The story “Heart of a Dog. The scene of Professor Preobrazhensky performing a unique operation

“Heart of a Dog” was written in early 1925. It was supposed to be published in the Nedra almanac, but censorship prohibited publication. The story was completed in March, and Bulgakov read it at the literary meeting of the Nikitsky Subbotniks. The Moscow public became interested in the work. It was distributed in samizdat. It was first published in London and Frankfurt in 1968, in the magazine “Znamya” No. 6 in 1987.

In the 20s Medical experiments on rejuvenating the human body were very popular. Bulgakov, as a doctor, was familiar with these natural science experiments. The prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky was Bulgakov’s uncle, N.M. Pokrovsky, a gynecologist. He lived on Prechistenka, where the events of the story unfold.

Genre features

The satirical story “Heart of a Dog” combines various genre elements. The plot of the story is reminiscent of fantastic adventure literature in the tradition of H. Wells. The subtitle of the story “A Monstrous Story” indicates the parodic flavor of the fantastic plot.

The science-adventure genre is an outer cover for satirical subtext and topical metaphor.

The story is close to dystopias due to its social satire. This is a warning about the consequences of a historical experiment that must be stopped, everything must be returned to normal.

Issues

The most important problem of the story is social: it is the comprehension of the events of the revolution, which made it possible for the Sharik and Shvonders to rule the world. Another problem is awareness of the limits of human capabilities. Preobrazhensky, imagining himself to be a god (he is literally worshiped by his family), goes against nature, turning a dog into a man. Realizing that “any woman can give birth to Spinoza at any time,” Preobrazhensky repents of his experiment, which saves his life. He understands the fallacy of eugenics - the science of improving the human race.

The problem of the danger of invasion into human nature and social processes is raised.

Plot and composition

Scientific fantastic story describes how Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky decides to experiment with transplanting the pituitary gland and ovaries of the “semi-proletarian” Klim Chugunkin into a dog. As a result of this experiment, the monstrous Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov appeared, the embodiment and quintessence of the victorious proletariat class. Sharikov's existence caused many problems for Philip Philipovich's family, and, in the end, endangered the normal life and freedom of the professor. Then Preobrazhensky decided on a reverse experiment, transplanting the dog’s pituitary gland into Sharikov.

The ending of the story is open: this time Preobrazhensky was able to prove to the new proletarian authorities that he was not involved in the “murder” of Poligraf Poligrafovich, but how long will his far from peaceful life last?

The story consists of 9 parts and an epilogue. The first part is written on behalf of the dog Sharik, who suffers from the cold and a wound on his scalded side in the harsh St. Petersburg winter. In the second part, the dog becomes an observer of everything that happens in Preobrazhensky’s apartment: the reception of patients in the “obscene apartment”, the professor’s opposition to the new house management headed by Shvonder, the fearless admission of Philip Philipovich that he does not love the proletariat. For the dog, Preobrazhensky turns into a semblance of a deity.

The third part tells about the ordinary life of Philip Philipovich: breakfast, conversations about politics and devastation. This part is polyphonic, it contains the voices of both the professor, and the “snatched” (Bormenthal’s assistant from the point of view of Sharik who pulled him), and Sharik himself, talking about his lucky ticket and about Preobrazhensky as a magician from a dog’s fairy tale.

In the fourth part, Sharik meets the rest of the inhabitants of the house: the cook Daria and the servant Zina, whom the men treat very gallantly, and Sharik mentally calls Zina Zinka, and quarrels with Daria Petrovna, she calls him a homeless pickpocket and threatens him with a poker. In the middle of the fourth part, Sharik’s narrative is interrupted because he undergoes surgery.

The operation is described in detail, Philip Philipovich is terrible, he is called a robber, like a murderer who cuts, pulls out, destroys. At the end of the operation, he is compared to a well-fed vampire. This is the author’s point of view, it is a continuation of Sharik’s thoughts.

The fifth, central and climactic chapter is the diary of Dr. Bormenthal. It begins in a strictly scientific style, which gradually turns into a colloquial style, with emotionally charged words. The medical history ends with Bormenthal’s conclusion that “we have a new organism before us, and we need to observe it first.”

The next chapters 6-9 are history short life Sharikova. He experiences the world by destroying it and living the probable fate of the murdered Klim Chugunkin. Already in Chapter 7, the professor has the idea of ​​​​deciding on a new operation. Sharikov's behavior becomes unbearable: hooliganism, drunkenness, theft, harassment of women. The last straw was Shvonder’s denunciation from Sharikov’s words against all the inhabitants of the apartment.

The epilogue, describing the events 10 days after Bormental's fight with Sharikov, shows Sharikov almost turning into a dog again. The next episode is the reasoning of the dog Sharik in March (about 2 months have passed) about how lucky he was.

