Hero of our time in modern Russian literature. The problem of the hero of time in Russian literature. Yes, there were people in our time...

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3

Chapter 1. The problem of the hero of time in Russian literature……………………3

Chapter 2. Types of extra people in the novels of Pushkin and Lermontov………….4
2.1. Onegin - a contemporary of Pushkin and the Decembrists…………………………4
2.2. Pechorin - a hero of his time……………………………………………………11
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….15

References……………………………………………………………15

Applications………………………………………………………………………………16

Introduction

How fast is the passage of time! More than 150 years have separated us from the heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov. But again and again we turn to them, to their feelings, thoughts, reflections, we look for and find in them what is close and necessary for us, the children of the turbulent 21st century. Literature has always been closely connected with the life of society and reflected in artistic form the most exciting problems of its time. Pushkin’s novels “Eugene Onegin” and Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” interested me, and I decided to write an essay.

The purpose of my essay is to present the images of Eugene Onegin and Grigory Pechorin as heroes of their time.

· get acquainted with the literary term “extra people”;

· identify such heroes in works of literature of the 19th century;

· study additional and critical literature on the topic of the abstract;

· conduct a comparative analysis of the images of the main characters of the works;

· learn to draw conclusions in work;

· learn how to write an abstract;

· Prepare for oral defense.

The practical significance of the work lies in the fact that it can be used in preparation for literature lessons, during class hours, and during the defense of scientific and educational complex.

Chapter 1. The problem of the hero of time in Russian literature.

The problem of the hero of time has always worried, worries and will worry people. It was staged by classic writers, and it is still relevant today. A.S. Pushkin's novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" and Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time" are the pinnacles of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. At the center of these works are people who, in their development, are superior to the society around them, but who do not know how to find application for their rich strengths and abilities. That's why such people are called "superfluous".

Lonely, rejected by society, or having rejected this society himself, the “superfluous man” was not a figment of the imagination of Russian writers of the 19th century; he was noted as a painful phenomenon in the spiritual life of Russian society, caused by the crisis of the social system. The appearance of “Superfluous People” was explained by their inconsistency with Western European education in the conditions of Russian life. By the mid-30s, all these phenomena reach their culmination point. During these years of economic and political depression, a new generation appeared on the stage - “timelessness” - which was a burden to themselves and others. Timelessness is what made the people of this generation.

The image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature is very diverse. The romantic heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov are passionate, rebellious natures. They cannot stand dependence, while at the same time realizing that their lack of freedom is in themselves, in their soul. It seems to them that the society in which they live makes them dependent, however, having entered into conflict with it, they become lonely.

The novel “Eugene Onegin” was created earlier than “A Hero of Our Time,” which means that Lermontov had a lot to learn from. By portraying Pechorin's fate as typical of his contemporary generation, Lermontov continued the tradition begun by Pushkin's famous novel in verse. Also in the novel, he created the principle of artistic knowledge and reproduction of reality - a realistic creative method. Lermontov, the psychologist, achieved remarkable success in “A Hero of Our Time.” Both in depicting the hero’s immediate experiences and in analyzing his psyche, the writer discovered new ways of depiction. According to the conclusion of N.G. Chernyshevsky, in some cases he came close to reproducing the “dialectics of the soul” of the hero, to that method of psychological analysis that would be developed in the most consistent form by L. Tolstoy. And it is not surprising that Pechorin’s inner world was shown psychologically in a much more detailed and subtle way than Onegin’s.

Hero of time... What is he like? Russian classic writers of the nineteenth century often pondered this question. A.S. Griboyedov, A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy in his works painted images of heroes who embodied the characteristic features of the people of the era.

Such characters, as a rule, are extraordinary and bright personalities, have extraordinary abilities and a developed mind, thanks to which they stand out among those around them, who in most cases do not understand or accept them. In the works of classical writers, these are the heroes that attract me. I always wanted to delve deeper into the secrets of their characters, to understand why people who could have become useful to their contemporaries turned out to be unnecessary to society.

The novels “Eugene Onegin” and “A Hero of Our Time” are considered the pinnacles of Russian classics. Readers of different generations turn to these works at different stages of life. The problem of the hero of his time touched upon in both books is also interesting to thinking people of the twenty-first century. There is a huge reassessment of values, our ideals are changing. And we continue to look for answers to “eternal” questions from classical writers.

Onegin is a typical nobleman of the twenties of the nineteenth century. The upbringing and education of Pushkin's hero was rather superficial. However, he still received the minimum knowledge necessary to shine in the world: he spoke French, knew how to dance the mazurka and “bowed naturally”... Onegin led the usual lifestyle for the nobles of that time: he went to balls, visited the theater, and attended social events. Enjoyment of life and success among women initially attracted the main character of the novel.

But Evgeny is smart, and therefore, over time, he simply got bored with the idle and empty life - “the Russian blues took possession of him.” He does not find any meaning in any activity. Tatiana's love does not save her from obsessive boredom. Onegin rejects the feelings of the girl in love with him: he is “not created for bliss.” Indifference to life and inner emptiness turned out to be very strong. Subsequently, the punishment for this will be loneliness.

In Pushkin’s hero there is, despite all his shortcomings, “straight nobility of soul.” It is no coincidence that he is so sincerely and tenderly attached to young Lensky. However, Onegin himself destroys his friend by shooting him in a duel. And, sad as it may be, the reason for Lensky’s senseless death is Onegin’s “blues.”

V.G. Belinsky notes that a certain part of readers mistakenly interpreted the image of Onegin, seeing in him only an ordinary secular dandy, a “cold egoist.” As the critic puts it, Onegin is a “reluctant egoist,” and society made him that way. He belongs to a generation that does not know where to apply its sometimes remarkable strength. I almost completely share Belinsky’s opinion. However, I believe that Onegin’s misfortunes should not be blamed solely on society. It is hardly possible to remove responsibility from Pushkin’s hero himself. He does not set any life goals for himself, because he does not want to work in order to achieve them.

