned into a grumpy staff captain. Is Pechorin to blame for this? - The children will say: guilty. It was necessary to deal with him delicately... But we already realized that Pechorin could not bear it. And M.M. himself turned out to be a true friend? - Hardly. How angrily he threw away Pechorin’s papers... The resentment turned out to be much stronger than the friendship (resentment and pride: after all, he told his fellow traveler about his close friendship with this man...). In general, Pechorin does not spare people who meet him on the way, but these people do not show special love and devotion...

Fine. Now the narrator and I will figure out together how and why Pechorin lived even before meeting M.M. (because the Journal was written earlier).

3. There are two series of questions that are interconnected, but it’s better to start by looking at them separately. 1) What does Pechorin think about himself and his fate? 2) How does he treat other people and why?

The first is D/Z. It’s good if children read everything that Pechorin wrote about his character. We find out that he is bored and looking for entertainment (adventures, riddles, secrets, confrontation), but at the same time he vaguely feels that all this is small for him, that he was born for some higher purpose - but what? No higher goals will ever appear on the horizon of his life. Let us pay attention to a certain touch of materialistic irony of Pechorin in relation to his own mental life. He compares the collapse of life to several cups of strong coffee drunk at night. Both can be overcome with the help of a thorough walk... Pechorin is not inclined to rush around with himself and is looking for the most rational and prosaic explanation for all his internal movements.

Now the second thing is how he acts with other people. One may ask why he began to spy on smugglers, to upset the romance of Grushnitsky and Princess Mary, to make her fall in love with him? - He was having fun. In the first case (in “Taman”), as we said, he just wanted to get into a romantic plot. And he destroyed the fairy tale and received another notch on his conscience: a blind boy left without food (and an old woman...). Pechorin and the smugglers acted according to the same laws: they deceived, drowned, threatened... But they abandoned the dangerous nest without any regret, and Pechorin survived his share of guilt. By the way, the remark there is good about the fact that he doesn’t care about smuggling: he doesn’t care about state interests at all.

In “Princess Mary” the motivation is more complex. He tested in practice his theoretical knowledge about the properties of human psychology (our novel is socio-psychological, although philosophical too). But at the same time he used other people partly as puppets, partly as food for his inner hunger (about how nice it is to capture your first love and then throw it away). Behind these experiments there is a completely conscious worldview: no “absolute” moral laws exist for this hero. The criteria of good and evil are his desires and the pleasure of fulfilling them; they are the only basis for action.

Pechorin puts himself as a kind of god above others, and he really successfully manipulates everyone. However, using other people's passions and suffering as food for his own pride or boredom, he is never satisfied. Why? - Because taking is a bottomless abyss. To become happy, you need to give (sometimes I cite as an example a remark from “Letters of a Screwtape” - “we don’t understand selfless love; if I love someone, I’ll eat it with all its giblets”).

The difficult question is why is he like this? Someone finds his monologue for Princess Mary about how he wanted good things, but society spoiled him. This is sometimes noted as a feature of realism (blame secular society). But there are two caveats: he says this on purpose; he didn't come up with it himself. In fact, he retells Frankenstein's monologue from Mary Shelley's novel (everyone has more or less heard about this monster). So there is somehow more romanticism than realism...

The rivalry with Grushnitsky is both petty and at the same time understandable: Grushnitsky is trying to play the role of Pechorin and take his place (the very, very...). Pechorin, Prince. Mary is needed as a screen, and at the same time he cannot allow her to prefer Grushnitsky. But in the quarrel between the two heroes, this is what is interesting: Pechorin again wants to play by the rules of the world in which he lives. The rules in water society are secular honor. He demands that Grushnitsky shoot honestly, and is the first to stand under fire. To what extent all this for him is conditionally evident from the quarrel: he stands up for the honor of the prince. Mary immediately says to the captain: “Did I hit you so awkwardly in the garden?” Grushnitsky fails the test and dies. By the way, Mary was also partially unable to pass the test. Their last explanation echoes the last explanation of Onegin and Tatyana. Tatyana says, “I love you...” Pechorin was ready to give up to such an answer, but Mary tells him, “I hate you...” Mary is not Tatyana.

According to Belinsky’s (and I. Vinogradov’s) idea, Pechorin never met an “enemy” who would not be “spoiled” by contact with him, who would be able to oppose something truly imperishable, beautiful and true. If he had met him, he might have changed... But he goes through life as if there is no good or evil, no law, no conscience - only the satisfaction of his own desires. And the longer he lives like this, the worse he gets. The question about Vera is rhetorical (would he be happy if...) Vera is a romantic, unattainable dream, a symbol of his quest.

D/Z. Make a final note about Pechorin’s character. It is possible - starting from the “Preface to the Journal”: is this really a portrait of the vices of its time? Vices or problems? It would be nice to compare the resulting portrait with the “Duma” - point by point: what kind of account does Lermontov present to his generation in poetry, what kind - in prose? All considerations can be divided into “understandable” and “incomprehensible”. Or “for” and “against” - whichever will be closer to the class.

Appendix 1. Card tasks on the same topic for individual speakers

It was rarely used, usually in a lesson, if you need to “disable” someone, or test them with passion, or, conversely, if the whole class is not sticking to the topic and you need to prepare strong speakers in advance (then it is better to give cards to take home).

Card 1

Read the entries from May 23 to June 6 (the story “Princess Mary”) and answer the questions:

1. How does Pechorin destroy the romance of Grushnitsky and Princess Mary (try to mark all Pechorin’s moves)?

2. How does he make Princess Mary fall in love with him (the task is the same: to trace the sequence of his moves)? How plausible do you think such a game with someone else's soul is? Is it possible to control the people of our time (you and your friends) in this way?

3. Re-read carefully what Pechorin tells Princess Mary about his youth (July 3). Do you think this is true or is he just pretending? Did he accidentally let it slip about himself, or is this also a calculated move? What would you answer him if you were in the princess’s place?

Card 2

Read the end of the story “Taman” (3 paragraphs); entries from June 3 and June 16 - and until the end of the story “Princess Mary” and answer the questions:

1. What does Pechorin think about his fate? Why does he have such thoughts? Do you think he's right?

2. Does Pechorin consider himself a genius? What is a “genius”, in his opinion? Do you think Pechorin can be considered a man of genius if we use his theory? Do you agree with this theory? How do you assess Pechorin's abilities?

3. What is ambition? Why does Pechorin believe that his ambition cannot be satisfied? What would he like to become in the world?

4. How do you understand Pechorin’s words: “...I... have lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations...”? What is this “fervor”?

5. What does Pechorin regret the night before the duel?

6. How does he explain his character in the last lines of the story “Princess Mary”?

Lesson 3. “Fatalist” – the philosophical “solution” of the novel

First, we look at the plans for Pechorin. Be sure to read what the author wrote about him in the “Preface to the Journal.” We definitely ask the question: well, what is the main reason for all these vices? If you start only from the novel, you will end up with disbelief. Lost faith in higher ideals, truth, moral laws, which ultimately go back to faith in God. Having received such an answer, let us compare it with the Duma. There is another reason named there, historical (or political). In his poems, Lermontov accuses his generation of being afraid to live and act seriously, and therefore remaining fruitless, wasting itself on trifles. Is it possible to transfer this reproach to Pechorin? - Yes and no. It’s hard to accuse him of cowardice – he was so bold as to be reckless. But only in those little things on which he spends his life: duels, adventures, risky bets. He does not aim at big goals, annoyed that he cannot guess such a goal... Lermontov did not like his time because it did not leave his contemporaries, the nobles, a serious field. Either make a career (why?), or have fun as best you can, or... go to a monastery and perform spiritual deeds? But this path was practically closed for an educated and very skeptical nobleman. A nobleman, after all, is historically either a politician or a warrior. Pechorin fights little by little, although he clearly does not see the point in this. But we don’t see him in action. As M. Kachurin rightly wrote in his textbook, if Lermontov had shown us Pechorin in the war, perhaps the title of the novel would no longer sound ironic.

And finally, “Fatalist,” as it was said in the article, is the answer to what Pechorin, in fact, is looking for, for what he is acting. He passionately wants one thing - an answer to whether there is a higher law above us, or whether, in fact, everywhere there is only rampant self-will.

For "Fatalista" there is a detailed set of questions. And to them - a set of children's “advanced” answers (2000). Unfortunately, the authorship is not noted everywhere.

– What did Vulich want to prove, how and for what?

He needed this whole argument to win, because he was a gambler...

He wanted to prove that predestination exists. Vulich had a passion for the game; the fact that he often lost added to the excitement. But at the moment he won, proving that each of us had a fateful moment assigned in advance, especially since they bet on money, and this added even more excitement. (P. Ivanov, I. Cherentsov)

- “I affirm that there is no predestination.” What would really serve as proof in the game proposed by Vulich?

Everyone thought he was dead, but this is hardly serious evidence.

– Why does Pechorin offer such a bet? What is he accused of and how does he justify himself?

Pechorin jokingly offered a bet on Vulich’s proposal (redirection).

Pechorin proposed such a bet so that Vulich could prove his fatalism.

I think that at first Pechorin was sure that Vulich would give up the crazy idea of ​​shooting himself in the head, but then he himself regretted it, and he had to make excuses.

Pechorin offers such a bet jokingly, but thinking that Vulich will refuse, afraid of death, and by this he will prove that there really is no predestination (?)

No one wrote that Pechorin, in a sense, takes everyone at their word and forces them to take their principles seriously, confirming this by risking their lives.

– Stars and people in the eyes of Pechorin. Why is this digression necessary in the story?

This digression is necessary in order to show that Pechorin, as a representative of his generation, is deprived of the ability to believe (unlike his ancestors), he can only doubt. Pechorin despised the thoughts of the ancients about the stars. (I. Anokhin)

Pechorin thinks that people used to believe in the stars and thought that the stars looked at them and helped them. But the stars remain, and people disappear along with their dreams and thoughts. Now people live, try to live on their own, struggling with fate, rejecting predestination and heaven. (I. Cherentsov)

Perhaps a digression is needed in order to better explain the meaning of predestination, what it is. (A. Golovko)

– How did death find Vulich? What's so scary about this scene? How does it echo his shot at the bet?

We can say that death found Vulich by accident, but it seems that everything was predetermined, and Pechorin noticed this. The scene is terrifying due to Vulich’s composure and the Cossack’s terrible response. The scene of the lieutenant’s death echoes the scene in the major’s room in that Vulich seemed to have already died at the major’s, the shadow of death fell on him, and he didn’t care. (I. Cherentsov)

This is scary because the Cossack cut Vulich very badly.

Here the Cossack is, as it were, the hand of predestination and fulfills what did not happen with Major S.

- “I like to doubt everything: this disposition of mind does not interfere with the decisiveness of character - on the contrary...” How did Pechorin’s doubts turn into decisiveness in the scene of the arrest of the Cossack?

Pechorin was unable to believe in something once and for all. Therefore, even after Vulich’s death, he still did not decide for himself whether there was a definition or not. (P. Ivanov)

Pechorin's doubts about whether there was predestination led to his decision to try his luck and capture the Cossack. (S. Starkov)

During the arrest of the Cossack, Pechorin still doubts the existence of predestination and therefore decides to repeat Vulich’s experiment in order to prove to himself its (predestination’s) existence. As if for sure. (P. Ivanov)

Pechorin's doubts turned into determination after an argument with fate. He argued with whether the Cossack would kill him or not. The bullet missed, and Pechorin won. (I. Cherentsov)

– Why did Pechorin decide to repeat Vulich’s experiment after he was killed? (Check if he is destined to die). Has he done similar things in other stories?

Pechorin wanted to resolve all his doubts (whether he personally had predestination), and so he took a risk. (A. Goloulina)

– Did Pechorin want to bring benefit with his action? Why did he risk his life?

I think not. Pechorin played with fate like Vulich.

For some reason there are no answers to the last questions (perhaps they were discussed orally).

– Does Maxim Maksimych believe in predestination?

– What does the plot of “Fatalist” have in common with the plots of previous stories? Is there any significant difference?

– Why is this story the last in the novel?

In general, we know the answers.

Now the question is about writing - if there is time and energy left for it. In addition to the list of textbooks for the Unified State Exam (separate), I can offer the following fossil topics:

– Moral issues of the novel.

– Philosophical problems of the novel.

– Pechorin’s character: ways to reveal it.

– Demonic and everyday in Pechorin.

– Destroyer of romantic illusions.

– The role of landscape in the novel.

– Portrayal of the highlanders in the novel.

– Depiction of the “water society” in the novel.

– Female images in the novel.

– The fate of a generation in Lermontov’s lyrics and in the novel.

- Master or instrument of fate?

– Two meetings between Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych (a very old and famous topic).

– Romanticism and realism in the novel.

– Romantic situations in the novel.

- Composition of the novel.

- “The History of the Human Soul” in the novel.

– Portrait and landscape as means of characterizing characters.

– The originality of Lermontov’s psychologism.

There are comparative topics that were often offered in exams:

- Pechorin and Grushnitsky.

- Pechorin and the Highlanders.

- Onegin and Pechorin.

- Grushnitsky and Lensky, etc.

Of these, the most significant - “Onegin and Pechorin.” Perhaps it should be said at the end of the work so that the concept of an “extra person” settles in everyone’s heads, because no one has yet canceled this type, although many grumble about him. This work can be done as a test or the last D/Z: list the commonalities between the heroes, the differences and draw conclusions (they are heroes of different times - and what follows from this?)

General: two aristocrats, rich, young, educated, internally free, not feeling any obligations to society and (much less) the state, not seeing any purpose in their lives, not knowing where to apply their abilities; egoists who do not know how to love and sacrifice, who inspire love and are unhappy in love. Both are indifferent to generally accepted morality and obey only the external demands of the circle in which they rotate. Lermontov deliberately repeats the motives and situations of Pushkin’s novel: the names of the heroes, the situation of a duel and a young lady in love, the melancholy of an aimless existence. In both, the authors wanted to impartially show the heroes of their time - with all their vices.