Metaphorical subtext

At the professor's speaking surname. He transforms the dog into a “new man.” This happens between December 23 and January 7, between Catholic and Orthodox Christmas. It turns out that the transformation occurs in some kind of temporary void between the same date in different styles. A polygrapher (who writes a lot) is the embodiment of the devil, a “massive” person.

Apartment on Prechistenka (from the definition of the Mother of God) of 7 rooms (7 days of creation). She is the embodiment of divine order amidst the surrounding chaos and devastation. A star looks out of the apartment window from the darkness (chaos), observing the monstrous transformation. The professor is called a deity and a priest. He officiates.

Heroes of the story

Professor Preobrazhensky– scientist, a figure of world significance. At the same time, he is a successful doctor. But his merits do not prevent the new government from frightening the professor with a seal, registering Sharikov and threatening to arrest him. The professor has an inappropriate background - his father is a cathedral archpriest.

Preobrazhensky is quick-tempered, but kind. He sheltered Bormenthal at the department when he was a half-starved student. He is a noble man and is not going to abandon his colleague in the event of a disaster.

Doctor Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental- son of a forensic investigator from Vilna. He is the first student of the Preobrazhensky school, loving his teacher and devoted to him.

Ball appears as a completely rational, reasoning creature. He even jokes: “A collar is like a briefcase.” But Sharik is the very creature in whose mind the crazy idea of ​​rising “from rags to riches” appears: “I am a master’s dog, an intelligent creature.” However, he hardly sins against the truth. Unlike Sharikov, he is grateful to Preobrazhensky. And the professor operates with a firm hand, mercilessly kills Sharik, and having killed, he regrets: “It’s a pity for the dog, he was affectionate, but cunning.”

U Sharikova nothing remains from Sharik except hatred for cats and love for the kitchen. His portrait was described in detail first by Bormenthal in his diary: he is a short man with a small head. Subsequently, the reader learns that the hero’s appearance is unattractive, his hair is coarse, his forehead is low, his face is unshaven.

His jacket and striped trousers are torn and dirty, a poisonous heavenly tie and patent leather boots with white leggings complete the costume. Sharikov is dressed in accordance with his own concepts of chic. Like Klim Chugunkin, whose pituitary gland was transplanted to him, Sharikov plays the balalaika professionally. From Klim he got his love for vodka.

Sharikov chooses his first and patronymic according to the calendar, and takes the “hereditary” surname.

The main character trait of Sharikov is arrogance and ingratitude. He behaves like a savage, and about normal behavior he says: “You torture yourself, like under the tsarist regime.”

Sharikov receives a “proletarian education” from Shvonder. Bormenthal calls Sharikov a man with a dog’s heart, but Preobrazhensky corrects him: Sharikov has a human heart, but the worst possible person.

Sharikov even makes a career in his own sense: he takes the position of head of the department for cleaning Moscow from stray animals and is going to sign with the typist.

Stylistic features

The story is full of aphorisms expressed by different characters: “Don’t read Soviet newspapers before lunch,” “Devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads,” “You can’t hurt anyone!” You can influence a person or an animal only by suggestion” (Preobrazhensky), “Happiness is not in galoshes”, “And what is will? So, smoke, mirage, fiction, nonsense of these ill-fated democrats..." (Sharik), "The document is the most important thing in the world" (Shvonder), "I am not a master, the gentlemen are all in Paris" (Sharikov).

For Professor Preobrazhensky there are certain symbols normal life, which in themselves do not provide this life, but testify to it: a shoe rack in the front door, carpets on the stairs, steam heating, electricity.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is one of the most significant writers of the first half of the 20th century. In the works of the twenties, one of which is “Heart of a Dog” (1925), his original artistic system was formed. Analyzing the work of this writer, the attentive reader will notice that the original reference points for the writer were such masters of Russian literature as N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.P. Chekhov. Based on their creative style, a special Bulgakov style is created using fantasy, grotesque and elements of impressionism.

The story “Heart of a Dog” is a dystopia, fantastic work With satirical orientation. But the fantastic plot of this story has a real fantastic basis. This work reflected the general mood of post-revolutionary society, the spirit of the times, encouraging a fairy tale to come true. The fantastic transformation of Sharik into Sharikov, a dog into a man, refers not only to the great scientific achievements of the twenties, but also to the attempt of the Soviet government to make “everyone” a person who was “nothing” both socially and intellectually and ethically.

There are nine chapters in the story, and each of them has a special weight in general plan works. Turning to the sixth chapter, one can notice that one of the key moments is Shvonder’s visit to Professor Preobrazhensky. A character named Shvonder - bright representative one of the opposing sides of the story, a proletarian, “the new head of the house committee elected at a meeting of the housing association.” The author presents him as a man “on whose head a shock of thick hair rose a quarter of an arshin curly hair" It must be said that he appears only three times in Professor Preobrazhensky’s apartment at the moments of key turns of plot events.