M.Yu. Lermontov is a writer of “a completely different era,” although he and Pushkin are separated by no more than a decade. Pechorin became the “hero” of the time - or rather, the timelessness - of the 30s. On the one hand, he is a skeptic disappointed in life, who lives solely “out of curiosity,” but on the other hand, he subconsciously craves life and activity. In Pechorin, rationality and feelings, mind and heart are in conflict. “I weigh and analyze my own passions and actions,” says Lermontov’s hero, “with strict curiosity, but without participation.”

Before the duel, replaying his own life in his memory, Pechorin reflects on why he lived and for what purpose he was born. "Oh, that's right, she<эта цель>existed,” he writes in his journal, “and, it’s true, I had a high purpose...” Pechorin did not find his “high purpose”. He spends his energy on actions that are unworthy of him and sometimes meaningless: he destroys the lives of unfortunate “honest smugglers”, kidnaps the Circassian Bela, makes Mary fall in love with him and then abandons her, kills Grushnitsky... This is the fateful and terrible contradiction: “the immense powers of the soul "- and small actions; he dreams of “loving the whole world” - and brings only evil.

Belinsky saw the embodiment of the spirit of the times in the image of Pechorin and rated Lermontov’s hero quite highly. “Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil, but earth dried up from the heat of fiery life...” wrote the critic. Belinsky also pointed out the differences between Onegin and Pechorin, which are “much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.”

So, before us are two heroes, two representatives of their difficult time. V.G. Belinsky did not put an equal sign between them, but he did not see a huge gap between them. Their images really have a lot in common, from their character traits to the life situations in which they were destined to find themselves. However, the conflict between the individual and society in “A Hero of Our Time” is more acute than in “Eugene Onegin”: Pechorin “chases after life”, receiving nothing from it, and Onegin just “goes with the flow.”

“Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time” can, without exaggeration, be considered striking artistic documents of the era. Their main characters by their existence prove the futility of trying to live in society and at the same time be free from it.

So, the main character of literary works - the hero of the time, who, as a rule, is the “extra person” of his era, becomes a unique expression of social problems, the bearer of new ideas and trends in Russian life. Russian literature of the 19th century presented a whole gallery of people of this type. The predecessor of Onegin and Pechorin can be called Griboyedov's Chatsky. The traditions of Pushkin and Lermontov in the depiction of the “hero of the time” were continued in the works of A.I. Herzen (“Who is to blame?”), I.S. Turgenev (“Rudin”, “Fathers and Sons”), I.A. Goncharova (“Oblomov”). Chichikov, a character in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls,” can also be called a “hero” of the new, capitalist era. We find the traits of the heroes of the time in the characters of the epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy “War and Peace” by Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov.

Writers of the 20th century also addressed the problem of the hero of time. One of the striking examples is the image of the “superfluous man” Levushka Odoevtsev from A. Bitov’s novel “Pushkin House”. At the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, works appeared that again turned to the theme of a new generation, and therefore to the image of the hero of the time. In 1998, V. Makanin’s novel “Underground, or a Hero of Our Time” was published. In 2006, S. Minaev’s book “Duhless: The Tale of an Unreal Man” aroused great interest among readers. Already in the very titles of the works one can feel the desire of the writers to show the heroes of the time, and a echo of the traditions of Pushkin and Lermontov.

This means that even now there are people like Onegin and Pechorin. These are modern “superfluous people” who, at first glance, possess all the qualities necessary for success in life, and at the same time are in conflict with society.

Each era gives rise to a new hero, and the task of a real writer is to discern such a character and truthfully portray him in a work of art. This, in my opinion, is the main reason why writers have been turning to the theme of the hero of time for the past two centuries.

M.Yu. Lermontov is a writer of “a completely different era,” although they are separated from Pushkin by no more than a decade. Pechorin became the “hero” of time - or rather, timelessness - of the 30s. On the one hand, he is a skeptic disappointed in life, who lives solely “out of curiosity,” but on the other hand, he subconsciously craves life and activity. In Pechorin, rationality and feelings, mind and heart are in conflict. “I weigh and analyze my own passions and actions,” says Lermontov’s hero, “with strict curiosity, but without participation.”

Before the duel, replaying his own life in his memory, Pechorin reflects on why he lived and for what purpose he was born. “Oh, it’s true, it existed,” he writes in his journal, “and, it’s true, I had a high purpose...” Pechorin did not find his “high purpose”. He spends his energy on actions that are unworthy of him and sometimes meaningless: he destroys the lives of unfortunate “honest smugglers”, kidnaps the Circassian Bela, makes Mary fall in love with him and then abandons her, kills Grushnitsky... This is the fateful and terrible contradiction: “the immense powers of the soul "- and small actions; he dreams of “loving the whole world” - and brings only evil.