Difference: Onegin changes over the course of the novel, and for the better: at least he learned to love, saw that secular laws are not morality, and violation of real ethical laws makes him deeply unhappy and generally leads to disasters. Although at the same time the hero is not concerned with any eternal questions. Pechorin, on the contrary, is looking for answers about the nature of good and evil, about the criteria for distinguishing them, about the meaning of life, etc. But he finds no answers and practically does not change during the course of the novel.

Conclusion. They are usually classified as one type and the reason for the appearance of such characters is considered to be an era that did not give the most independent and original people a chance to realize their talents. This is partly fair: Nikolai I He really disliked everything independent and original and lost a lot of talent. But psychologically it's very different heroes: Onegin, in general, is a kind fellow, not accustomed to being critical of his habits and actions. He is lazy and not accustomed to work, and therefore there is no question of realizing his talents (and did he even have special talents?). But he is a “good guy.” Pechorin, on the contrary, is constantly immersed in introspection and weighs and judges his every action. He is not lazy at all and is always looking for adventures so as not to get bored in inactivity. But he is not the least bit kind and incapable of compassion. Of the two, he is much closer to the demonic guise in which Onegin appeared in Tatyana’s dream.

The type of “extra people” was identified already in next era, when the era changed in Russian life and other heroes of another time came. They very much insisted that all the “superfluous” nobles were simply slackers and white-handed people, freed by their landowner position from the need to work and make their way in life. These new people in every possible way disavowed any kind of continuity between them and the “extra” noble “suffering egoists.” However, if you look at the continuity of ideas, they all follow the path paved by Pechorin. Only Pechorin doubted the existence of God and certain general (absolute) moral laws, and the youth of the next generation will simply deny them (as we will soon see).

Appendix 2. What kind of person is Pechorin? (2007)

He is very unhappy, sometimes he himself does not understand why he does such things. He is partly selfish, cynic and even just a sadist.

In fact, his purpose in life is to bring misfortune to people. In general, he is a desperate person who loves adventure. He is not interested in other people's destinies. (N. Kopylov)

It seems to me that Lermontov... put into the main character, for the most part, only inflammable - like passion, but only hatred for everyone, for the whole world and people...

He is capable of using an innocent girl (Princess Mary) for the sake of revenge, and then throwing away her love, like napkin (italics mine). He is an evil and cruel person, but at times there is pity, love, honor in him. (M. Tarasova)

I don’t like his attitude towards women, his manners, his non-recognition of religion (attitude towards God).

What I like about him is his determination, the achievement of goals (but not Goals), his destiny. (M. Ignatova)

What I like about Pechorin is that he treats everyone and his life easily and cheerfully. He is quite curious and constantly wants to get into something. This makes everything easy and fun for him.

But what I don’t like about him is that sometimes he goes too far in his games and ends up treating people cruelly and coldly. Although this happens without games. (R. Gulyaev)

The attitude towards Pechorin is very complex. It is absolutely clear that his main actions and his way of thinking will receive a negative assessment from me. However, I never worried so much about anyone else while reading, because he is real, because he is a person who combines the shortcomings of society, but at the same time Pechorin remains a person. (S. Popov)

Pechorin was a big egoist. He did not notice anyone around him and did not consider those around him to be people. Pechorin could not open his soul to anyone, he did not have a close friend... Pechorin noticed only himself and minded his own business. Everyone who was “friends” with him considered themselves his friends, but he didn’t care about them... (F. Makarov)

Pechorin amazes me with his ability to hide his own thoughts and feelings from others. He is a very reserved person and true to his habits. He treats those around him with contempt and treats them with cold-blooded calculation. (R. Legkov)

It seems to me that Pechorin was an egoist. He looks like Onegin at the beginning of Eugene Onegin. He has no goal in life, therefore he values ​​nothing and strives for nothing.

For Maxim Maksimych, Pechorin remained a friend, but Pechorin did not appreciate or respect his commander. (T. Ivanova)

He has a malicious character. (N. Barabash)

I don't really like Pechorin. He's kind of very strange. It seems to me that he was poorly brought up. Pechorin did not notice the people with whom he lived. He plays with life, but doesn’t live... He doesn’t seem to take into account the people around him, he lives only the way he likes, he lives for himself. He doesn’t care whether people feel good or bad about him. He does not see his actions, whether they are good or bad. He lives as he wants. (Katya Artamkina)

Pechorin is reckless, flighty, flies from one young lady to another, vindictive. He quickly became bored with everything: social life and travel; falling in love and leaving friends is his habit. He has an empty soul, he can't get busy good deed. He wants to go out and have fun. But those who are looking for fun and idleness will find nothing, because all fun and idleness will someday become boring. And they don’t lead to good.

And since he has an empty soul, he has no goal. Pechorin's only good trait is that he has a mind. (Lisa Artamkina)

17.01.2017 16:26

The purpose of the lesson: initial acquaintance with the work of M. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”. - reveal the meaning of the title, the problems of the novel, genre originality(understand why the novel is psychological) and the system of images of the novel.

Development of skills to analyze, compare, highlight the main points, work with text; ensure the development of students' speech during the lesson. - carry out moral and aesthetic education.

"Lermontov Hero of Our Time Composition of the Novel"

About the genre and composition of the novel
"Hero of our time"

How is the novel “A Hero of Our Time” structured? The question of what the chronological sequence of events in the novel is still unclear. Read the statements of the scientist and writer.

“From “Taman” there is a direct movement to “Princess Mary”, since Pechorin comes to the waters, obviously after participating in a military expedition (in “Taman” he is an officer going to an active detachment); but between “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist” it is necessary to insert the story with Bela, since Pechorin ends up in the fortress of Maxim Maksimych after a duel with Grushnitsky.”

B. M. Eikhenbaum. Articles about Lermontov. 1961

“The chronological sequence of the five stories, if we talk about their connection with Pechorin’s biography, is as follows: “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”.”

Find time markers in each of the stories and explain what is the chronological sequence of events in the novel?

Explain why Lermontov violated the chronological sequence in the novel?

What are the features of the genre of the novel “A Hero of Our Time”? Read the statements of scientists, critics and poets.

“And is this a novel? Is it possible to call a collection of stories that way - “Bela”, “Makim Maksimych”, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”?”

E. Gerstein. “Hero of Our Time” by M. Yu. Lermontov. 1976

“A Hero of Our Time” is by no means a collection of several stories published in two books and connected only by one common title: no, it is a novel in which there is one hero and one main idea, artistically developed. Despite its occasional fragmentation, it cannot be read in a manner other than the order in which the author himself arranged it: otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent short stories, but you will not know the novel.”

V. G. Belinsky. "Hero of our time".
Essay by M. Lermontov. 1840

“All previous novelists are unsatisfactory for our time. Some only express physical phenomena human nature, others see only its spirituality. We need to combine both kinds in one.”

E.A. Baratynsky. Letter from I.P. Kireevsky. 1831

“The novel combines a travel sketch with a Caucasian short story in “Bel”, travel notes with a short story and a robber short story in “Maxim Maksimych” and “Taman”, a diary and a social story in “Princess Mary”, notes with a philosophical and adventure short story in “Fatalist” "

It was precisely this kind of novel that most corresponded to the spirit of the times, the need for a merciless analysis of modern reality, in all its tragedy and at the same time in the affirmation of the ideal.”

B. T. Udodov. M. Yu. Lermontov. 1973

“The whole trick of such a composition is to bring Pechorin closer to us over and over again, until finally he himself speaks to us, but by that time he will no longer be alive... Because of such a spiral composition, the time sequence appears to be blurred . The stories float, unfold before us, sometimes everything is in full view, sometimes as if in a haze, and then suddenly, having retreated, they appear again in a different perspective or lighting, just as a traveler has a view of the five peaks of the Caucasus ridge from a gorge.”

V.V. Nabokov. Preface to "A Hero of Our Time". 1958

The originality of the genre and composition of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov is associated with one more feature. “A Hero of Our Time” is the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Under psychologism is understood as an artistic depiction of the inner world of characters, that is, their thoughts, experiences, desires, feelings. Lermontov most often uses a direct form of psychologism, a direct depiction of the inner life of a person, primarily Pechorin, and conveys these processes in the form of a monologue, dialogue, and psychological introspection.

Read the scientist's statements.

“For Lermontov, it is important to discover the hidden motives of behavior, the reasons for the state of mind, which determined the special structure of the narrative and, in particular, the change of narrators...”

A. B. Esin. Psychologism of Russian literature. 1988

Reflect on this feature of the novel. How many narrators are there in the novel? Why is the narration first told on behalf of Maxim Maksimych, then on behalf of a passing officer, close to Pechorin in his understanding of life, and then the hero himself talks about himself? How is this change of narrators related to showing Pechorin’s inner world?

Write an essay on the topic: “Why is the chronological sequence of events disrupted in the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time”, the genres of each story and their narrators change?”

View document contents
“Appendix to lesson notes No. 33 Novel Hero of Our Time”

The history of the creation of the novel. Features of genre and composition.

...a sad thought about our generation...

V.G. Belinsky

From the history of the creation of the novel “A Hero of Our Time”:

Lermontov's only completed novel was not originally conceived as a complete work. In "Domestic Notes" for 1839. “Bela. From an officer's notes about the Caucasus" and later "Fatalist" with a note that "M.Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories, both printed and unpublished." In 1840, “Taman” appeared there and was followed by “Hero of Our Time” in two volumes. “Collected Stories,” united by the image of the main character, turned out to be the first socio-psychological and philosophical novel in Russian prose, which in terms of genre also mastered numerous elements of dramatic action.

The title “Hero of Our Time” defines the main theme and problem of the work. The title of the novel itself is two-part. The emphasis in it is on the word “hero” and on the phrase “our time”. According to Belinsky, Lermontov’s novel “is a sad thought about our time.” The novel reveals the author's idea not only of the hero, but also of his own modernity. An aphoristic problematic title was proposed by experienced journalist A.A. Kraevsky instead of the original author’s “One of the Heroes of Our Time.”

Subject :

the relationship between the individual and society, man and the environment that raised him (Griboyedov, Ryleev, Pushkin).

Idea:

the formation of personality, its development, the search for the meaning of life and the determination of one’s purpose.

Issues:

Why do smart and energetic people not find use for their remarkable abilities and wither without a fight at the very beginning of life? (the life story of Pechorin, who belonged to the young generation of the 30s, echoes the idea of ​​the poem “Duma”).

Indicate how M.Yu. Lermontov arranged the chapters of the novel “A Hero of Our Time”.

How should the chapters in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” be arranged so that the chronological sequence of events is observed?

Plot:

events in the order in which the author reports them.

1. "Maksim Maksimych"

   "Taman"

   "Princess Mary"

   "Fatalist"

Fable:

a set of events in their natural chronological order.

"Taman"

"Princess Mary"

"Fatalist"

1. "Maksim Maksimych"

Vocabulary work.

Predestination:

determine in advance; stipulate;

fate, fate

in religion: the will of the deity, which determines human behavior and everything that happens in the world.

Rock- unfortunate fate.

Fatalism- belief in the inevitability of fate, in the fact that everything in the world is predetermined by a mysterious force, fate.

Fatalist- a person prone to fatalism.

Based on the chronological sequence of events, the first story of the novel should have been “Taman”. Pechorin stops in Taman on the way from St. Petersburg to the Caucasus. Then "Princess Mary". Pechorin moves to the waters, lives in Pyatigorsk and Kislovodsk, kills Grushnitsky in a duel. From “Bela” we learn that for this he was exiled to the Caucasian fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych. Then - "Fatalist". Pechorin comes to Cossack village, meets Vulich. After living in St. Petersburg for several years, Pechorin resigns and goes to Persia. On the way, in Vladikavkaz, he meets Maxim Maksimych and a traveling officer - this is the story “Maksim Maksimych”. Returning from Persia, Pechorin dies. The narrator talks about this in the preface to Pechorin's Journal.

Problematic question:

Why did Lermontov change the chronological sequence of events in the novel?
What is its purpose?

Hero of Our Time" by M.Yu. Lermontov is the first Russian psychological novel. As the author himself points out in the preface to Pechorin's Journal, the purpose of this work is to depict the "history of the human soul." Lermontov strives to most fully reveal the complex and contradictory image of Pechorin, to trace the story of his inner life, and all the artistic means used by the author when writing a novel are subordinated to this task.
The first thing the reader notices when reading “A Hero of Our Time” is the violation of the chronological sequence in the course of the narrative. The novel consists of descriptions of various episodes in Pechorin's life, seemingly practically unrelated to each other.

to interest the reader as much as possible in the fate of Pechorin;

trace the history of his inner life;

the image of Pechorin is revealed in two ways: from the point of view of an outside observer and in terms of internal self-disclosure;

with this construction, as if leaving the hero alive, it is easier for the author to show his position.

Story: Narrator:

"Bela" Maxim Maksimych

"Taman"

“Princess Mary” confession-diary of Pechorin

"Fatalist"

An important point in revealing the composition of “A Hero of Our Time” is who is talking about what is happening. Changing the narrator allows Lermontov to more deeply and comprehensively reveal the hero's inner world. We meet Pechorin in Bel. The hero Maksim Maksimych, a captain who served with him for a year in the Caucasus, talks about him. Maxim Maksimych is a kind man, but he is not able to understand Pechorin. The only thing he can say about him is “a nice fellow,” “but with great oddities.” Maxim Maksimych and Pechorin are strangers to each other. It is not only their age and social status that separates them. Before us are people of different eras, different worldviews. Pechorin's tragic love story, disappointment, and melancholy amaze Maxim Maksimych, but he cannot unravel the soul of his subordinate.

The reader is interested, but it is too early to draw conclusions. The author transfers the right to tell about Pechorin to a passing officer, on whose behalf the novel is narrated. This is a person who clearly understands Pechorin, they are people of the same generation, people of the same circle. The narrator is trying to understand Pechorin’s character, so he happily takes notes from the hero himself from Maxim Maksimych.

The aura of mystery does not disappear, although we have already learned a lot about the hero. The author allows Pechorin himself to talk about himself. The novel continues Pechorin's Journal and is preceded by a foreword by the author. Here we read important words: “Perhaps some readers will want to know my opinion about Pechorin’s character? My answer is the title of this book.” So, Pechorin is a hero of his time, a typical personality, the face of the era. However, only the confession of the hero himself will help to understand him deeply.