In the sixth chapter, we observe Shvonder’s second visit to the professor in order to demand that Philip Philipovich write Sharikov’s identity card in order to issue documents to him. But, despite the brevity of this episode, its significance for revealing the image of Shvonder as one of the most important characters in the story cannot be overestimated. With just a few clear phrases, Bulgakov paints us a portrait of this representative of the proletariat.

However, despite his active participation in the plot, in particular, in the arrangement of Sharikov’s fate, this character does not receive a detailed characterization. It is presented schematically in the story. Shvonder is not a person, he is a “public figure,” one of his “comrades.” The author focuses on his hatred of class enemies, that is, Professor Preobrazhensky and Doctor Bormental. For example, during his visit in chapter six, he talks to the professor with "quiet schadenfreude." And when Philip Philipovich involuntarily lost his temper, “blue joy spread across Shvonder’s face.” After the professor asked about the availability of free rooms in the house, “yellow sparks appeared in Shvonder’s brown eyes.”

The confrontation between Preobrazhensky and the head of the house committee is a clear reflection of the class conflict of the post-revolutionary era. “Comrades” and “gentlemen” are at different social poles, and there is an irreconcilable struggle between them. And, as we see from the text of the chapter, even in everyday life they cannot hide their hostility, irritation and even hatred towards each other.

It is interesting to take a closer look at the image of Shvonder as a typical representative of the proletariat, personifying their truth. Even at the beginning of the chapter, Preobrazhensky reads a “libel” written by the house committee about “the entertainment of the pseudo-scientific bourgeoisie,” where the author directly and insultingly accuses the professor of immorality. Shvonder’s subsequent visit had not only an official reason (paperwork), but also a personal one - petty revenge, an opportunity to once again piss off the “old man”.

In a conversation regarding paperwork, we grasp the essence of Shvonder. In his philosophy, the cornerstone is a document, a piece of paper. “A document is the most important thing in the world,” he tells Professor Preobrazhensky and is very indignant when Preobrazhensky rashly calls them idiotic. “It’s quite strange, professor,” Shvonder was offended, “how do you call the documents idiotic? I cannot allow an undocumented tenant to stay in the house, and not yet registered with the police. What if there is a war with imperialist predators?

This is the whole of Shvonder, this is the morality of the proletariat, bowing before power, believing only in the power of laws, regulations, documents, aggressive and unreasoning. The hero is not offended by the outright stupidity and absurdity of Sharikov’s compiled identity card, which is a professor, a luminary of world science, an educated thin man, cannot help but recognize it as nonsense. Shvonder does not care about the scale of the discovery made by Professor Preobrazhensky; he does not understand that Philip Philipovich performed a miracle by creating man like a creator. For him, Sharikov is just another tenant, a unit of society that interests him only from a practical point of view: “Well, the matter is not complicated. Write your ID, citizen professor. That so, they say, and so, the bearer of this is really Sharikov Poligraf Poligrafovich, um... born in your supposedly apartment.”

The confrontation between Professor Preobrazhensky and the house committee Shvonder reflects the main conflict of the story, the conflict between two opposing social classes. Reasoning further, we can develop the idea that in this story Bulgakov reflects contemporary socio-historical processes and indirectly gives philosophical understanding their place in human history.

The story of M.A. Bulgakov’s “Heart of a Dog” was written at the time of the heyday of satire in young Soviet literature. In the 20s Zoshchenko, Ilf and Petrov created, satirical plays created by Mayakovsky. The revolution exposed the contradictions of society, and feuilletons and entire satirical cycles became a response to the philistinism and bureaucracy of the new state. True, such a period in literature did not last long; satire was considered unnecessary, since under socialism there was supposedly nothing to laugh about. However, “Heart of a Dog”, even immediately after its creation in 1925, could not pass the censorship - the object of the story’s satire was too large-scale. Bulgakov not only showed the real face of the new class, but also raised the problem of the revolution as an experiment on the country, the problem of the fate of the Russian intelligentsia and its responsibility for this experiment.

The scene of the operation to transform the dog Sharik into a man is key in the work, since the narrative itself is structured as an experiment and its results can be anticipated by carefully reading the episode about the surgical experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky. The main means of Bulgakov's satire are allegory and grotesque. Here Sharik is locked in the bathroom before the operation, at first he furiously makes plans for revenge for such “rudeness,” but then he clearly realizes: “No, no way, you can’t leave here at any price, why lie... I’m used to it. I am a master's dog, an intelligent creature, I have tasted a better life. And what is will? So, smoke, mirage, fiction... The nonsense of these ill-fated democrats..." It turns out that will is not needed when you live in abundance. Is it good or bad? The author uses a hidden comparison of the dog's conclusions with social ideas about the position of various classes in the state. Indeed, those who had nothing strived for freedom. As soon as even in a workers' and peasants' state someone came to power and began to enjoy prosperity, the desire for freedom and equality for some reason disappeared. Only best representatives wealthy classes thought about the need for will. But what was meant by it? For Sharik, this concept is associated with vagrancy. And for Professor Preobrazhensky? Probably with the opportunity to freely do what you love. Thus, one must grow morally and intellectually to the point that freedom brings happiness.