"A Hero of Our Time" is certainly one of the masterpieces of Russian literature of the 19th century. It became the first Russian psychological novel. As the author writes in the preface, the novel depicts “the history of the human soul.” And indeed it is. The entire novel centers around the personality of the main character Pechorin. “A Hero of Our Time” is structured in such a way that readers learn about Pechorin’s character gradually, see the hero from different sides, in different situations, listen to his characteristics from the lips of a variety of characters (and even the officer-narrator himself, who accidentally meets Pechorin in the chapter "Maksim Maksimych") Thus, in the end the reader should have his own opinion about the “hero of the time”.
In addition, the novel raises a number of important philosophical questions - about the boundaries of what is permitted, about life and death, about human will and predestination (most clearly in the story “Fatalist”). Lermontov also manages to reliably depict in the novel several worlds of his contemporary era - the life of mountaineers and Caucasian officers, the life of secular society on the waters.
The most interesting and mysterious person is the main character of the novel, Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin. All the other characters in the novel immediately notice his originality, courage, and caustic mind. People who are mediocre and shallow (like Grushnitsky and the dragoon captain) feel hostility towards him. People who are smart and insightful (like Dr. Werner) or simply good (like Maxim Maksimych) become strongly attached to Pechorin, recognizing his superiority. Much in Pechorin’s actions seems unusual, too risky. Sometimes he behaves like a cold and cruel person. For example, having fallen in love with the Circassian Bela, he quickly cools off towards her and seriously wounds her heart. A simple game for him is to compete with Grushnitsky for Princess Mary. He kills Grushnitsky in a duel, and then coldly admits to the princess that he does not love her at all.
The author does not justify his hero. But he finds an opportunity to show the reader why his soul “withered.” From the very beginning of his life's journey, Pechorin found himself in an unfriendly world, where no one understood him - and he was forced to defend himself, mercilessly burying half of his soul. In a monologue before the duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin says that he did not guess his purpose, squandered his immense spiritual strength on empty and ignoble passions and lost “the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life.”
In Pechorin, despite the realistic nature of his character, the traits of a romantic hero are visible. He is also lonely, opposed to the whole world and even fate, he restlessly wanders around the world.
There are many other interesting or mysterious personalities in the novel - Kazbich from Bela, Yanko from Taman, Doctor Werner from Princess Mary, Vulich from Fatalist, even the officer-narrator who published Pechorin’s diary. But they are all psychological doubles of Pechorin. It is customary to call psychological “doubles” heroes in whose image the author identifies some trait that is also characteristic of Pechorin himself. For example, in Kazbich - a passionate heart, in Yanko - mystery and courage, in Doctor Werner - a sharp mind... When compared with his “doubles”, Pechorin’s personal qualities, the special properties of his character, the depth of his reflection - all those traits thanks to which Pechorin became a “hero of the time.” Only Grushnitsky is not a “double”, but a parody of Pechorin. What constitutes the essence of Pechorin’s soul (disappointment, contempt for secular society, wit) in Grushnitsky becomes simple posturing.

Composition

Classical Russian literature has always been a reflection of the life around us, a concentrated story about the problems facing Russian society at turning points in history. Thanks to the works of A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”, M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, N. V. Gogol “Dead Souls”, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Lord Golovlevs” and the works of other talented writers, we can see a truthful, vivid portrait of their contemporaries, trace the evolution of the development of Russian society.

From the passive and disillusioned slacker Eugene Onegin to Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, who is vainly trying to find his place in life, to the adventurer and money-grubber Chichikov and the completely degraded Judushka Golovlev, who has lost his human appearance, Russian writers of the 19th century take us. They thought about the time, the ways of development of their contemporary society, tried to convey a collective portrait of a generation through artistic means, to emphasize its individuality, its characteristic difference from previous ones, thereby creating a chronicle of time, and in general they obtained a truthful and imaginative picture of the death of the noble class, which once brought progress to Russia , culture, and subsequently became the main obstacle in its movement forward. Reading works of art of the 19th century, you observe not only the events that played a major role in certain periods of time, but you learn about the people who, in one way or another, shaped our history. The movement of time cannot be stopped, it flows inexorably, changing us, our ideas about life, our ideals. The change of formations does not occur on its own, without human participation and struggle, but it also changes people, since every time has “its own heroes”, reflecting the moral principles and goals to which they strive. It is very interesting to trace this “evolution” through works of art of the 19th century. To see what the hero “lost” or “found” as a result of this forward movement. If we move on to a specific conversation about a character who, as if in a drop of water, reflected an entire generation, then I would like to dwell on Eugene Onegin, who stands almost at the origins of the formation of Russian bourgeois society. And what does the portrait look like? Not very attractive, although the hero is beautiful in appearance. Similar to the windy Venus, When, wearing a man's outfit, the Goddess goes to a masquerade. His inner world is poor. He read a lot, “all to no avail,” “he was gloomy.” He who lived and thought cannot help but despise people in his soul... Leaving for the village does not console Eugene, as he hoped. Boredom accompanies idleness everywhere equally. Onegin mechanically does good to the peasants, but does not think about them. Alone, among his possessions, Just to pass the time, Our Eugene first decided to establish a new order. In his wilderness, a desert sage, He replaced the ancient corvée with an easy quitrent with a yoke; And the slave blessed fate. The habit of not bothering himself with anything makes Eugene Onegin lonely, and then completely unhappy. He refuses Tatyana Larina’s love, explaining his action this way: “But I was not created for bliss; My soul is alien to him; Your perfections are in vain: I am not worthy of them at all.” But Onegin is also incapable of sincere friendship. Having killed a friend in a duel, he leaves to wander, suffering from the long life to which he is doomed. Onegin, with a look of regret, looks at the smoky streams and thinks, clouded with sadness: Why am I not wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man? I am young, my life is strong; What should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!.. And the end of the novel follows completely logical, when, having met Tatyana in the world, Onegin fell in love with her sincerely and deeply, but hopelessly: she is married and will never respond to Eugene’s feelings. I love you (why lie?). But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever. Onegin did not discern his destiny, laziness of mind or spiritual callousness prevented him from understanding Tatyana at the first acquaintance, he pushed away pure and sincere love, now he pays with a lack of happiness, a joyless passage of years. The image of Eugene Onegin, created by the genius of Pushkin, began the gallery of “superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century, which was worthily continued by other writers.

Russian classical literature of the 19th century is a literature of search. Russian writers sought to answer the eternal questions of existence: about the meaning of life, about happiness, about the Motherland, about human nature, about the laws of life and the Universe, about God. They were also worried about what was happening in Russia, where its development was heading, what future awaited it.

In this regard, Russian writers were inevitably concerned with the question of the “hero of the time” - the person with whom all the hopes and aspirations of the Russian intelligentsia were pinned. This collective image was, as it were, the face of a generation, its typical spokesman.

So, A.S. Pushkin in his novel “Eugene Onegin” portrays a young St. Petersburg aristocrat - a hero of the 20s of the 19th century.