“Pechorin's Journal” is a kind of “novel within a novel.” “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist” - “the history of the human soul, a consequence of the observations of a mature mind on itself.” Confessional character diary entries connects Lermontov's novel with his lyrics. The thirst for life, the search for true values, the meaning of human existence sometimes take on harsh and cruel forms in Pechorin’s personality. Disappointment, boredom, suffering are the companions of his life and the lives of people who have linked their fate with him.

The final chapter, “Fatalist,” at first glance seems superfluous, falling out of the natural development of the novel. But in fact, “Fatalist” contains the most important idea of ​​the story; the author gradually led us to it. Pechorin moves from self-esteem to thinking about his generation. What are his thoughts? Here Lermontov tirelessly speaks about what he shouted about in the Duma, what haunted him all his life, about the bitter fate of his generation: “... we... are pitiful descendants, wandering the earth without convictions and pride, without pleasures and fear, We are no longer capable of making great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness, because we know its impossibility and indifferently move from doubt to doubt...”

“Fatalist” takes us back to the fortress where the tragedy with Bela occurred. The circle is closed. The “ring” composition emphasizes the hero’s doom. Pechorin is trying to solve the most difficult question for himself: how free a person is to control his own destiny. “And if there is definitely predestination, then why were we given will, reason?”

Thus, the peculiarity of the construction of “A Hero of Our Time” is that the plot and plot do not coincide in the work. Lermontov violates the natural chronology of events in order to gradually introduce the reader into the inner world of Pechorin, the hero of his time, which as a result is revealed precisely in the last three chapters of the novel through the diary of the protagonist. The result of Pechorin’s philosophical reasoning, as well as that of Lermontov, his creator, is the final chapter of the work, “Fatalist,” which carries Pechorin’s important and largely final conclusions.

Problematic question: Is Pechorin a hero of his time?

Opinions of Lermontov's contemporaries about Pechorin:

S. Burachek: “Pechorin is a monster”, “slander on an entire generation.”

Nicholas I: “Hero of Our Time” is an imitation of fashionable foreign novels “with an exaggerated depiction of despicable characters.”

S. Shevyrev: the image of Pechorin “has nothing significant in itself regarding purely Russian life... Pechorin is only a ghost cast upon us by the West...”

V. Belinsky: “Pechorin is a hero of our time”

Analysis of the image of Pechorin in the system of artistic images of the novel.

Men's images in the novel.

Maxim Maksimych

Dr. Werner

Grushnitsky

Female images of the novel

Princess Mary

Features of romanticism in the novel

composition (torn; in the center - a confessional journal);

romantic traits in Pechorin’s character: an individualist hero in conflict with society;

description of the landscape (“Taman”, “Princess Mary”);

adventurous intrigue, which is based on tragic love(“Bela”).

Features of realism in the novel

historicism (reflection of the hero in the era);

typical characters in typical circumstances(“water society”, highlanders, Maxim Maksimych);

Pechorin is a representative of the best part of the noble intelligentsia!

critical pathos: there is no ideal hero;

psychologism and reflection.

Pechorin is a hero of his time.

(Why is Pechorin an extra person? What is Pechorin’s tragedy?)

Pechorin is a hero of the transitional period, the main feature of which was the lack of high social ideals.

It was a transitional era, when the ideals of the past were destroyed, and new ones had not yet had time to form. Pechorin precisely reflects that transitional state, “in which for a person everything old is destroyed, but there is nothing new yet, and in which a person is only the possibility of something real in the future and a perfect ghost in the present” (V.G. Belinsky)

Lermontov's characterization of his time in lyrics and in the novel.

Pechorin is a reflective hero. Ways to reveal the complex controversial hero: composition, psychological portrait, built on contrasts; change of narrators; Pechorin's magazine.

Unbelief, individualism, doubt as Pechorin’s belief system.

Moral principles derived by Pechorin from this system of views:

a) “... of two friends, one is always the slave of the other...” - hence Pechorin’s inability to make friendship;

b) “What is happiness? Saturated pride" - hence the frenzied pursuit of the "lures of passions";

c) “... I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my mental strength“- hence selfishness and indifference.

Denial of a higher power that predetermines a person’s fate, recognition of oneself as the only creator of one’s destiny, the only judge over oneself:

a) he values ​​his freedom as the highest value (“... twenty times I will put my life, even my honor, on the line... but I will not sell my freedom”);

b) he is absolutely free to choose actions in relation to others;

c) while committing erroneous actions, he never once sinned against his convictions, never once violated his iron logic in thinking about them.

Pechorin’s tragedy is in his clear understanding of his contradiction “between the depth of nature and the pitifulness of actions”: “... why did I live? For what purpose was I born?.. and it’s true that it existed, and it’s true that I had a high destiny, because I feel immense strength in my soul...”

Is it Pechorin’s fault that he has become an “extra person”?

Pechorin is a representative of the noble youth who entered life after the defeat of the Decembrists.

The contradiction “between the depth of nature and the pitifulness of actions” is the main feature of Pechorin as a “superfluous person.”

What was the assessment of the image of Pechorin in the 19-20 centuries?

What feelings does Pechorin evoke in you - “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation...”: warm sympathy, compassion, rejection, indifference or others? Why?

Essay topics:

The fate of a generation in the works of M.Yu. Lermontov.

“Strange love” for the homeland in the lyrics of M.Yu. Lermontov.

The tragedy of loneliness (based on the works of M.Yu. Lermontov).

The internal tragedy of the image of the Demon in the poem of the same name by M. Yu. Lermontov.

The Demon and Mtsyri are two sides of Lermontov’s man.

Why is Pechorin an extra person?

Onegin and Pechorin are “heroes of their time.”

Female images in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time.”

Pechorin and Grushnitsky.

Why is Pechorin an extra person? What is the tragedy of Pechorin?)

Plan.

I “Among empty storms our youth languishes...” (Characteristics of the era of the 30s of the 11th century).

II The tragedy of Pechorin’s fate and life.

Hero's story.

The discrepancy between Pechorin’s life and his internal capabilities and needs:

a) the originality of his nature;

b) thirst for action and the search for the use of one’s strengths;

c) his inconsistency and discord with himself;

d) selfishness, individualism, indifference of the hero.

Pechorin is one of the representatives of the progressive intelligentsia of the 30s.

Causes of Pechorin's death:

a) the socio-political situation in Russia in the 30s;

b) education and influence of secular society.

III V.G. Belinsky about Pechorin.

Explanations.

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” is the first Russian psychological and realistic novel in prose. In the preface to the magazine, Lermontov writes: “The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is perhaps more curious and not more useful than history a whole people." And Pechorin, according to the author, is “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation in their full development,” i.e. Lermontov points to the typicality of Pechorin, to the vital truth of character.

The spiritual tragedy of Lermontov's hero reflected the tragic state of Russian society. Thus, according to Belinsky, important problems of the time were solved, why smart people do not find use for their remarkable abilities, why they become “superfluous,” “smart useless things.”

V.G. Belinsky about the hero: “You anathematize him not for his vices, you have more of them, and in you they are blacker and more shameful, but for that bold freedom, for that bilious frankness with which he speaks about them... In this a person has strength of spirit and power of will, which you do not have, in his very vices something great shines... He has a different purpose, a different path than you. His passions are storms that purify the sphere of the spirit; his delusions, no matter how terrible they are, acute illnesses in a young body, strengthening him for a long time and healthy life…»

Onegin and Pechorin are “heroes of their time.”

Plan.

I Reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature of the first half of the 11th century.

II Onegin and Pechorin are “heroes of their time.”

similarities:

• noble origin;

  secular education and upbringing;

  idle existence, lack of high goals and ideals in life;

  understanding people;

  dissatisfaction with life.

differences between them:

• the depth of Pechorin's suffering, Onegin's superficial experience;

  Pechorin’s disregard for the laws of light and Onegin’s fear of secular rumors;

  Onegin's lack of will and Pechorin's willpower;

  inconsistency, duality of nature, Pechorin’s skepticism, Onegin’s “sharp, chilled mind.”

III Place of Pechorin and Onegin in the gallery of “extra people” of the 11th century.

Explanations.

In an essay on this topic it is necessary to give a comparative description of Onegin and Pechorin. This topic follows consideration of first the general and then the individual character traits of the heroes. Explain how smart, educated people who understand life and people gradually turned into “smart useless people”, “suffering egoists”, doomed to a meaningless existence.

In your work you should proceed from Belinsky’s assessment of the heroes, but at the same time remember that the heroes live in different time: the first in the 20s, during the period of social upsurge caused by the War of 1812 and the Decembrist movement, and the second in the 30s, during the period of the defeat of the Decembrists, harsh government reaction. This left an imprint on the personality of Pechorin, who, unlike Onegin, is experiencing a great tragedy of the uselessness and hopelessness of life.

It must be proven that Pechorin is more interesting, deeper, that he attracts and repels us, readers.

“Strange love” for the homeland in the lyrics of M.Yu. Lermontov.

Plan.

I Love for the Motherland is ambiguous and sometimes painful.

II Lermontov is a patriot of his Fatherland.

Slavishly obedient Russia is hated by the poet:

a) “... unwashed Russia, a country of slaves, a country of masters...” (“Farewell, unwashed Russia”);

b) a country where “man groans from slavery and chains” (“Complaints of the Turk”).

What Lermontov contrasts with modernity:

a) the glorious past of Russia (“Song about the merchant Kalashnikov”);

b) the generation of “children of the twelfth year” (“Borodino”).”

Image of the generation of the 30s of the 11th century (“Duma”).

“I love the Fatherland, but with a strange love...” (“Motherland”).

Native spaces, nature heals the wounded soul of a person (“How often surrounded by a motley crowd”).

III Lermontov's poetry is a new link in the chain of historical development of society.

Explanation.

Lermontov, as a man of his generation, strives to analyze reality. Alas, what he sees is “either empty or dark.”

The poet was alien to ostentatious patriotism and therefore he does not accept the official point of view, according to which contemporary Russia is an almost ideal state. Lermontov’s Russia appears in a different form, it is “a country of slaves, a country of masters”...

Lermontov contrasts Russia's glorious past with modernity. This is how he thinks about the problem positive hero. The poet also calls the generation of “children of the twelfth year” who won the War of 1812 heroic.

Then it would be appropriate to contrast the heroic generation with the generation of the 30s of the 11th century. The inability, and more often the unwillingness, to find the use of forces in life is the main misfortune of man in Russia at that time.

In the poem “Motherland,” the poet sums up his thoughts about what the Fatherland is for him.

View document contents

Grade 9 Lesson No. 33 M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” is the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Complexity of the composition. The century of M.Yu. Lermontov in the novel. Pechorin as a representative of the “portrait of a generation”

The purpose of the lesson: initial acquaintance with the work of M. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”.
- reveal the meaning of the title, the problems of the novel, the genre originality (understand why the novel is psychological) and the system of images of the novel.

Development of skills to analyze, compare, highlight the main points, work with text; ensure the development of students' speech during the lesson.
- carry out moral and aesthetic education.

Hero of Our Time...this is a portrait,

made up of the vices of our entire generation.

M.Yu. Lermontov.

Board design: printout

Homework to the lesson.

Reading the novel “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov.

Analysis of the composition of the work.

a) Who tells the story of Pechorin?

The degree to which the narrator knows the character.

His social status.

Intellectual and cultural level.

Moral qualities.

b) Analyze the plot of the novel.

c) Restore the chronological sequence of events in the novel (plot).

Individual task: a story about the plot of the novel according to V. Nabokov.

During the classes:

1.Organizing moment. Recording a topic.

2. Goal setting.

Take a close look at the topic. About what we'll talk at the lesson? Define your goals.

Lesson objectives: to introduce ideological plan novel;

find out the reader's initial impressions

about the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov;

note the most important features of the composition; genre.

Take a closer look at the title of the novel. What means"hero our time"? about whose time we're talking about? - Are there new words, literary terms that are not familiar to you?
(Psychological novel).

The history of the creation of the novel (slide 3-4)

Russian society became acquainted with the “long chain of stories” by M.Yu. Lermontov under the general title “Hero of Our Time” in 1839-1840. From March to February, the essay was published in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. In 1840, “A Hero of Our Time” was published as a separate book.

The time has come for us to get acquainted with this work, form our own idea about it, formulate (define) our own (personal) attitude towards its heroes.

Who read the novel? Impression of what I read. Student answers.

You are not alone in appreciating the work and its hero. The appearance of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov immediately caused heated controversy in society (slide 5-6)

Nicholas I found the novel “disgusting”, showing “the great depravity of the author.”

Protective criticism attacked Lermontov's novel, seeing in it slander of Russian reality. Professor S.P. Shevyrev sought to prove that Pechorin was nothing more than an imitation of Western models, that he had no roots in Russian life.

Before others, V.G. appreciated “A Hero of Our Time” with extraordinary fidelity. Belinsky, who noted in it “the wealth of content”, “deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society.”

To the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov writes a “Preface,” in which he insisted that “A Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” That is why these words are presented as the epigraph of our lesson.

What kind of generation is this to which both M. Yu. Lermontov himself and his hero belong?

Let's look at this topic in more detail. To talk about the century of M.Yu. Lermontov, you need to master a certain vocabulary. Follow my thoughts based on the words written on the board on the right (slide 8-10)

Worldview M. Yu. Lermontov took shape in the late 20s and early 30s of the 19th century, during the era of the ideological crisis of the advanced noble intelligentsia associated with the defeat of the December uprising and the Nikolaev reaction in all spheres public life.

Nicholas I is the tamer of revolutions, the gendarme of Europe, the jailer of the Decembrists, etc., from the point of view of “communist” historiography. A.S. Pushkin, whose relationship with the emperor was complex and ambiguous, noted the undoubted merits and Petrine scale of his personality. F.M. spoke of Nicholas I “with the greatest respect.” Dostoevsky, who, as is known, ended up in hard labor by his will. Conflicting assessments of personality. The fact is that Nicholas I rejected any revolution as an idea, as a principle, as a method of transforming reality. The Decembrist uprising is not only a noble motive to destroy “various injustices and humiliations,” but a violation of the officer’s oath, an attempt to forcibly change the political system, and criminal bloodshed. And the reaction is tough political regime, established by the emperor.