We will learn about the upbringing, education, and lifestyle of Eugene Onegin. This hero did not receive a deep education. He is a fan of fashion, makes and reads only what he can show off at a reception or dinner party.

The only thing that interested Onegin and in which he achieved perfection was “the science of tender passion.” The hero learned early to be a hypocrite, to pretend, to deceive in order to achieve his goal. But his soul always remained empty, amused only by his pride.

In search of the meaning of life, Onegin tried to read various books and compose, but nothing could truly captivate him. An attempt to forget myself in the village was also unsuccessful. The hero tried to carry out peasant reforms and ease the work of the serfs, but all his endeavors soon came to nothing.

In my opinion, Onegin's problem was the lack of true meaning in life. Therefore, nothing could bring him satisfaction.

Despite all this, Evgeny Onegin had great potential. The author characterizes him as a man of great intelligence, sober and calculating, capable of much. The hero is frankly bored among his nearby village neighbors and avoids their company by all means. He is able to understand and appreciate the soul of another person. This happened with Lensky, and this happened with Tatyana.

In addition, Onegin is capable of noble deeds. He did not take advantage of Tatyana’s love after her letter, but explained to her like a decent person. But, unfortunately, at that time Onegin himself was not capable of experiencing deep feelings.

On the other hand, the hero is a “slave of public opinion.” That is why he goes to a duel with Lensky, where he kills the young poet. This event turns out to be a strong shock for Onegin, after which his strong internal changes begin.

Evgeniy flees the village. We learn that he wandered for some time, moved away from high society, and changed greatly. Everything superficial is gone, only a deep, ambiguous personality remains, capable of sincerely loving and suffering.

Thus, initially Onegin is a deep and interesting personality. But high society “served him badly.” Only by moving away from his surroundings does the hero “return to himself” again and discover in himself the ability to deeply feel and sincerely love.

The character of the novel M.Yu. Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” is a man of another era (30s of the 19th century). That is why Pechorin has a different mindset, he is concerned about other problems.

This hero is disappointed in the modern world and in his generation: “We are no longer capable of great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness.” Pechorin lost faith in man, in his significance in this world: “We are quite indifferent to everything except ourselves.” Such thoughts lead the character to boredom, indifference and even despair.

Inevitable boredom gives rise to disbelief in love and friendship in the hero. These feelings may have appeared at a certain point in his life, but still did not bring Pechorin happiness. He only tormented women with doubts, sadness, shame. Pechorin often played with the feelings of others, without thinking about what was causing them pain. This is what happened to Bela, this is what happened to Princess Mary.

Pechorin feels like an “extra” person in his society, in general, an “extra” in life. Of course, this hero has enormous personal powers. He is gifted and even talented in many ways, but does not find use for his abilities. That is why in the finale of the novel Pechorin dies - Lermontov considered this the logical conclusion of the life of a “hero of his time.”

The search for a modern hero continued in the literature of the second half of the 19th century. The portrait of the hero captured in the works of this period testifies to significant changes that took place in society.

Thus, Evgeny Bazarov, the main character of the novel by I.S. Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons", a representative of the new, younger generation in the novel. He is the personification of the changes that took place in society in the 60s of the 19th century.

Bazarov is a commoner. He is not rich, he earns his own education. The hero studies natural sciences and plans to become a practicing doctor. We see that this profession fascinates Bazarov. He is ready to work to achieve results, that is, to help people and improve their lives.

Having found himself in the “noble family” of the Kirsanovs, Evgeny Bazarov shocks the “fathers” with his views. It turns out that he is a nihilist - “a person who does not bow to any authority, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respectful this principle may be.”

And indeed, Bazarov denies everything that was accumulated before him by previous generations. Especially his heart “rebels” against everything immaterial: art, love, friendship, soul.

Evgeny Bazarov sees only one destruction as the goal of his life. He believes his generation's goal is to "clear up space."

Turgenev did not agree with the philosophy of his hero. He debunks Bazarov's worldview, putting him through tests that the hero cannot withstand. As a result, Bazarov becomes disappointed in himself, loses faith in his views and dies.

Thus, all Russian literature of the 19th century can be called the literature of the search for the Hero. Writers sought to see in a contemporary a person capable of serving his homeland, benefiting it with his deeds and thoughts, and also simply capable of being happy and harmonious, developing and moving forward. Unfortunately, Russian writers practically failed to find such a person.

She, referring to the writer Olga Slavnikova, argues that in a rapidly changing world, it is really impossible to understand the image of the hero of time as “also a person, only for some reason immortal”, as “the existence of a secret network of “special agents” sent from literature into reality.”

There is another point of view. For example, critic Nikolai Krizhanovsky writes about the absence of a hero in modern Russian literature and assures that “the real hero of our time, like any other, for Russian literature is a person who is able to sacrifice himself for the sake of his neighbors, who is able to “lay down his soul for his friends” and is ready serve God, Russia, family..." According to the critic, the hero of our time in literature can be “a career military man saving conscript soldiers from a military grenade, an entrepreneur who does not want to live only for enrichment and his own pleasures and recklessly went to fight in Novorossiya, a family man raising his children in national traditions , a schoolboy or student capable of a great and selfless act, an elderly rural teacher who still keeps a cow and does not sell, but distributes milk to her poor neighbors, a priest who sells his apartment in order to complete the construction of a temple, and many other of our contemporaries.”
In search of a “hero of our time,” Vera Rastorgueva turns to the works of so-called media writers, that is, actively published and widely quoted by the press writers. Nikolai Krizhanovsky, in addition to media ones, names several names from his circle. Rastorgueva really describes the “hero of our time” found in modern works. Krizhanovsky assures that there are few real heroes left in modern literature, that “there is a process of deheroization of domestic literature and that, finally, “the dominant tendency in modern literature towards the emasculation of the positive hero is being gradually overcome today” through the efforts of some writers.
There is also a point of view that blames postmodernism for the disappearance of the heroic from modern literature. The same critic Krizhanovsky believes that “the penetration of postmodernism into Russian literature leads to the disappearance of the hero in the original sense of the word.”
However, none of the above points of view seems convincing, and for several reasons at once. First of all, we should point out the conceptual confusion: when saying “hero of our time,” many researchers mean “heroic,” understood as selflessness, courage, selflessness, nobility, etc. But the concept of “hero of our time” refers us, of course, to M.Yu. Lermontov. In the preface to the novel, Lermontov deliberately stipulates that “a hero of our time” is “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” There, in the preface, Lermontov ironically notes that the public tends to take every word literally and that he himself calls his contemporary a “hero of our time,” or rather, the most common type of modern person. And if the image of Pechorin turned out to be unattractive, then it is not the author’s fault.
In other words, “hero of our time” is not at all synonymous with “heroic.” Thus, since the time of Lermontov, it has been customary to call an image that has absorbed the typical features of the era, reflecting the spirit of the time, which does not necessarily have to be associated with heroism, nobility and selflessness. Therefore, research into the “hero of our time” and the “heroic” should go in two different directions. Replacing one concept with another not only does not clarify anything, but only multiplies the confusion.
The same confusion is contributed to by misunderstandings of the creative process, when critics innocently declare the need to describe engineers, doctors and teachers more. Let's try, for example, to imagine a modern work of art written in the spirit and truth of the Early Middle Ages. It is clear that at best it will be comical, and at worst it will be pitiful, because modern man professes different truths and is moved by a different spirit. To portray a “hero of our time,” that is, according to Lermontov, a modern person who is too often encountered, can be guided by the spirit and truth of his time. But in this case, engineers, teachers and doctors will not necessarily turn out to be “positively wonderful people.”
Each era creates its own picture of the world, its own culture, its own art. The expression “they don’t write like that now” is appropriate precisely in those cases when the artist tries to create in the spirit of a time alien to him. And we are not talking about the situation, but about the artist’s ability to feel his time and convey these feelings in images. Even when working on a historical work, a sensitive and talented artist will make it understandable to his contemporaries, without vulgarizing or simplifying anything. This means that the artist will be able to convey the spirit of a time alien to him in images understandable to his contemporaries.
Art changes with the era, so ancient art differs from medieval art, and modern Russian art differs from Soviet art. In works of culture, a person always reflects himself and his era; the creative act does not exist in isolation from culture, and culture does not exist in isolation from the era. That is why the researcher of a work is able to identify the features and originality of the human type of a particular era. Based on this, it is logical to assume that if contemporary art does not offer heroic images, then the heroic is not characteristic, or rather, not typical of our era. And this is not a matter of abandoning realistic writing.
It’s easier, of course, to blame writers who don’t want to describe the characters. But it will be appropriate to do this only if the writers, fulfilling the order, deliberately de-heroize literature. If we are talking about a direct creative act, then it would be much more accurate to explore the era through works, rather than try to turn literature into a “By Requests” program.
In addition, in order to obtain more or less objective results, it is necessary to study the creativity of not only media authors. The fact is that modern Russian literature is very reminiscent of an iceberg with a relatively small visible part and a completely unpredictable invisible part. The visible, or media, part is, as a rule, the literature of projects. Such literature should not be good or bad in terms of the quality of the text. It simply must exist, consisting of printed books and authors, whose names, thanks to frequent and repeated mention in all kinds of media, gradually become brands. So, even without reading the works, people know very well: this is a fashionable, famous writer. There is such a concept as “pop taste”, that is, a preference not for the good, but for the successful, that which is replicated, broadcast and discussed. Modern project literature is designed specifically for the “pop taste”, but the purposes of its existence are very different - from commercial to political. The author of a series of articles on the modern literary process, writer Yuri Miloslavsky, analyzing the features of modern art, notes that, among other things, “the professional art industry, by its very nature, could not operate successfully in conditions of variability, unpredictability and arbitrariness of individual creative achievements, actual struggle of creative groups, etc.” That is why “complete and absolute man-madeness (ersatz, imitation) of artistic and/or literary success has gradually been achieved.” In other words, that same media literature, or the literature of projects, is an artificially created space, characterized by Yuri Miloslavsky as an “artificial cultural context”, where “the best, the highest quality will be declared at the moment that the art industry on someone’s orders , strategic or tactical calculations and, according to their own calculations formed on the basis of these calculations, made, acquired and assigned for subsequent implementation. Today, this “best” can be assigned anything. Everything". In addition, Yuri Miloslavsky refers to data from a survey conducted from 2008 to 2013 by the Megapinion Internet project. The survey participants, who turned out to be over twenty thousand people, were asked the question “Which of these writers have you read?” and a list of nine hundred writers' names. It turned out that the percentage of those who actually read the works of media writers ranges from approximately 1 to 14. The Russian reader, it turns out, still gives preference to classics or entertaining (mainly detective) reading.