An ideological crisis is a crisis of ideas. The ideas, ideals, goals and meaning of life of the Pushkin generation - everything was destroyed. These are difficult times, later they will be called the era of timelessness.

In such years they talk about lack of spirituality, about the decline of morality. Maybe you and I have experienced or are experiencing such times associated with the collapse Soviet Union…

But let's go back to the 30s of the nineteenth century.

The need to master the “mistakes of the fathers”, to rethink what seemed immutable to the previous generation, to develop one’s own moral and philosophical position – characteristic era 20-30 years.

Practical action turned out to be impossible due to both objective (the harsh policies of the autocracy) and subjective reasons: before action, it was necessary to overcome the ideological crisis, the era of doubt and skepticism; clearly define in the name of what and how act. That is why in the 1930s they acquired exceptional importance for society. philosophical search for the best its representatives. This was extremely difficult to do. Something completely different was triumphant. Everywhere, as far as the eye could see, slowly flowed, in Herzen’s words, “deep and dirty river civilized Russia, with its aristocrats, bureaucrats, officers, gendarmes, grand dukes and emperor - a formless and voiceless mass of baseness, servility, cruelty and envy, captivating and absorbing everything.”

Man and destiny, man and his purpose, purpose and meaning human life, its possibilities and reality, free will and necessity - all these questions received figurative embodiment in the novel.

The problem of personality is central to the novel: “The history of the human soul... is almost more interesting and useful than the history of an entire people.” And this statement by M.Yu. Lermontov could become an epigraph to our lesson.

It is no coincidence that Pechorin established himself in the eyes of the generation of the 30s as a typical character of the post-Decembrist era. And with his fate, his sufferings and doubts, and the whole structure of his inner world, he truly belongs to that time. Not understanding this means not understanding anything. Neither in the hero, nor in the novel itself. To understand is, in fact, the goal of our lesson.

Determining the theme, idea and problems of the work(slide 11-12).

Let's turn to the composition of the essay.

I. – Who tells the story of Pechorin?

Student answers.

Maxim Maksimych is a staff captain, a man of the people, he has served in the Caucasus for a long time, he has seen a lot in his lifetime. A kind person, but limited. He spent a lot of time with Pechorin, but never understood the “oddities” of his aristocratic colleague, a man of a social circle too far from him.

Traveling officer (officer-narrator). He is able to understand Pechorin more deeply, and is closer to him in his intellectual and cultural level than Maxim Maksimych. However, he can only be judged on the basis of what he heard from the kind but limited Maxim Maksimych. Pechorin “...saw...only once...in my life on the highway.” Subsequently, having familiarized himself with Pechorin’s diary, which fell into his hands, the narrator will express his opinion about the hero, but it is neither exhaustive nor unambiguous.

And finally, the narrative passes entirely into the hands of the human hero sincere, “who so mercilessly exposed his own weaknesses and vices”; a man of mature mind and unconceited.

Student answers(the plot and plot of the work are written on the board before the lesson by two students).

Can this collection of stories be called a novel? Why does Pushkin have “ Stories Belkin”? Why Gogol collection of stories"Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka"?

- Why Lermontov is in no hurry to call his brainchild a novel, denoting it very differently: as “notes”, “essays”, “a long chain of stories”? Let's remember this question.

III. – Restore the chronological order of events.

Student answers. Correction of the recording of the plot of the novel made before the lesson.

Chronology of the events underlying the work, according to V. Nabokov (Slide 15)

“Taman”: around 1830 - Pechorin goes from St. Petersburg to the active detachment and stops in Taman;

“Princess Mary”: May 10 – June 17, 1832; Pechorin comes from the active detachment to the waters in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; after a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych;

“Fatalist”: December 1832 - Pechorin comes from the fortress of Maxim Maksimych to the Cossack village for two weeks;

“Bela”: spring 1833 – Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of “Prince Mirnov”, and four months later she dies at the hands of Kazbich;

“Maxim Maksimych”: autumn 1837 - Pechorin, going to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets Maksim Maksimych.”

Let us restore the picture made by M. Yu. Lermontov of “chronological shifts”. It looks like this: the novel begins from the middle of events and is carried through sequentially until the end of the hero’s life. Then the events in the novel unfold from the beginning of the depicted chain of events to its middle.

- Why does Lermontov violate the chronology of events?(slide 16-20)

Here are three issues that require immediate resolution.

Student answers.

Teacher's conclusions (depending on the completeness of students' answers).

All this is true, but not the whole truth. Lermontov created absolutely new novel– new in form and content: a psychological novel.

Psychologism – this is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of the feelings, thoughts and experiences of a literary character using specific means of fiction.

The plot of the essay becomes “the history of the human soul.”

Lermontov first lets us hear about the hero, then looks at him, and finally opens his diary to us.

The change of narrators is aimed at making the analysis of the inner world deeper and more comprehensive (slide 21-25)

Kind, but limited Maxim Maksimych.

Officer-narrator.

“Observations of a mature mind on itself.”

V.G. Belinsky argued that the novel “despite its episodic fragmentation, “cannot be read in the order in which the author himself arranged it: otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent short stories, but you will not know the novel.” M. Yu. Lermontov felt the novelty of his work, which combined such genres as a travel essay, short story, secular story, Caucasian short story, and had every reason for this. This was the first psychological novel in Russian literature.

Features of the genre: novel. Elements of romanticism and realism in the novel (slide 26-27)

Summary of material (slide 28)

Homework.

1. Write out in a cluster all the characters in the novel who are in contact with Pechorin, give their portraits.

2. Compose a quotation description of Pechorin.

Before you is a plan for the essay. Let’s just read quotes about Pechorin to understand the main character.

PECHORIN - A HERO OF HIS TIME
I. “Amid empty storms our youth languishes...” (Pechorin is a hero of the transitional time, a representative of the noble youth who entered life after the pogrom of the Decembrists; the absence of high social ideals is a striking feature of this historical period).
II. Pechorin is a tragic personality:
1. “My life was only a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions of the heart or mind”;
2. “I always hated guests at home”;
3. “My soul is spoiled by light”;
4. “Love only irritated my imagination and pride, but my heart remained empty”;
5. “I have an unhappy character: whether my upbringing made me this way, whether God created me this way, I don’t know, I only know that if I cause misfortune to others, then I myself am no less unhappy”;
6. “... twenty times I will put my life, even my honor, on the line... but I will not sell my freedom”;
7. Pechorin’s eyes - “they didn’t laugh when he laughed... This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep constant sadness”
III “...there is something special in your nature” (Vera about Pechorin)
- What else can you add to the image of Pechorin after reading quotes from the novel?
A person thinking about the meaning of life, about his own purpose, trying to understand the inconsistency of his character. The hero judges himself and executes himself.

“Grade 9 Lesson No. 33 Lermontov The first psychological novel in RL. The meaning of the name and moral issues"

M.Yu.Lermontov "Hero of our time"

… sad thought about our generation...

V.G. Belinsky

3. “Bela” - published in “Notes of the Fatherland” (

1. “Taman” – autumn 1837

Published in “Notes of the Fatherland” (1840 No. 2)

2. “Fatalist” - published in “Notes of the Fatherland” (1839 No. 11)

4. “Maksim Maksimych”

"Composition

M.Yu.Lermontova

"Hero of our time"

• The novel consists of five independent stories, which are combined common heroes and a common name.

• Each of the five stories has its own GENRE

"Maksim Maksimych"

"Fatalist"

• “ Taman”: around 1830 - Pechorin goes from St. Petersburg to the active detachment and stops in Taman;
• “Princess Mary”: May 10 – June 17, 1832; Pechorin comes from the active detachment to the waters in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; after a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych;
• “Fatalist”: December 1832 - Pechorin comes from the fortress of Maxim Maksimych to the Cossack village for two weeks;
• “Bela”: spring 1833 - Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of “Prince Mirnov”, and four months later she dies at the hands of Kazbich;
• “Maxim Maksimych”: autumn 1837 - Pechorin, going to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets Maxim Maksimych.”

• In the center all five short stories image of Pechorin .
• Several storylines which are based on different conflicts:

intimate,

psychological,

moral,

philosophical,

character conflicts

(Pechorin and Bela, Pechorin and Mary, Pechorin and Vera, Pechorin and Werner, Pechorin and Grushnitsky, Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych, Pechorin and the “water society”).

• These storylines, varying in length over time, are complemented hidden subtext(the conflict between Pechorin and the “powers that be,” by whose will he ended up in the Caucasus, whose “law and order” the hero does not accept).
• The connection of plot lines forms polyphonic structure of the novel. (innovation).
• The polyphonic structure of the novel is complemented by various narratives about Pechorin, that is the main character is characterized from different positions, including his confession, which can be considered dominant.

Image of Pechorin

This person does not bear his suffering indifferently, not apathetically: he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere; he bitterly blames himself for his errors. Internal questions are incessantly heard within him, they disturb him, torment him, and in reflection he seeks their resolution: he spies every movement of his heart, examines his every thought. He has made himself a curious subject for his observations and, trying to be as sincere as possible in his confession, not only openly admits his shortcomings, but also invents unprecedented or falsely interprets his most natural movements. V.G. Belinsky .

M.A.Vrubel

Duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky

• “A Hero of Our Time” is the first Russian realistic psychological novel in prose.

• The author sets himself the task of revealing the “history of the human soul,” about which

and writes in the preface to “Pechorin’s journal.”

• His attention is especially paid to revealing the complex and contradictory character of the main character.

Change of narrators

Maxim Maksimych considers

events seem to be upside down

binoculars, i.e. shows the "general plan".

The narrator officer zooms in

image, translates it from

general plan to a more enlarged one

ny, but he knows too little.

Pechorin has undoubted advantages

property as a storyteller, because Not

he just knows about himself more than others,

But he is also able to comprehend his

feelings and actions.

Maxim Maksimych

(talks about Pechorin in the story “Bela”)

Traveling officer

What kind of narrator (brief description)

Pechorin

This human type characteristic of Russia first half of the 19th century century: this is a man of honor, military duty, discipline. He is simple-minded, kind, sincere.

An educated officer who already knows something about such a strange person as Pechorin. He builds his observations and conclusions taking into account what he knows about the oddities and contradictions of the character of the hero. The officer and Pechorin are much closer in level, so he can explain some things that are incomprehensible to Maxim Maksimych.

A man thinking about the meaning of life, about his own purpose, trying to understand the inconsistency of his character, Pechorin judges himself and executes himself.

• composition (torn; in the center - a confessional journal);
• romantic traits in Pechorin’s character: an individualist hero in conflict with society;
• description of the landscape (“Taman”, “Princess Mary”);
• an adventurous intrigue based on tragic love (“Bela”).

• historicism (reflection of the hero in the era);
• typical characters in typical circumstances (“water society”, highlanders, Maxim Maksimych);
• Pechorin is a representative of the best part of the noble intelligentsia!
• critical pathos: there is no ideal hero;
• psychologism and reflection .

• Pechorin is the main character of the novel.
• The characters are arranged in contrasting ways. The point is to emphasize: Pechorin is the center of the story, “the hero of his time.”
• The composition of the work helps to reveal the character of Pechorin, to identify the reasons that gave rise to him .
• May with with good reason to say that the novel contains a synthesis of romanticism and realism. Lermontov discovered the most suitable method of depiction for Russian life and character, for which the name would be suitable romantic realism.

View presentation content
"Hero of our time. Didactic materials"

Presentation

prepared

teacher of Russian language and literature MBOU "Pervomaiskaya sosh"

Pervomaisky village, Tambov region

Khalyapina L.N.

M.Yu.Lermontov

"Hero of our time"

HISTORY OF CREATION

“Hero of Our Time” is Lermontov’s largest and most significant work in prose.

The novel began in 1837-1838 and was completed in 1839. Initially, the chapters of the future novel were published as independent stories, then they were combined into a separate book, published in 1840 under the title “A Hero of Our Time.”

NAME

Initially, the novel had the title “One of the Heroes of the Beginning of the Century,” which seemed to enter into polemics with the acclaimed novel by the French writer Musset, “Confession of a Son of the Century.” In this edition, the word “hero” sounded without irony and, perhaps, directly hinted at the Decembrists.

IN final version(“Hero of our time”) has an ironic connotation that falls not on the word “hero”, but on the word “ours” (that is, not on a person, but on an era).

GENRE

The novel is intended as a psychological study of human character - a typical character. Lermontov himself said this: “The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is perhaps more curious and useful than the history of an entire people, especially when it is a consequence of the observation of a mature mind over itself...” “Hero of our time” is the first Russian realistic psychological novel in prose.

"Fatalist"

PLOT AND COMPOSITION

The novel consists of five independent stories, arranged in an order that violates the chronology of events. The stories are united by common characters and a common title.

"Maksim Maksimych"

"Princess Mary"

Chronological order of events

1. Pechorin travels to his destination and stops in the town of Taman. "Taman"

2. After military operations in the Caucasus (where he meets Grushnitsky), Pechorin travels to Pyatigorsk. "Princess Mary"

3. After the duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin was sent to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych. "Bela"

4. Then the story with Vulich happens. "Fatalist"

5. After 5 years, Pechorin meets Maxim Maksimych again on the way to Persia. "Maksim Maksimych"

Location of parts in the story

• Preface to the entire novel. "Bela"

The more mysterious the hero, the more interesting to the reader. Pechorin is interesting and mysterious. The reader's attention is intense: he already wants to find answers to many questions.

2. "Maksim Maksimych"

Here Pechorin is shown not with the best side: he shows indifference and coldness towards a person who innocently admires him. The reader is ready to unconditionally condemn the hero.

"Preface" to "Pechorin's Journal". "Taman"

There comes a sharp turn in the narrative: the next three stories are parts of “Pechorin’s Diary”, and in the “Preface” to “Pechorin’s Journal” the death of the hero is reported. Here Pechorin talks about himself, revealing the reasons for his actions. As a result, the hero comes as close to the reader as possible. Pechorin turns out to be a personality, if not positive, then extremely original, complex, deep and contradictory.

"Princess Mary"

"Fatalist"

ROLE OF THE STORYTELLER

The narrator in each story is not chosen by chance and serves the general idea of ​​the novel - revealing the image of Pechorin.

"BELA"

Narrator: Maxim Maksimych

There is much in Pechorin’s character that a simple-minded and inexperienced staff captain cannot understand. He sees only the outer side, which is why Pechorin is hidden and mysterious for the reader. The characteristics that he gives to Pechorin testify not only to the naivety and purity of the soul of the narrator himself, but also to the limitations of his mind and inability to understand the complex inner life Pechorina.

"MAXIM MAXIMYCH"

"Publisher of Pechorin's diary."

A person of the same social environment and culture as Pechorin. It is easier for this narrator to understand him than for Maxim Maksimych, however, he also does not understand and does not accept much about Pechorin.

“TAMAN”, “Princess Mary”, “FATALIST”

Pechorin tells

about myself

Before us is the truthful confession of the hero, which most of all reveals to us the history of the human soul and the secret of character, in which there are so many features of Lermontov’s contemporary generation.

CONCLUSION

By introducing different narrators into the story, the author gets the opportunity to gradually bring the hero closer to the reader, gradually revealing his mystery until he himself reveals himself in his diary.

GRIGORY PECHORIN

Hero of Time

In the preface to the novel, it is characterized as “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation in their full development.” But the reader is presented with a bright personality that everyone likes: Pechorin is loved by Bela, Mary, Vera, Maxim Maksimych. The writer also sympathizes with him, although he subjects his hero to strict judgment.

PORTRAIT OF PECHORIN

Pechorin's gait is “careless and lazy,” but he “did not wave his arms” (a sign of a secretive nature). At first glance, he can be given no more than 23 years old, and later - all 30. Light color hair, and the mustache and eyebrows are black - “a sign of the breed in a person, just like the black mane and black tail of a white horse.” The author pays special attention to the eyes: “...they didn’t laugh when he laughed!.. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness.”

CHARACTERISTIC

Smart, outstanding, brilliantly educated. His figurative, accurate speech is his weapon with which he punishes self-righteous vulgarities.

Charming, mysterious, has a strong will, calm in conflicts (for example, with Grushnitsky). He does not strive for a career, although he has no rank and is not particularly rich. From his diary it is clear that he analyzes his shortcomings, thinks about the questions of existence, feels nature. The hero reveals himself in relationships with other characters. For example, the phrase-monger Grushnitsky allows us to see the originality of Pechorin; in comparison with Maxim Maksimych, the lack of connection between the hero and the people’s environment is revealed. " Water Society“personifies the vulgar noble environment, in a collision with which the hero’s best desires are extinguished. Female images reveal him in love.

DUALITY AND CONTRADICTION OF PECHORIN'S PERSONALITY

Two people are united in Pechorin . One covers up his feelings and suffering with a mask of indifference, seeks pleasure in social affairs, is cold with people, uses their weaknesses to assert his superiority. The other repents of all this, judges himself, suffers, regards himself as a “moral cripple” whose better half of his soul has “dried up, evaporated, died.”

“Some consider me worse, others better than I really am... Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a scoundrel. Both will be false.”

WHAT CAUSES OUTRAGE IN PECHORIN

His cruelty, selfishness, cynicism in relations with people.

Pechorin himself more than once compares himself to an executioner, with an ax in the hands of fate. And the reader, of course, cannot forgive him for the death of Bela, the coldness with Maxim Maksimych, the game with Mary’s feelings. But no one understands better than Pechorin how empty and meaningless his life is.

WHAT IS CHARM OF A HERO

In his sharp mind, strength and strength of character, in the ability to fearlessly and proudly challenge fate and ruthlessly judge himself.

The better half of his soul still hasn’t died, even though he hides it from prying eyes. His capacity for kindness and love constantly breaks through skepticism. Alive soul the hero - in shock at the death of Bela, in tears of despair when he realized that he had lost Faith, in the ability to see his shortcomings, to judge himself, in the ability to feel nature.

MORAL ISSUES IN THE NOVEL

1. THE PROBLEM OF THE MEANING OF LIFE AND THE PURPOSE OF PERSON

2. THE PROBLEM OF HAPPINESS

3. “NAPOLEON PROBLEM”

4. THE PROBLEM OF RESPECT FOR PEOPLE

THE PROBLEM OF THE MEANING OF LIFE AND THE PURPOSE OF PERSON

Dissatisfied with his aimless life, passionately thirsting for an ideal, but not finding it, Pechorin asks himself: “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born? He feels “immense forces” in himself and understands that his purpose was high, but he manifests himself primarily as an evil force that brings people only suffering and misfortune: he killed Bela, bloodily offended Maxim Maksimych, for the sake of empty curiosity he destroyed the nest of “honest smugglers “, disturbed Vera’s family peace, insulted Mary, and killed Grushnitsky in a duel.

THE PROBLEM OF HAPPINESS

Pechorin believes that a person is happy when he subjugates everything that surrounds him to his will (happiness is “saturated pride”). But the more such victories he wins, the more deeply he himself suffers.

"NAPOLEON PROBLEM"

This is a problem of extreme individualism and selfishness. A person who refuses to judge himself by the same laws by which he judges others loses moral guidelines, loses the criteria of good and evil. Pechorin not only brings misfortune to others, but he himself is deeply unhappy.

THE PROBLEM OF RESPECT FOR PEOPLE

Respect for the world and people begins with self-respect. But a person who humiliates others does not respect himself. Triumphing over the weak, he feels strong. According to N. Dobrolyubov, Pechorin, not knowing where to use his strength, exhausts the heat of his soul on petty passions and insignificant matters. “Evil begets evil,” the hero argues, “I sometimes despise myself!.. Isn’t that why I despise others?” Pechorin feels his moral inferiority, he “has become a moral cripple.”

PECHORIN AND MAXIM MAKSIMYCH

• A deep study of Pechorin's character occurs largely through comparison of him with other heroes.
• Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych are people not only from different circles and different cultures - they are also dissimilar in their internal qualities.

Pechorin

Maxim Maksimych

Hidden and mysterious.

All in sight

Egoist.

Always remembers others, often forgetting about himself.

All in contradictions.

Always true to yourself - this is a very integral character.

He tries to get to the very essence of everything, to understand the complexities of human nature, and above all, himself.

Lacking understanding general meaning of things; kind, simple-minded, often naive.

He has a noticeable advantage of mysterious charm and culture. He is intellectually superior to Maxim Maksimych.

Morally superior to Pechorin (and this is more important than any other advantage). Maxim Maksimych is an artistically truthful embodiment wonderful person: kind, generous, reliable and faithful and, most importantly, unaware of his greatness.

Grushnitsky

Pechorin

Is in complete harmony with himself and society.

He is in constant conflict with society and himself.

Strives for ostentatious activities

Does not find worthy activities for himself.

Portrays himself as a lonely, mysterious and disillusioned romantic hero.

Pechorin is a romantic hero.

Under his many masks is a cruel nature, in which anger and hatred prevail. Before us is a petty and selfish soul.

Everything in it is real, not ostentatious, original. Before us is a selfish nature, but complex, deep and contradictory.

Grushnitsky and Pechorin

• Duel

Until the last moment, Pechorin gave Grushnitsky a chance, he was ready to forgive his friend for his vindictiveness, the rumors spread in the city and his deliberately unloaded pistol by his opponents, Grushnitsky’s impudent expectation of a blank shot. After the duel, Pechorin does not experience the triumph of the winner. This duel is the hero’s attempt to kill the small side of his own soul.

• Conclusion

Grushnitsky has all the negative qualities of Pechorin, but none of his positive ones. If at first he may seem like Pechorin’s double, then later he becomes a kind of caricature of him (what is tragic in Pechorin is funny in him).

• They are similar to each other in their lack of simplicity. They have common egoism and narcissism.
• Placed next to Grushnitsky, Pechorin unusually wins in the eyes of readers.

• Both have a deep and sharp analytical mind, observation, insight, and knowledge of people. These are people of the same social circle and cultural level.
• They hide their feelings and moods under the guise of irony and ridicule.
• Together it is easy and simple for them, they understand each other perfectly (“read each other’s souls”), value each other’s opinions.

Pechorin

Werner

He believes that “of two friends, one is always the slave of the other, although often neither admits it; I cannot be a slave, and in this case commanding is tedious work, because at the same time I have to deceive...”

Werner is the only person worthy of being Pechorin's friend, but he also cannot stand the test (in a duel with Grushnitsky he was a second; the outcome of the duel frightened him - the friends parted).

Active: knows that only in activity can truth be found.

Contemplative, skeptic, prone to logical philosophizing.

FEMALE IMAGES IN THE NOVEL

BELA

PORTRAIT

The author’s sympathy is already felt in the portrait he created: “...she was good: tall, thin, eyes black, like a mountain chamois...”. Bela has a strong, integral character, in which there is firmness, pride, and constancy, because she was brought up in the traditions of the Caucasus.

PARALLEL “MAN - ANIMAL”

• When Pechorin decided to steal Bela, he began to play on the thinnest strings of the soul of her brother Azamat, who dreamed of the horse Kazbich. He helped Azamat steal it. So the horse became equal to the man, which in itself is already immoral and predetermines tragedy. The name of the horse Karagoz - “black eye” - is also not accidental (a parallel is drawn with the portrait of the Circassian Bela).

M. Vrubel. Kazbich and Azamat

• Pechorin, seeing a young Circassian woman at a wedding, was captivated by her appearance and unusualness. Bela seemed to him the embodiment of naturalness and spontaneity - everything that Pechorin had not met in secular lamas. Love for her is not a whim, but an attempt to return to the world of sincere feelings, to find harmony, to get closer to a person of a different faith, a different way of life.

• Pechorin and the smugglers are united by a secret and the desire for it.
• Watching the crying boy, Pechorin realizes that he is just as lonely.
• He has a feeling of unity of feelings, experiences, destinies.
• Both Pechorin and the other heroes of the story are not ideal. All of them are infected with vices and passions.
• But Pechorin is not able to penetrate among ordinary people. Here he loses his intellectual advantages of a civilized person, he is alien to the natural world and life full of dangers.

• In a clash with smugglers, Pechorin shows himself to be a man of action.
• The hero is decisive and brave, but his activity turns out to be pointless.
• The hero does not have the opportunity to indulge in major activities, to perform actions for which he feels strong.
• Pechorin wastes himself by getting involved in other people's affairs, interfering in other people's destinies, invading other people's lives and upsetting other people's happiness.

CONCLUSIONS

Mary

Portrait

• She immediately evokes sympathy: natural, brave, noble. The girl is very extraordinary: she is interested in Byron (reads him in English) and studies mathematics. Pechorin also finds merit in her: “She joked very nicely; her conversation was sharp, without pretense of sharpness, lively and free; her remarks are sometimes profound.”

• Love for Pechorin changes her: she becomes more sincere, more natural, awakened feelings turn her into kind, gentle, loving woman. She turns out to be able to forgive Pechorin. He treats her cruelly: he seeks her love without loving her himself. Pechorin wants to be honest with her, so he directly explains that he laughed at her and she should despise him for this.

FAITH

Portrait

• This is “the only woman in the world whom I would not be able to deceive,” says Pechorin. She is his guardian angel. He subtly understands Pechorin and knows how lonely and unhappy he is. Vera forgives him everything, she knows how to feel deeply and strongly.

• She and her attitude towards Pechorin help the reader to be fairer to the hero and to understand him. Now we know that this person is not always cold, calm and disappointed - he is also capable of strong feelings, capable of not only taking, but also giving (he dreams of taking Vera away, marrying her, forgetting the old woman’s prediction, sacrificing his destiny). But as soon as true feelings awaken in Pechorin’s soul, he not only worries that a stranger will see them, but he himself is afraid of them. He kills the better half of his soul and hides it deep so that no one sees (after a desperate pursuit of Vera, who has left forever, he convinces himself that his empty stomach is to blame for his tears).

PROBLEMS OF THE NOVEL

To give a portrait of a generation of young people of our time, showing all their most weak sides: coldness of hearts, selfishness, futility of activity.

Explore the human soul, focusing on the inner world of the main character, revealing in detail the motives that prompted him to take certain actions.

To understand the main contradiction of the hero of his time - the discord between his dreams and reality.

Analyze how environment influences the formation of a person’s personality and destiny.

• When asked why Pechorin’s life is “a smooth path without a goal,” Lermontov answers with the title of the novel. The socio-psychological conditions of the era largely explain the hero’s tragedy: disappointment and skepticism are also a feature of the time.
• Vices and boredom developed by society push a person to immoral acts, and the natural inclinations of the soul remain unclaimed (that is why there are contradictions and duality in Pechorin’s character).
• When a person is not attracted by either a profitable marriage or a new star on epaulets, and the ideas of goodness and justice cannot withstand the collision with life, two beliefs remain (like Pechorin): birth is a misfortune, and death is inevitable. That is why V. Belinsky called this novel “a cry of suffering” and “a sad thought.”

• "Hero of our time". Fatalist. Stills from the film “Maksim Maksimych”. State Committee for Industry and Industry of Georgia. 1927
• Krutetskaya V.A. Russian literature in tables and diagrams. 9-11 grades. – St. Petersburg: Litera Publishing House, 2010
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lermontov
• http://lermontov.niv.ru/
• http://lermontov.name/

Target: in the process of reading and analyzing the novel, trace the character properties of the main character, understand the originality of the creation psychological image, see his inconsistency, oddities, set the goal of solving the riddle of Pechorin.

Electronic means: film by A. Kott “Hero of Our Time”

Visual aids: illustrations and other artists for the novel “Hero of Our Time”

LESSON 1 The story "BELA".

Screen recording:

Vl. Nabokov builds chronological events and the order of the stories:

1. “Taman” (c. 1830) Pechorin goes from St. Petersburg to the active army and stops in Taman.