Perhaps the main consumers of media literature are researchers who undertake, for example, to find out what he is like - a “hero of our time.” But this kind of research concerns only writers and critics, without affecting the ordinary reader. After all, if the reader is familiar with modern literature, mainly at the level of names and newspaper praises, then the influence of such literature on him will be very insignificant. At the same time, research based on media literature seems incomplete and does not tell us anything, since media literature is, as was said, only the tip of the iceberg and it is not possible to judge the block as a whole from it. Building a study of literature solely on its public component is the same as studying the opinions of citizens of a country by interviewing pop stars.
Understanding the “hero of our time” can be approached not only through the study of works of literature, but also from the theoretical side. Let's ask ourselves a simple question: which person is more common than others in our time - a selfless daredevil, a restless intellectual or a gambling consumer? Of course, you can meet any person, and each of us has wonderful friends and loving relatives. And yet, who is more typical of our time: Governor Khoroshavin, analysis specialist Rodchenkov, some “hyped” artist with dubious merits or, in the words of the critic Krizhanovsky, “a priest selling his apartment in order to complete the construction of a temple”? Let us repeat: you can meet absolutely any person, especially in the Russian expanses, but in order to understand who the “hero of our time” is, it is important to identify the typical, to find an exponent of the spirit of the time.
Would it not be correct to assume that the typical representative of our era is a person who prefers the material to the ideal, the mundane to the sublime, the perishable to the eternal, earthly treasures to all other treasures? And if this assumption is correct, then Judas can safely be called a “hero of our time.” His image becomes clear through the choice he made. Therefore, it is important to understand not why and why he betrayed, but what exactly he chose. By his betrayal, Judas abandoned Christ and what Christ offered. The sum of thirty pieces of silver was so small that Judas could hardly be tempted by it. But he was faced with a choice: a symbolic sum, meaning a rejection of the Teacher, or the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, it is precisely the material against the ideal, the mundane against the sublime, the sublime against the heavenly. Judas turned out to be the prototype of a “consumer society”, for which, just like for Judas, it is impossible, while remaining oneself, to remain faithful to high ideals.
There really is little heroic in modern literature. But this is precisely because the heroic has ceased to be typical. Alas, not in every era are defenders of the Motherland, space explorers and honest workers more common than others. There are eras when consumers of goods scurry around everywhere, turning from ideals to comfort.
Meanwhile, the heroic is necessary. At least as an example to follow, a reason for pride, a model for education. But what heroes in the country of optimistic patriotism! Only those who, in the absence of money, lasted the longest. Or those who gave more kicks to English drunks, shouting louder than others: “Russia, forward!” The authorities have no one to propose as heroes, and society has no one to nominate. There remain isolated cases of heroism shown by ordinary citizens, but this does not become typical. The critic Krizhanovsky writes about these cases, classifying, among other things, simply decent people as heroes.
And yet there is nothing heroic in the hero of our time, that is, in the contemporary we meet more often than others. But, as M.Yu. noted. Lermontov, God save us from trying to correct human vices. In the end, humanity is just clay in the hands of history. And who knows what features it will take in the next decade.
As for recommendations on how and what to write about, I think it’s worth trying to write interestingly and in good language.