2. “Princess Mary” (May 10 – June 17, 1832). Pechorin comes from the active detachment to the waters in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; After a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimovich.

3. “Fatalist” (December 1832) Pechorin comes from Maxim Maksimovich’s fortress to the Cossack village for two weeks.

4. “Bela” (spring 1833) Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of “Prince Mirnov”, and after 4 months she dies at the hands of Kazbich.

5. “Maxim Maksimych” (autumn 1837) Pechorin goes to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets Maxim Maksimych.

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Why didn’t Lermontov build the novel in chronological order, but confused and rearranged everything?

(Answer options are written on the board)

CONCLUSION: This is explained by the author’s attention to the hero’s inner world. The reader is shown first one side or the other of his character, but the character itself does not change, it was formed earlier, and Pechorin himself sometimes explains his actions as “his unfortunate upbringing.”

2 SCREEN RECORDING:

“And maybe I’ll die tomorrow!.. and there won’t be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely. Some honor me worse, others better than I really do. Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others – a scoundrel!.. Both will be false.”

WHO IS HE – LERMONTOV’S HERO?

Let's turn to the "Preface" test.

What epithets do we find in explaining the purpose of the essay? (evils of a generation, stupid, much more terrible and uglier fictions, bitter medicines, caustic truths, human vices).

What image of the hero is emerging? (this is not a hero in the romantic sense, but a portrait of a generation with its vices, immoral actions, without embellishment, about which Lermontov wrote bitterly in the Duma (SCREEN RECORDING):

I look sadly at our generation!

His future is either empty or dark,

Meanwhile, under the burden of knowledge and doubt,

It will grow old in inaction...

And we hate and we love by chance,

Without sacrificing anything, neither anger nor love,

And some secret cold reigns in the soul,

When fire boils in the blood.

Conclusion:

This contradictory hero, in whom a scoundrel and a good fellow are intertwined, evokes both sadness and regret in the author, because this is his contemporary, which means there is a piece of Lermontov in him; and his fate and his useless life will be repeated many times in future generations: “the bitter mockery of a deceived son over squandered father."

Let's turn to the story "Bela"

Here is staff captain Maxim Maksimovich, during a journey - climbing Gud Mountain, descending into the Devil's Valley, a forced halt in an Ossetian hut, entertaining his companion with a story about his strange colleague, Pechorin.

What surprises and what is incomprehensible to Maxim Maksimovich in Pechorin?

Working with text (quoting, paraphrasing):

His inconsistency: during the hunt everyone will be tired and cold, but he won’t mind. But there is a smell of wind in the room, assuring me that I have a cold. Either he’ll be silent for hours, or he’ll start talking and you’ll tear your stomach.

He retells Pechorin’s explanations of why he quickly gets bored with everything, but explains that all misfortunes come from drunkenness or spoiling: “whatever you have in mind, give it to me, apparently, I was spoiled by my mother as a child.”

Interested in this strange man, we turn to his actions.

How does the hero manifest himself in the story with Bela?

- He liked her immediately when she came up and sang a compliment. 16-year-old, thin, eyes black, like a mountain chamois, and look into your soul. He figured out how to steal it, and he stole it.

To win her over, he showered her with gifts, but quickly realized that he had to appeal to her feelings: “Goodbye...

I’m guilty before you... Maybe I won’t be chasing a bullet for long... then remember me and forgive me.”

He calculated the time when Bela would become his, even argued with Maxim Maksimovich - in a week.

They were happy for a while. But this did not last long. Pechorin became bored with Bela, he began to leave the fortress for a long time.

Bela left the fortress to the river, was captured by Kazbich and mortally wounded. So Kazbich took revenge on Pechorin for the horse. Pechorin amazed Maxim Maksimovich with a strange laugh after Bela’s death, then he was sick for a long time and lost weight.

Did these events and the hero’s actions clarify anything in Pechorin’s character?

- He is a charming person, Maxim Maksimovich fell in love with him as if he were his own son, and Bela fell in love with him.

He is a calculating egoist, a talented scoundrel. He is to blame for the death of Bela and her family. He treated Bela selfishly and inhumanly: he traded her for someone else’s horse.

He suffers and suffers. Bela's death left a long mark on his soul.

When he needs, he uses his methods of charm, and no one can resist him, he has a strong-willed nature, he knows how to play on human strings.

General conclusion: So, judging by the actions told by Maxim Maksimovich, Pechorin is a mysterious, strange, contradictory person. said about him: “In “Bel” he is some kind of mysterious person, as if he appears under a fictitious name so as not to be recognized.”

Written assignment: write an essay “First acquaintance with Pechorin”

LESSON 2 .

The story "Maksim Maksimych"

GOAL: To see the hero through the eyes of a psychological narrator, to find confirmation of Maxim Maksimych’s observations and to obtain explanations for some of his contradictions by examining his portrait.

1. Let’s share our thoughts about Pechorin (we read out our homework essays)

3. Working with the text of the chapter.

The meeting with the hero is preceded by a description of the morning. Let’s read it: “The morning was fresh and beautiful. Golden clouds piled up on the mountains, like a new series of aerial mountains...” Against the backdrop of a fresh morning, the long-awaited and impatiently awaited one appears (together with Maxim Maksimych) - He. Perhaps there is some hidden meaning in this?

Yes, he was clearly indifferent to the beauty of the morning: he yawned twice and sat down on the bench on the other side of the gate.

Let's read the portrait of Pechorin and note in it the features of his personality (the ability to endure the difficulties of nomadic life, habits decent person, secretiveness of character, nervous weakness, a childish smile, his eyes did not laugh when he laughed - a sign of either an evil disposition or deep constant sadness; his gaze could have seemed impudent if it had not been so indifferently calm).

What immediately catches your eye in Pechorin’s portrait?

Yes, and the portrait emphasizes inconsistency. Let's confirm this with observations: let's make a table of contradictions.

Broad shoulders - Women's hands

Childish smile - Penetrating heavy gaze

Youthful appearance - Wrinkles intersecting one another

Blonde hair - Mustache and eyebrows black

Gait is careless and lazy - Does not swing arms

Strong physique - straight waist bent, as if there was not a single bone, etc.

What in his attitude towards Maxim Maksimych surprised and amazed you?

Indeed, it is so indifferent, cold to meet an old friend, refuse to talk, remember the old life. Belu. Stop! At the name of Bela, Pechorin turned pale and turned away. He didn't forget anything! Can we explain his behavior now?

Yes, he is going to Persia and will never return. Remember, in the fortress he said to Maxim Maksimych: “As soon as possible, I will go... to America, to Arabia, to India, and maybe I’ll die somewhere along the way.” Does he care about talking, does he care about memories? Even the diaries are no longer needed - he is breaking ties with everything that was dear...

What is your opinion about Pechorin now? (Strange, sad, lonely, tired, secretive, devastated, indifferent to both the past and the future, surprisingly cute, arousing sympathy and interest)

Write an essay about this.

(In the remaining time, we watch an episode of Cott’s film “Hero of Our Time” “Bela”)

SYSTEM OF LESSONS ON THE NOVEL BY M.YU. LERMONTOV “A HERO OF OUR TIME”
Author: Makarova Natalya Aleksandrovna, teacher of Russian language and literature.
LESSON #1
Topic: “Hero of Our Time” - the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Main and secondary characters.
Purpose: review and discussion of the content of the novel; analysis of composition features; prove that the work is the first psychological novel in Russian literature; create conditions for a more complete understanding of the text; develop skills in analyzing a literary work through the features of plot and composition; identifying the reading position of students; development of monologue speech skills.
DURING THE CLASSES
“The Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development” (M.Yu. Lermontov)
I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT

Working with an epigraph
III. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON
1. Teacher’s lecture (students take notes)
Lermontov's only completed novel was not originally conceived as a complete work. In “Domestic Notes” for 1839, “Bela. From an officer's notes about the Caucasus" and later "Fatalist" with a note that "M. Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories, both printed and unpublished.” In 1840, “Taman” was published there and then “Hero of Our Time” was published in two volumes. The problematic aphoristic title was proposed by the experienced journalist A. A. Kraevsky instead of the original author’s “One of the heroes of our century.” “Collected Stories,” united by the image of the main character, turned out to be the first socio-psychological and philosophical novel in Russian prose, which in terms of genre also mastered numerous elements of dramatic action, especially in the largest and most significant story, “Princess Mary.”
“A Hero of Our Time” is “the story of the human soul,” one person who embodied in his unique individuality the contradictions of an entire historical period. Pechorin is the only main character (although “Eugene Onegin” is named after one hero, the image of Tatyana, as well as the Author, is extremely important in it). His loneliness in the novel is fundamentally significant. Only individual episodes of Pechorin’s biography are covered; in the preface to his journal, the travel officer talks about a thick notebook, “where he tells his whole life,” but, in essence, the reader already gets an idea of ​​the hero’s life path from childhood to death. This is the story of the futile attempts of an extraordinary person to realize himself, to find at least some satisfaction to his needs, attempts that invariably turn into suffering and losses for him and those around him, the story of his loss of powerful vital forces and an absurd, unexpected, but prepared by all the above-mentioned death from having nothing to do, from its uselessness to anyone and to himself.
Most readers and critics of the newly published novel perceived Pechorin as a completely negative hero. This level of understanding was also demonstrated by Emperor Nicholas I. Getting acquainted with the first part of the work, he decided that the “hero of our days” would be the unassuming, honest (and narrow-minded) servant Maxim Maksimych. The content of the second part and the attribution of the title formula to Pechorin caused the emperor (in a letter to his wife) to irritate the maxim: “Such novels spoil morals and harden character.” “What result can this give? Contempt or hatred for humanity! Lermontov himself succumbed somewhat general mood and in the preface to the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time” (1841) he stated that Pechorin “is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” But in the preface to Pechorin’s magazine he was called precisely the hero of the time. Another thing is that as the time goes, so does the hero. The answer to the expected reaction of readers is “Yes, this is evil irony!” - just a meaningful “I don’t know.” As in “Duma,” Lermontov does not separate himself from his generation with all its inherent vices. Other emphasis was made by V. G. Belinsky, who addressed the public even more harshly than the author in the general preface. He said about Pechorin: “You anathematize him not for his vices - in you they are greater and in you they are blacker and more shameful - but for that bold freedom, for that bilious frankness with which he speaks about them.” Bold freedom in times of lack of freedom and courage - isn’t this the sign of a true hero?
2. Literary theory
A psychological novel is an epic work in which attention is focused on the inner world of the hero, the movements of his soul, and understanding the reasons for his actions.
-Prove that “A Hero of Our Time” is a psychological novel.
A.S.Pushkin M.Yu.Lermontov
"Eugene Onegin" "Hero of Our Time"
“encyclopedia of Russian life” “history of the human soul”

Evolution of the protagonist's soul Dive into the soul. Evolution
No
3. Features of the composition
Plot is a set of events in a work of fiction (events arranged in the order in which the author reports them).
“Bela” /4/
“Maksim Maksimych” /5/
“Foreword”
“Pechorin’s Journal” /6/
“Taman” /1/
“Princess Mary” /2/
“Fatalist” /3/ Fabula – events in a literary work in their sequential connection (a set of events in their natural chronological order)
“Taman”
“Princess Mary”
"Fatalist"
“Bela”
“Maksim Maksimych”
“Preface” to “Pechorin’s Journal”.
-How many narrators are there in the novel?
First, in the story "Bela" we learn about Pechorin from a simple Russian officer Maxim Maksimych, a kind, honest man, for a long time who spent time with Pechorin and treated him kindly, but was completely different from him in spirit and upbringing. He can only note the peculiarities of the behavior of the “strange man”, who remained a mystery to him (and therefore to the reader).
In the story “Maksim Maksimych” the narrator changes: he is an officer, fellow traveler and listener of Maxim Maksimych in “Bel”, clearly closer to Pechorin in age, development, social status, and most importantly - similar in spirit and frame of mind. He makes an attempt to somehow explain the characteristics of this unusual person.
And finally, we get acquainted with the hero’s diaries, his peculiar confession, which allows us to see his soul as if “from the inside”, through self-disclosure, thorough analysis and exposure of the underlying reasons for the hero’s behavior and the characteristics of his character.
This construction allows the author to:
- to interest the reader as much as possible in the fate of Pechorin;
- trace the history of his inner life;
- reveal the image of Pechorin in two ways: from the point of view of an outside observer and in terms of internal self-disclosure;
- as if leaving the hero alive, to show his own author’s position.
4. The meaning of the novel's title
1). What does “hero” mean? Select the appropriate option:
-a person of exceptional virtue;
- the main character of the work;
- a person who is an exponent of some environment, era
2) Why “our” time, and not “mine”, not “yours”?
IV. FIXING
"Passport" of the hero
Name literary hero ________________
Location______________________
The time in which the hero lived_______________
Education __________________________
Occupation __________________________
Portrait_____________________________
Character traits ______________________
Habits, hobbies___________________________
Interesting facts about the personality of the literary hero____
My attitude towards the hero__________________________________________
IV. D/Z Note the characteristics of Pechorin’s character in the story “Bela”
V. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
LESSON #2
Topic: “Strange Man” (Analysis of the story “Bela”)
Goal: by analyzing the chapter “Bela”, to reveal the characteristics of Pechorin’s character; develop skills in working with the text of a work of art; help students understand the cultural value of a work.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT

Survey-quiz on the content of the previous lesson
II. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
- Who is he, Lermontov’s hero? We have to make a first impression of him by analyzing the chapter of “Bel”.
“And maybe I’ll die tomorrow!.. and there won’t be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely. Some honor me worse, others better than I really do. Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others – a scoundrel!.. Both will be false.”
III. PERCEPTION OF LEARNING MATERIAL
1. Working with text
Analysis of the “Preface” to the novel.
1 paragraph – an appeal to the public, “who are so young and simple-minded that they do not understand a fable if there is no moral teaching at the end”
Paragraph 2 – response to indignant criticism
Paragraph 3 – Lermontov’s goal: “to create a portrait created from the vices of an entire generation”
Paragraph 4 – an explanation of how he intends to create a portrait: “bitter medicines and caustic truths are needed, enough people have been fed sweets”
2. Analysis of the chapter “Bela”
- Staff Captain Maxim Maksimovich, during the journey - the ascent to Gud Mountain, the descent to the Devil's Valley, the forced halt in the Ossetian hut, entertains his companion with a story about his strange colleague, Pechorin.
- What surprises and what is incomprehensible to Maxim Maksimovich in Pechorin?
Working with text (quoting, paraphrasing):
his inconsistency: then on the hunt everyone will be tired and cold, but he won’t mind. But there is a smell of wind in the room, assuring me that I have a cold. Either he’ll be silent for hours, or he’ll start talking and you’ll tear your stomach.
retells Pechorin’s explanations of why he quickly gets bored with everything, but explains that all misfortunes come from drunkenness or spoilage: “whatever you have in mind, give it to me, apparently, I was spoiled by my mother as a child.”
-Interested in this strange man, we turn to his actions.
- How did the hero meet Bela?
He liked her immediately when she came up and sang a compliment. 16-year-old, thin, eyes black, like a mountain chamois, and look into your soul. He figured out how to steal it, and he stole it.
- Why did Pechorin steal Bela?
- What did Pechorin do to win Bela’s favor?
To win her over, he showered her with gifts, but quickly realized that he needed to appeal to her feelings: “Goodbye... I’m to blame for you... Maybe I won’t be chasing a bullet for long... then remember me and forgive me.”
He calculated the time when Bela would become his, even argued with Maxim Maksimovich - in a week.
- Did Pechorin win?
They were happy for a while. But this did not last long. Pechorin became bored with Bela, he began to leave the fortress for a long time.
Bela left the fortress to the river, was captured by Kazbich and mortally wounded. So Kazbich took revenge on Pechorin for the horse. Pechorin amazed Maxim Maksimovich with a strange laugh after Bela’s death, then he was sick for a long time and lost weight.
-Did these events and the hero’s actions clarify anything in Pechorin’s character?
He is a charming person, Maxim Maksimovich fell in love with him as if he were his own son, and Bela fell in love with him.
He is a calculating egoist, a talented scoundrel. He is to blame for the death of Bela and her family. He treated Bela selfishly and inhumanly: he traded her for someone else’s horse.
He suffers and suffers. Bela's death left a long mark on his soul.
When he needs, he uses his methods of charm, and no one can resist him, he has a strong-willed nature, he knows how to play on human strings.
3. Composition of the story
OBSTACLE CHALLENGING DESTINY DESTINY WON
Bela's song: Pechorin steals Bela Bela dies “a good Russian officer,
Just don't let him grow up
Don't bloom in our garden"
General conclusion: So, judging by the actions told by Maxim Maksimovich, Pechorin is a mysterious, strange, contradictory person. V. G. Belinsky said about him: “In “Bel” he is some kind of mysterious person, as if he appears under a fictitious name so as not to be recognized.”
IV. FIXING
(Fishbone technique)
Characteristics of Pechorin

Pechorin was sent to the fortress “out of government necessity,” i.e., by someone else’s will Pechorin is a nobleman, an aristocrat, a rich man
Pechorin destroyed Bela and her entire family, he did it with the wrong hands
Bela became a victim of Pechorin's egoism, since he life principle: "I want"
It’s cruel that Pechorin tore Bela out of her circle and destroyed the harmony of her life.
The essence of Pechorin's character is contradiction

Pechorin performs all actions of his own free will, out of personal need.
Pechorin does not value his position; the sword as a symbol of honor means nothing to him
Pechorin deeply worries about what he has done, he is unhappy, since he is the cause of the tragedy
Making other people victims, Pechorin does not spare himself
Pechorin also gives Bela a choice, wanting her to “freely act”
IV. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
V. D/Z
LESSON #3
Topic: “What were we supposed to talk about?” (analysis of the story “Maksim Maksimych”)
GOAL: To see the hero through the eyes of a psychological narrator, to find confirmation of Maxim Maksimych’s observations and to obtain explanations for some of the contradictions in Pechorin’s character by examining his portrait.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. UPDATED BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Test on the content of the story “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych”
"Bela"
1. Whose portrait is this: “He was wearing an officer’s frock coat without epaulettes and a Circassian shaggy hat. He seemed to be about fifty years old; dark color his face showed that he had long been familiar with the Transcaucasian sun, and his mustache did not match his firm gait”?
A) Pechorin
B) marching officer
B) Maxim Maksimych2. Pechorin's name is
A) Grigory Alexandrovich
B) Grigory Alekseevich
B) Grigory Antonovich
3. How old is Pechorin?
A) 20
B) 25
B) 30
4. Who and about which of the heroes said this: “He was a nice fellow, only a little wild boar one on one...”?
A) Pechorin about Maxim Maksimych B) Maxim Maksimych about Pechorin
Q) Kazbich about Azamat 5. What is Bela’s social status?
A) princess
B) peasant woman
B) countess
6. Where did Pechorin first see Bela?
A) on a walk
B) at the ball
B) at a wedding
7. What is the name of Bela’s brother?
A) Kazbich
B) Terke
B) Azamat8. How did Pechorin court Bela?
A) gave gifts
B) walked with her in the fortress
C) helped her learn Russian
9. What is Bela’s nationality?
A) Tatar
B) Georgian
B) Circassian
10. How did Kazbich manage to kidnap Bela?
A) Azamat helped Kazbich lure his sister out
B) Bela left the walls of the fortress to the river
B) Kazbich stole a girl from the fortress at night
11. How does the chapter “Bela” end?
A) the death of Bela
B) the traffic officer says goodbye to Maxim Maksimovich
B) Pechorin left the fortress
"Maksim Maksimych"
1. Whose portrait is this: “He was of average height, his slender, thin figure and broad shoulders proved a strong build... his gait was careless and lazy, but he did not wave his arms - a sure sign of a secretive character”?
A) Pechorin
B) Maxim Maksimych C) infantry officer
2. How did Pechorin explain where he was going?
A) to Persia
B) to Tiflis
B) to Russia
3. What did Maxim Maksimych think about after Pechorin left?
A) Pechorin visited Moscow
B) Pechorin will end badly... and it cannot be otherwise.
B) Pechorin remembers Bela
4. Military rank of Maxim Maksimych?
A) staff - captain B) staff - lieutenant
B) major
(Self-test)
II. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
- What is friendship for you? Who do you consider a friend? How would you react if you ran into an old friend you haven't seen for a long time?
- How did Pechorin react? Let's find out why.
III. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON
1. Introductory conversation
- Why is the story called “Maksim Maksimych” and not “Pechorin”?
-What opinion do you have about Maxim Maksimych?
Kind
Flexible
True friend
Executive
Spiritually weaker than Pechorin, he cannot resist Pechorin's whim.
Naive
Incapable of feeling a person (close-minded)
2. Working with the text of the chapter.
- In the chapter “Maksim Maksimych” we not only continue to get acquainted with the image of the main character, but also the image of Maksim Maksimych receives its completion.
Portrait is an image of the hero’s appearance, his face, figure, clothes, demeanor.
A psychological portrait is a portrait in which the author, through the appearance of the hero, seeks to reveal his inner world, his character.
- How did Maxim Mksimych take the news about Pechorin’s arrival? How did he expect Pechorin?
- The meeting with the hero is preceded by a description of the morning. Let’s read it: “The morning was fresh and beautiful. Golden clouds piled up on the mountains, like a new series of aerial mountains...” Against the backdrop of a fresh morning, the long-awaited and impatiently awaited one (along with Maxim Maksimych) appears. Perhaps there is some hidden meaning in this?
He was clearly indifferent to the beauty of the morning: he yawned twice and sat down on the bench on the other side of the gate.
- Let's read the portrait of Pechorin and note the features of his personality in it. (the ability to endure the difficulties of nomadic life, the habits of a decent person, secretiveness of character, nervous weakness, a childish smile, his eyes did not laugh when he laughed - a sign of either an evil disposition or deep constant sadness, his gaze could have seemed impudent if it had not been so indifferently calm ).
- What immediately catches your eye in Pechorin’s portrait?
And the portrait emphasizes inconsistency. Let's confirm this with observations: let's make a table of contradictions.
Broad shoulders - Women's hands
Childish smile - Penetrating heavy gaze
Youthful appearance - Wrinkles intersecting one another
Blonde hair - Mustache and eyebrows black
Gait is careless and lazy - Does not swing arms
Strong physique - straight waist bent, as if there was not a single bone, etc.
- What surprised and amazed you in his attitude towards Maxim Maksimych?
So indifferently, coldly to meet an old friend, refuse to talk, remember the old life. Belu. Stop! At the name of Bela, Pechorin turned pale and turned away. He didn't forget anything!
-Can we explain his behavior now?
He is going to Persia and will never return. Remember, in the fortress he said to Maxim Maksimych: “As soon as possible, I will go... to America, to Arabia, to India, and maybe I’ll die somewhere along the way.” Does he care about talking, does he care about memories? Even the diaries are no longer needed - he is breaking ties with everything that was dear...
-But why?
Pechorin longs for death, which will save him from suffering, from the burden of his sins.
- What is your opinion about Pechorin now? (Strange, sad, lonely, tired, secretive, devastated, indifferent to both the past and the future, surprisingly handsome, evoking sympathy and interest) - Why doesn’t Maxim Maksimych understand Pechorin?
Maxim Maksimych - a kind person, values ​​friendship, but he and Pechorin are different people, so Maxim Maksimych does not understand Pechorin, unlike the passing officer. Maxim Maksimych does not understand that for Pechorin the meeting with the staff captain is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred through his fault.
- Did the officer-narrator understand Pechorin?
Yes, because they are people of the same circle. The narrator is similar to Lermontov himself, so he can understand Pechorin and does not condemn him.
IV. FIXING
- Choose an epigraph for the material studied in the lesson
V. LESSON RESULTS
VI. D/Z Write an essay on the topic: “How is Pechorin’s character revealed in the story “Taman”?”
LESSON #4
Topic: “Human joys and disasters” (“Taman”)
Goal: to discover the beauty and poetry of the world in the story "Taman"; find an explanation for Pechorin’s actions and feelings: a sense of the world as a mystery, a passionate interest in life and people, a thirst for activity and its aimlessness, a critical attitude towards oneself.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT
II. UPDATING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Test on the story "Taman"
1. What is the name of this fragment: “The full moon shone on the reed roof and white walls of my new home. The shore sloped down steeply to the sea, almost at the very walls; dark blue waves splashed below with a continuous murmur. The moon looked at the restless, but submissive element"?
A) landscape
B) interior “The Joys and Disasters of Man” (“Taman”
B) story
2. Why did Pechorin end up in the smugglers’ house?
A) He wanted to spend the night on the seashore
B) there were no available apartments in the city
B) He decided to find out what kind of people live here
3.What was the name of the blind boy?
A) Yanko
B) Ivanko
B) he had no name
4. Why did the undine decide to drown Pechorin?
A) He pestered her during the day
B) He learned about smuggling
B) He saw her at night on the seashore with a boy and a smuggler
5. What is the fate of the undine?
A) she sails away with the smuggler
B) she died at sea
B) Pechorin exposed her
6. Finish Pechorin’s words: “I don’t know what happened to the old woman and the poor blind man………..”
A) I'm not interested in knowing about them
B) What do I care about human joys and misfortunes?
C) What do I care about honest smugglers?
(Mutual check)

IV. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON
1. Teacher's word
- This story opens Pechorin's Journal. Previously, other people were storytellers. Now we recognize Pechorin as if from the inside, through himself.
PECHORIN THROUGH THE EYES OF PECHORIN
A diary is a literary work in the form of daily entries (most often indicating the date), contemporary with the events described. Initially, it assumes complete frankness, sincerity of the thoughts and feelings of the writer.
“Take Lermontov’s story “Taman” - you won’t find a word in it that could be thrown out or inserted; the whole thing sounds from beginning to end in one harmonic chord; what a wonderful language...!”
D.V. Grigorovich
2. Conversation based on content
- In what condition does Pechorin arrive in Taman? (began to demand, did not sleep for three nights, was exhausted and began to get angry)
- What will he do? a common person in moments of extreme physical fatigue?
- What does Pechorin do when he finds himself in a “bad” place? Why?
The desire to “interfere” in events is evidence of the hero’s activity. Everything that Pechorin does, he does not for the sake of any benefit and not for the sake of the desire to benefit people. He does not pursue any goal, but he cannot help but act.
- How do they treat an “unclean” place in the city?
- Why doesn’t it repel Pechorin, doesn’t frighten him, but attracts him?
- Who in the story “challenges” Pechorin?
- What is the secret here? Why does Pechorin talk about what he saw at night to the blind man and the “undine”, but says nothing to his orderly?
Pechorin - ROMANTIC?
- Pay attention to Pechorin’s vocabulary
Landscape sketches (abundance of epithets and metaphors) – Pechorin loves nature, is able to see beauty
"drove me crazy"
"Fire Kiss"
"The Power of Youthful Passion"
3. Pechorin’s character traits
- How does Pechorin in the story “Taman” differ from Pechorin in “Bel”? (he is not indifferent, he is desperate and brave, he is curious)
- How does Pechorin’s critical attitude towards himself manifest itself? (Talking about himself, he does not hide anything.)
- Does Pechorin evoke condemnation in this story?
(Rather, he regrets that his powers rich nature have no real use.)
- What does Pechorin’s last phrase mean?
(She became his motto, these words are all Pechorin. He doesn’t care about the problems and joys of other people, he satisfied his curiosity, and he doesn’t need anything else...)4. Implementation of homework
Students read out their essays and evaluate each other.
IV. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
V. D/Z Comparative characteristics Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
LESSON #5
Topic: “Why do they all hate me so much?” (story "Princess Mary")
Goal: to understand Pechorin’s complex relationships with other characters, to help students understand the motives of his actions; develop skills in analyzing the image of a literary hero; develop the ability to treat others with understanding.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. ORG.MOMENT
II. UPDATING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Poll on the content of the chapter “Princess Mary”
III. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
V.G. Belinsky wrote: “Whoever has not read the greatest story of this novel, “Princess Mary,” cannot judge either the idea or the dignity of the whole creation. The main idea of ​​the novel is developed in the main character - Pechorin, whom you only become fully acquainted with through “Princess Mary”; After reading this story, “Bela” herself appears before you in a new light.”
IV. PERCEPTION OF NEW MATERIAL
1. Pechorin's Journal
-Why does Pechorin keep a diary?
(Firstly, this is the only interlocutor with whom he can be absolutely sincere. “I’m used to admitting this to myself,” writes Pechorin.
Secondly, urgency reflection - detailed self-analysis, analysis of one’s actions and movements of the soul. The state of reflection is dangerous, because it is subject not to feeling, but to reason. A thorough analysis of one's own actions kills feeling. “I have long been living not with my heart, but with my head,” says Pechorin). Werner
2. System of images
Water Society

PechorinnVera

Grushnitsky

3. "Water Society"
- Why is Pechorin’s duel with the water society inevitable?
- How does Pechorin feel about his representatives? (read excerpt)
“Why do they all hate me? – I thought. - For what? Have I offended anyone? No. Am I really one of those people whose mere sight generates ill will?”
- Why do they hate Pechorin? (Because they feel his superiority over themselves).
4. Grushnitsky
- Read the description of Grushnitsky given by Pechorin.
- Why doesn’t Pechorin like Grushnitsky?
(Grushnitsky cadet. A cadet is a student of a military school. For military merits, cadets were promoted to officers. A cadet could also be demoted for a duel or as a participant in the December uprising. Grushnitsky wore a cadet uniform out of a special kind of dandyism, as Pechorin says. Grushnitsky wants to seem like something else , who he really is. He is ashamed to admit that he is a cadet in his youth.) - Why does Grushnitsky not like Pechorin? (For the fact that Pechorin understood him)
Grushnitsky is the direct antipode of Pechorin, even a parody of him. If Pechorin attracts attention to himself without caring at all about it, then Grushnitsky is trying his best to “produce an effect.” If Pechorin is truly disappointed in life, then Grushnitsky plays at disappointment. “His goal is to become the hero of a novel.” And Grushnitsky tries to behave like the hero of the novel: he throws out pompous phrases, “drapes himself in extraordinary feelings, sublime passions and exceptional suffering.” But he fails to be a romantic hero, since all his feelings and experiences are false.
- Is it possible to draw a parallel between Grushnitsky and Lensky?
Grushnitsky stands next to Pechorin, like Lensky stands next to Onegin. He was also the protagonist's friend and was killed by him. But there is a significant difference between Lensky and Grushnitsky: Lensky is a real romantic, and Grushnitsky wants to seem...
Implementation of d/z Comparative characteristics of Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
5. Pechorin and Mary
- Why does Pechorin start courting Mary?
(“An innate passion to contradict.” Grushnitsky is sure that Princess Mary hates Pechorin and that the doors to the Ligovskys’ house are closed to him. Pechorin immediately decides to prove the opposite.) - What was Pechorin’s opinion of Princess Mary?
(Pechorin sees Mary as a spoiled Moscow young lady, believes that she is “the kind of woman who wants to be amused.” Therefore, he takes pleasure in offending her pride. But as a soul emerges in Mary, capable of sincerely loving and suffering, Pechorin’s attitude towards the princess becomes different) - What brings Mary closer to Grushnitsky? (Grushnitsky wants to be a romantic hero, and Mary wants to love a romantic hero)
-He managed to divert her attention from Grushnitsky and enter the Ligovskys’ house. The dispute was won. Why did Pechorin continue to seek Mary’s love, because he had no intention of marrying her?
(“My first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me” is the only explanation for his action. “To be the cause of suffering and joy for someone, without having any positive right to do so—isn’t this the sweetest food of our pride? And what is happiness? Saturated pride." Thus, the only goal that Pechorin pursues is to satiate his pride.) - While seeking Mary’s love, Pechorin himself suspected several times that he was in love with Mary. Why didn't he marry her?
(Marriage was not part of his plans. It was not indifference, but fear of everyday life that made him reject Mary’s feelings. But Pechorin’s unseemly act has another side: he saved Mary from an affair with a scoundrel).6. Pechorin and Werner
- Read Werner's profile
Dr. Werner is an intelligent and insightful person, a mocking and subtle interlocutor. Skeptic and materialist, but at the same time a poet. He has an evil tongue and mocks the sick who come to the waters for treatment. He studied all the strings of the human heart, but never used his knowledge.
- How Pechorin reveals himself in his relationship with Werner.
(In his relationship with Werner, Pechorin’s egocentrism is revealed, who does not recognize friendship because it requires self-forgetfulness: “I am not capable of friendship: of two friends, one is always the slave of the other.” Unlike the “hero of the time,” Werner is not able to accept the active manifestation evil. He recoiled from the demonic hero after the murder of Grushnitsky, which caused Pechorin only a skeptical remark about the weakness of human nature.)
7. Pechorin and Vera
-What is the significance of the image of Vera? (Shows that Pechorin is capable of strong feelings. Relations with Vera show that, contrary to his beliefs, Pechorin is “capable of going crazy under the influence of passion.” Remembering Vera, Pechorin writes in his journal: “There is no person in the world over whom the past would acquire such power as over me. Every reminder of past sadness or joy painfully strikes my soul and draws out the same sounds from it... I was created stupidly: I don’t forget anything - nothing!”) - And here we remember the scene of Pechorin’s meeting with Maxim Maksimych. Has Pechorin forgotten Bela? No!
- How is Vera different from Mary? (Vera loves Pechorin deeply and sincerely, she is the only woman who understands Pechorin, the only one whom he is not able to deceive. Vera sees not only Pechorin’s merits, but also his shortcomings: “evil in no one is so attractive.” And Vera accepts Pechorin with all his bad passions and vices. For this Pechorin loves her.) - Why does Pechorin, after the duel with Grushnitsky, rush after Vera? What does he want to catch up with?
(It is not for nothing that Vera is called Vera. Her name is the personification of faith in people, in life, in love. It is after her, faith in love, that Pechorin is chasing. Tears are a manifestation of the soul, alive, capable of feeling.)8. Duel
- What caused the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky?
- What secret did Pechorin learn about the duel?
- What does Pechorin do on the eve of the duel? (summarizes the life lived) read
- What conclusions does Pechorin come to? (“It’s true, I had a high destiny, because I feel immense strength in myself”... “My love did not bring happiness to anyone, because I did not sacrifice anything for those I loved...”) - What goals do opponents pursue?
Grushnitsky Pechorin
Make a farce out of the duel
Restore your human value
Prove that he is not a boy, but a man. Teach Grushnitsky a lesson.
Defend Mary's honor
Comprehend what is happening (fate - not fate?)
- Read the duel scene
- Why does Pechorin continue to test Grushnitsky?
- Why did Pechorin shoot? Did he have a choice? What about Grushnitsky?
- Can Pechorin’s conscience be clear?
- Do you feel sorry for Grushnitsky?
V. Consolidation
- How is Pechorin’s character revealed in this story?
Pechorin:
Hates hypocrisy
"an innate passion to contradict"
Sincere with yourself
Incapable of friendship
Capable of strong feelings and madness
Capable of noble impulses, contrary to his statements
Afraid of seeming funny
Lives not with the heart, but with the mind
VI. D/Z Answer the questions:
What brings Pechorin closer to Hamlet?
Compare two duels: Onegin - Lensky and Pechorin - Grushnitsky.
LESSON #6
Topic: “I decided to try my luck” (“Fatalist”)
Goal: to bring students to a holistic understanding of the image of Pechorin; reveal the concept " philosophical novel"; develop skills in analyzing a work of art; cultivate a love of literature.
DURING THE CLASSES
To be or not to be
That is the question
Is it worthy to measure yourself under
blows of fate
Or it is worth resisting.
(W. Shakespeare.)
I. ORG,MOMENT
II. UPDATING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Survey on the studied material.
III. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Working with an epigraph
- Do you believe in fate?
- What is fate? (Predestination)
To believe in fate means to believe in God, to trust Him with your life, to humbly accept everything that the Lord sends to you and not to tempt fate. These are the foundations of Orthodoxy.
- How does Pechorin feel about fate? Today we have to find out.
IV. PERCEPTION OF LEARNING MATERIAL
1. Vocabulary work
Fatum - fate
Fatal – predetermined by fate, fate
Fatalism is a mystical belief in the inevitability of fate, in the fact that everything in this world is supposedly predetermined by fate, fate
Fatalist - a person imbued with fatalism, believing in predestination from above
- Who does the title of the story refer to? Is Pechorin a fatalist? Is Vulich a fatalist? Is Maxim Maksimych a fatalist? Or is Lermontov a fatalist?
2. Genre of the story
- How is the last part of the novel – “Fatalist” – different from the previous ones?
In this story, Pechorin has neither friends nor enemies. All characters divided into those who believe in fate and those who do not.
- How can you determine the genre of this story?
This story can be called philosophical, since the author tries to answer the question: what controls a person’s life - fate or himself?
3. Analysis of the content of the story.
- Where does the story take place?
“on the left flank” of the Caucasian line.
- How is the plot of the story constructed?
The plot includes two episodes, between which is located lyrical digression in the form of Pechorin's thoughts about fate.
Analysis of the first episode of “The Wager of Vulich and Pechorin”
- Reading the novel, we repeatedly find confirmation that Pechorin sees the hand of fate in different situations, but the “innate passion to contradict” forces him to enter into an argument, declaring “that there is no predestination.”
- How does Pechorin manifest himself in this story?
He was the only one who decided to participate in this bet, which speaks of his thirst for activity.
Pechorin plays with a person's life, instead of refusing the bet.
He calmly tells Vulich that he must die
- Vulich remained alive, Pechorin returns home, continuing the argument about fate with himself. What conclusions does he come to?
It's funny that our ancestors believed in fate
People of his generation live “WITHOUT convictions and pride, WITHOUT pleasure and fear”, “are no longer capable of great sacrifices either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness... having... neither hope, nor even that... pleasure that the soul meets in any struggle with people or even with fate.”
Each phrase of Pechorin’s last confession reveals another facet of his spiritual tragedy. “In my early youth I was a dreamer, I loved to caress
alternately gloomy and rosy images that my restless mind drew to me
and greedy imagination. But what does this leave me with? just tiredness
after a night battle with a ghost, and a vague memory filled
regrets. In this futile struggle I exhausted both the heat of my soul and the constancy of will necessary for real life; I entered this life having already experienced it mentally, and I felt bored and disgusted, like someone who reads a bad imitation of a book he has long known.”
CRISIS OF FAITH PECHORIN
NO to altruism

There is doubt and no tradition

NO morals
Everyone has the right to act according to their own will

EGOCENTRISM
(at the center of the universe is the “I” of man)
Analysis of the second episode
- Vulich died that same evening at the hands of a drunken Cossack. What words did he say before he died?
"He is right!"
- Who was Vulich talking about?
Pechorin correctly predicted it imminent death. Now, it would seem, he must believe in predestination. But Pechorin is not like that. He decides to try his luck himself.
- The topic of fate, which was raised in the first episode among officers, is now being resolved among uneducated people, ordinary Cossacks. What law of life do the Cossacks follow?
Reading passage:
“I’ve sinned, brother Efimych,” said the captain, “there’s nothing to do.”
submit!
- I won’t submit! - answered the Cossack.
- Fear God. After all, you are not a cursed Chechen, but an honest Christian; Well,
If your sin has entangled you, there is nothing to do: you will not escape your fate!
- I won’t submit! - the Cossack shouted menacingly, and one could hear the click
cocked hammer.
YOU CAN’T ESCAP YOUR DESTINY │ I WILL NOT SUBMIT
- Here are two possible ways. Which path does Pechorin choose? (Don't submit)
- We accused Pechorin of playing with Vulich’s life, but Pechorin is also playing with his life. But Pechorin risks his life not senselessly, like Vulich, and not recklessly. He carefully thought out his plan of action and, perhaps for the first time, committed an act not for his own sake, but for the benefit of other people. What does Pechorin's behavior indicate? (Pechorin is a fatalist, but arguing with fate, not ready to submit)
-At the end of the story, Maxim Maksimych unexpectedly appears. How does Maxim Maksimych explain the incident?
At first he finds the most everyday explanation for what happened: “these
Asian triggers often misfire if they are poorly lubricated or if you do not press firmly enough with your finger.”
He also finds an explanation for the second incident: “The devil dared him to talk to a drunk at night!.. However, apparently, it was written in his family...” It turns out that Maxim Maksimych is a fatalist, but unlike Pechorin, he passively accepts both the joys and blows of fate and is unable to fight it.
- So who is the fatalist in the story? (each in his own way. The author’s position is on Pechorin’s side, which is life position“I will not submit!”)V. FIXING
- What purpose of writing the novel did Lermontov outline in the “Preface”?
create a “portrait made up of the vices of an entire generation”
- What vices did Lermontov depict? (egocentrism, indifference to other people’s destinies, the desire to play with a person’s life, denial of moral values, doubts, lack of faith, waste of energy on empty activities)
- Why is the HERO OF TIME doomed to loneliness and death? (lack of faith makes him push people away from himself. The hero does not believe in love, does not believe in happiness, does not believe in friendship, sees only bad in people, which is a reflection of his own soul, does not find the purpose of his existence) - What distinguishes Pechorin from the people of his generation and makes him a HERO OF THE TIME? (Pechorin, with all his shortcomings, embodying the “disease of the century,” remains precisely a hero for the author. He was a realistic reflection of that socio-psychological type of person of the 30s of the 19th century, who retained and carried within himself dissatisfaction existing life, comprehensive skepticism and denial, so highly valued by Lermontov. After all, only on this basis could one begin to revise the old ideological and philosophical systems, which no longer met the demands of the new time, and thereby open the way to the future. It is from this point of view that Pechorin can be called a “hero of the time,” becoming a natural link in the development of Russian society)VI. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
List of used literature:
1. V.G.Marantsman. Literature. Textbook for 9th grade of secondary school. M.1994.
2. M.A. Aristova. Analysis of works of Russian literature. 9th grade. M. 2013
3. N. Dolinina. Pechorin and our time.
4. http://perova.jimdo.com