Svetlana ZAMLELOVA

I want to dedicate my report to the Hero of our time. But not to that hero of Lermontov’s time, namely, to the literary hero of our post-Soviet modern time.
What characterized Lermontov's hero?
Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov himself lived from 1814 to 1841, in times that, if cheerful, were at the same time repressive and therefore silent. The First Patriotic War of 1812 was victorious for Russia. And what did Russia learn from this Victory?
And the fact that the best flower of the nation from the nobility in 1825, after the Decembrist “silent” uprising (what kind of uprising is this?) tens of thousands were sent to hard labor and eternal settlement in Siberia. And five well-known noblemen, and even heroes of the Patriotic War, were executed by hanging. The entire people fell silent, the nobility also fell silent, and the Russian writers fell silent. A new social system was emerging in Russia - capitalist. Writers “hid their heads in the sand” and began to write operettas, vaudevilles and comedies.
And so Lermontov presents his “Hero of Our Time” to society. Presents it as a slap in the face to this entire idlely riotous and silent society.
The hero of Lermontov's time turned out to be Pechorin - an educated intellectual, perhaps a nobleman, but a nobleman without large funds, and in general, in modern language, a FIGIST without any ideas, goals and meanings, like the rest of society. The whole life and the meaning of the life of society comes down to only “Eating, hanging out, copulating and defecating.” That's the whole, one might say, liberal idea of that society. But to which the capitalist idea is already mixed: “Love yourself, don’t care about everyone, and success awaits you in life.” However, Pechorin tries to follow these ideas of IMPORTANCE, so as not to seem like a black sheep. A life without purpose is empty and worth almost nothing. There is no adrenaline in the blood at all. And to raise adrenaline in the blood, you have to perform heroics. But these heroics are also from the category of everyday and almost meaningless heroism: either to take possession of another “unapproachable” woman, or to expose and stick out one’s head in front of stray bullets, or to arrange a banal duel, but to the point of death. To characterize Pechorin as a CAREER, one can add his arrogance, cynicism, irony, and skepticism. Among other things, Pechorin, like you and me here, is a writer, that is, he keeps diaries. But even literary work, given the meaninglessness of life, does not give Pechorin satisfaction, and he almost throws his diaries in the trash. Much more interesting than Pechorin, the hero performs
N.V. Gogol Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin. Who at least has a goal in life: acquiring an overcoat. And he achieves this goal. He buys himself an overcoat. And the whole tragedy of Bashmachkin lies in the fact that the robbers, who in the blink of an eye pulled off this greatcoat from him, had the same goal as his.
An interesting Hero of Our Time is Nikolai Ostrovsky, who wrote almost the only book in his life, “How the Steel Was Tempered” - Pavel Korchagin. After all, Pavel Korchagin had both a goal and a meaning in life, which had to be lived in such a way “that it would not be excruciatingly painful for the years spent aimlessly…”. The hero of our time is also interesting in A. Voinovich, who wrote her book “The Gadfly,” where the main character, for the sake of the Ideas of Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood, for the sake of the ideas of Christian morality, makes self-sacrifice and dies for his Idea, standing on the same level as Jesus Christ.
Interesting are the heroes of our time from M. Sholokhov (“The Quiet Don”, “Virgin Soil Upturned”, “The Fate of a Man”), and from Fadeev’s “The Young Guard”, and from Boris Polevoy “The Tale of a Real Man”, and from many, many others authors, including Vasily Shukshin.
Why are these heroes interesting to us?
What makes them interesting to us is that they all had a Purpose in life. Someone had a life goal to build Heaven on Earth, someone to build a boat, or to see living microbes under a microscope, or even to purchase the same Gogol overcoat. We are also interested in the hero of our time - Lermontovsky Pechorin, but he is interesting precisely as “A man who has no goal in life” - as “An indifference of the highest category.”
What is the literary hero of our time like?
But not from that Lermontovsky, and from other past times, but from our post-Soviet modern time? What should it be? And does he exist at all?
Of course, as before, not a single modern literary work can do without heroes. But what are the modern Heroes of our time?
These heroes are basically the following: A successful businesswoman who enjoys prostitution in her spare time, A successful businessman who spends her free time doing prostitution and contract killings, A successful writer who spends her free time doing prostitution, pedophilia and God-seeking, Cops - they are usually “werewolves in their spare time” shoulder straps,” A student is a drug addict, a Student is a big-time swindler, a Boss is definitely a fool, An official and a deputy are definitely perverts. And from the common people, all modern literary heroes, as a rule, are Hochmachi, Drunkards and Idiots, but with a high level of Rudeness and Self-Respect.
All modern literary heroes of our time, just like Lermontov's Pechorin, are basically FIGS with a great sense of arrogance, irony and cynicism.
“Nobody cares about anyone. Drinking champagne like that, having a queen like that” - This is the pinnacle of the idea of modern literary heroes.
The goal of the current Russian state is to grow a society of FIGISTS who have only animal instincts, think nothing and preferably remain silent. It is easier to govern such a people, such a society. For this reason, Education, Morality, and Culture are being systematically destroyed in Russia. You have to go a long way to find examples. This is clearly visible in the state’s attitude towards our Chelyabinsk regional writers’ organization. Lack of spirituality, Cynicism, Vulgarity and Illiteracy are cultivated in society. Instead of the Russian language, the “Albany” and “Padonkaff” languages are cultivated. Culture fell into decay, and Literature, despite all the “freedom of speech” granted to it, also fell into decay.
Writers, confused by such reformations and aspirations of the state, not seeing guidelines in life and not understanding reality, decided “to be safe” to run away from this reality. Genres such as “God-seeking”, “Mysticism”, “Fantasy”, “Ironic detective”, or “Memories” of a good self in distant past times have come into fashion.
It is not surprising, therefore, that over the past 20 years, as a reader, I have not found a single positive hero of our reality in modern literature. Don't imitate me, in fact, a bandit, a killer, a prostitute or a worker - an imbecile.
Freedom of speech turned into either friendly silence or obscene language for our writers.
A hero from our time cannot be found during the day. There are no heroes even among presidents. Although quite recently it was customary to admire Gorbachev, then Yeltsin, then Putin, then... How many more of these “later” will there be? But all these admirations and exaltations to the rank of Hero do not come from admiration, charm, or delight, but from ordinary servility.
A quality that was not there even in POFIGIST - Pechorin.
Unfortunately, in our time, there is NO Hero From Our Time. Society is clearly deteriorating, and along with society, writers are degrading. Say “Halva” even a hundred times, it won’t make your mouth any sweeter. Even if you bow down and cross yourself a hundred times in church, you won’t become more spiritual from it either.
Just recently, our country was completely atheistic, but there was no sex in our country. None. Neither oral, nor anal, nor banal. Now our country has also begun to be “reborn” and “join spiritual values.” Along with spiritual values, SEX, PROSTITUTION, DRUG ADDICTION, BANDITISM have revived in our country, and in terms of the number of suicides, Russia has taken 1st place in the world. And all this during the so-called “revival of spirituality.” At the same time, the Church began to bless same-sex marriages between gays and lesbians. Yes, and Suicidal people (although Suicide is a grave sin) are buried completely according to Christian customs. And in times of this general bacchanalia, writers prefer to draw romantic stories, be it from the life of an oligarch, from the life of a prostitute, or from the life of a bandit. If earlier writers posed the questions in their tasks: “Who is to blame?”, “What to do?”, “How can we develop Russia?”, then today’s writers are afraid to even ask themselves and answer the simplest Shukshinsky question: “What is happening to us? "
But our times are interesting, and there are plenty of ordinary heroes in life, not just literary ones. Aren’t they heroes, those “stupid common people” who stand like a wall in defense of their Khimki forest? What is standing up as a wall against the densification of buildings and the destruction of historical monuments? Even the transfer of the Church of the Alexander Nevsky Temple in the city of Chelyabinsk, in which the organ hall was located, is a big topic not only for conversation, but perhaps also for a novel. And in this novel there would undoubtedly be a place for both real heroes and anti-heroes.
A quarter of a century has passed since the country began to rebuild itself from the largely flawed and “totalitarian” socialist path to the so-called “civilized” and “evolutionary” capitalist path. Is it heroism or not heroism? And where are our heroes then? But in our country, there are a lot of heroes whose exploits are marked by large state awards, including “For Services to the Fatherland,” but later these heroes turned out to be debunked and sent to places not so distant.
Of course, there are heroes in our lives, Heroes of Our Time. And not only literary heroes. Anyone can be a hero, even a thoroughbred businessman, even a mongrel homeless person. It is up to the author what he wants his hero to be. But what should a Hero of Our Time be like? The hero is real, not imaginary. This is what our writers must deal with. So that later “it won’t be excruciatingly painful” for our descendants to read our works.
A writer, through his literary heroes in his works, must still be to a greater extent a teacher of life, and not a simple writer of everyday life. Anyone who keeps diaries can do this. Even in romantic works, a literary hero must have qualities and feelings that call the reader not only to empathy, but also to self-improvement, to something better and more sublime. If a literary hero is raving and dreaming only of drug addict hallucinations, while being in nirvana, and washing away his karma and aura so that the chakras open, then such a hero is not interesting to me as a reader, and I think many other readers too.
Hundreds of years have passed, and we still empathize, imitate and see in our heroes Romeo and Juliet, Don Quixote, Gulliver and Robinson Crusoe. Just as in our times we remember Rodion Raskolnikov, and Natasha Rostova, and Grigory Melikhov and Pavel Korchagin.
I think that the time of confusion among writers should soon pass. The transition period of our country is close to completion. After all, it’s difficult for society to stand for more than 25 years between Socialism and Capitalism, without an Idea, without a Goal, without a Meaning. To prevent readers from completely escaping into virtual worlds, writers must present them with works that would answer the questions of modern reality and apply not only to the recent past, but also to the rapidly approaching future. Society should not forever look at, like a small child in a children's kaleidoscope, the wonderful and beautiful patterns formed from mixing fragments of multi-colored glass. It is not the writer who should follow the reader’s lead, but on the contrary, the Writer should be the reader’s teacher, and lead the reader on his own lead to a bright (who would doubt it) future. This time is already coming.
I think that writers can do this too. I think that it is time for writers to bring a Real (and not a fake) Hero of Our Modern Time to the stage of their works. And the time of “I don’t care” and Heroes who don’t care must pass. For “I don’t care” has no future: neither the Society, nor the readers, nor the writers have any future. The future is not possible without an Idea, without a Goal, without Meaning.
I am sure that the Literary Hero of Our Time, thanks to the creative efforts of his authors, will finally find an Idea, a Purpose, and the Meaning of Life.

"Hero of our time"

Within the framework of Lermontov’s work, the novel is the last, unfortunately, and the pinnacle work; in Russian literature it is the first psychological realistic novel in prose. Looking ahead, we note that at the very beginning of the forties, two paths of the realistic novel emerged in Russian literature - “A Hero of Our Time” by Lermontov and “Dead Souls” by Gogol.

The creative history of the novel, i.e. the emergence and development of the plan, its possible options, etc., remains unknown, because There are no documentary materials in the form of drafts or sketches, and no one has ever seen them. The reader in the second half of the thirties became acquainted with individual stories, which were in the final edition; those. the complete publication of the novel in 1840 will be arranged in a different sequence. The second edition of the novel (1841) began with a preface, where the author defended the hero and emphasized that his portrait is not a portrait of one person, but of an entire generation. “Such an understanding of the novel turned out to be accessible to very few people at that time. Even Belinsky at first sees the similarity of Pechorin as a co-author. A. Dumas wrote about the same Rostopchina. The assessment of F. Badenstedt (German poet - translator of Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Lermontov) that appeared was identical with Lermontov. in “Domestic Notes” in 1840, i.e. before the release of the second edition of the novel with the preface: “Lermontov has this in common with the great writers of all times, that his works faithfully reflect the time with all” its bad and good features, with all his wisdom and stupidity, and that they meant to fight these bad characteristics and this stupidity.”

As the first psychological novel of Russian realism, the work of literature did not depict human feelings in transitions from one to another and contradictions with such expressiveness and persuasiveness. Psychological analysis in the novel is presented) as the reasoning of the hero, who, understanding his own feelings, proceeds to characterize the peculiarities of his psyche (passion to contradict and desire to piss off Grushnitsky, greed that absorbs everything in its path and attitude towards Mary, etc.); 2) as a psychological portrait; 3) as a specific and detailed landscape for conveying “Mood; 4) as a dialogue recreated in detail, when gestures and intonation are recorded.

Lermontov, according to Chernyshevsky, was approaching the reproduction of the “dialectics of the soul” of the hero, the method of psychological analysis that was most consistently developed by L. Tolstoy.

An exceptionally Lermontov innovative solution to this problem was the composition of the novel. Its unusualness will be emphasized by Belinsky: the novel cannot be read in a sequence other than the one in which it is presented - otherwise there will be separate stories, not a novel (this explains, by the way, the unconvincingness of its film adaptations, even with the participation of famous and talented actors). There is a textbook phrase that explains the composition of “A Hero of Our Time”: first we hear about the hero, then we see and only then we understand.

Thanks to the special structure of the novel, Pechorin is revealed from different points of view (the author, Maxim Maksimych, Pechorin himself about himself in the diary) and in different comparisons (Pechorin and the usual officer environment; Pechorin - and specific representatives of this environment: Maxim Maksimych, Grushnitsky, Vulich; Pechorin and smugglers; Pechorin and the highlanders; Pechorin and the heroines: Bela, Undine, Mary, Vera;

The plot of each story is connected with the spatial movements of the hero: Pechorin arrives - in Taman, Pyatigorsk, a village, a fortress - and leaves from there. Every story must have a love episode. Despite the external formal similarity from story to story, the image of the main character is increasingly filled with tragic content.

The image of the hero of the time was determined by the reaction time itself. Pechorin is a mature man. It must be remembered that the very process of the formation of a secular person, the transformation of a dandy into an involuntarily egoist, according to Belinsky, was already presented by Pushkin. Therefore, they say that Lermontov’s novel begins after the point set in Eugene Onegin.

Pechorin's attitude to reality does not change throughout the novel; the hero has no real opportunities for spiritual renewal. His life path logically, no matter how painful it may be, ends with death. The tragic worldview of a man of the thirties is extremely exposed by Lermontov. Individualization, isolation of a person in the course of historical development - this natural process was revealed by Lermontov through the fate of Pechorin, and artistic techniques in this case represent a synthesis of romanticism and realism. All of Pechorin’s actions and experiences are realistically motivated, however, in the very poetics of the novel there are many specifically romantic elements (character traits in some scenes are exaggerated, the relationship with Vera is mysterious, the hero’s past is hidden). Lermontov uses one of the favorite techniques of romantics - confession, monologue, turning them into a convincing way of psychological analysis of a realist artist (the monologue in front of Mary is a thoughtful action by Pechorin with the obligatory romantic details of “misunderstanding”, evil, loneliness). The romantic story with the undine itself takes place in the worst town, and the story is framed by precisely this characteristic.

A violation of the chronological sequence, on the one hand, characterizes Pechorin as a restless nature, which can be defined as a manifestation of a romantic search. On the other hand, it shows his life in society as the life of a person who is superfluous to this society at all its levels.

Lermontov’s creative method, most fully manifested in the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” opened up new perspectives for literature in the artistic exploration of the complex nature of man in several dimensions at once. Lermontov's “realism in the highest sense” (Dostoevsky) went beyond the usual definitions, combining the achievements of romanticism and realism.