The main idea of ​​the story is that one must bear responsibility for freedom of choice. What looks ominous in the operation on Sharik is the description of people conducting an experiment on a living creature. The professor is shown as a priest in a white radiance, but “on top of the white one, like an epitrachelion, a narrow rubber apron was worn. Hands in black gloves." Dr. Bormenthal's eyes are repulsive - the “mirror of the soul”: “They were wary, false, and in their depths lurked a bad, dirty deed, if not a whole crime.” In the dog’s perception, such people are not capable of a good deed. And indeed, Preobrazhensky repeats several times: “...we will lose time and we will lose the dog. However, there is no chance for him anyway”; “Anyway, he’s already died five times for you”; “He’ll die anyway... oh, what the hell...”; “He died, of course?..”; “Damn it! I'm not dead! Well, he’ll die anyway.” He is ready for the death of a dog he already loves and perceives it as the norm (“it doesn’t matter”). It’s interesting how the words to indicate the outcome change: “lose,” “died,” “die,” “die.” The professor seems to distance himself from the animal. The author’s assessment of what is happening is obvious: “...both became agitated, like murderers in a hurry.”

The details of the portrait of the “luminary of science” emphasize the inhumanity of his deed: “Filipp Philipovich’s teeth clenched, his eyes acquired a sharp, prickly shine, and, waving his knife, he accurately and long stretched a wound across Sharik’s stomach”; “The knife jumped into his hands as if by itself, after which Philip Philipovich’s face became terrible. He bared his porcelain and gold crowns and in one move placed a red crown on Sharik’s forehead”; “Philip Philipovich became positively scary. A hiss escaped from his nose, his teeth opened to his gums”; “At the same time, his face became like that of an inspired robber”; “At this point Philip Philipovich completely fell off, like a well-fed vampire...” The verbs used by the author when characterizing the actions of the doctors are important: “poked the dog in the nose”, “threw away the typewriter and armed himself with a razor”, “attacked predatorily”, “slashed... twisted the knife in the body”, “reached into the depths and pulled out in a few turns...” , “fell away from the wound, poked a wad of gauze into it and commanded,” “got into it with scissors,” “like a tiger, rushed to pinch and squeezed,” “broke a glass ampoule with a crunch, pumped from it into a syringe and insidiously stabbed Sharik somewhere near hearts”, “growled”, “hissed”, etc. There is a feeling that bloodthirsty animals are being described, and not people in white coats. Sharik, on the contrary, is shown as a victim with a “red crown” on his forehead. He looks pitiful and helpless in the hands of Preobrazhensky and Bormental: “The dog Sharik lay stretched out on the narrow operating table, and his head was helplessly pounding against a white oilcloth pillow.”

The result of the experiment turned out to be terrible for the experimenters themselves. The professor is tormented by the thought that it was he who gave birth to the monster, spend the most complicated operation over which it is easier than to re-educate him. The moral is obvious: you cannot interfere in life when it is difficult to foresee the consequences. They may turn out to be tragic. Preobrazhensky managed to return everything to its place and turn Poligraf Poligrafovich into Sharik. Will the great professor experiment with nature in the future? Bulgakov warns - yes! “The dog saw terrible things. The important man plunged his hands in slippery gloves into the vessel and took out the brains. The persistent man persistently sought something in them, cut, examined, squinted and sang: “To the sacred banks of the Nile...” Although the professor’s appearance does not contain the former sinister features of a butcher, he is an “important” and “persistent man,” but his future experiments make us wary. In the modern world, the problem of human intervention in wildlife very relevant. It is important to stop in time and think about whether a revolution is needed when everything will come in due time in an evolutionary way?

Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog” needs to be read not once, but several times. After all, each successive reading evokes thoughts and emotions in the reader, forcing him to look differently at difficult time described in the story. Even those who know the history of Russia well cannot give an objective assessment of the events of the post-revolutionary period. After all, in order to correctly assess reality, you need to be a participant in certain events. Bulgakov's story gives us the opportunity to “transport” to the past and look at the world through the eyes of an eyewitness.
The episode of the story that tells us about Shvonder’s visit to Professor Preobrazhensky is certainly a caricature. But this is the author’s intention. With the help of sophisticated grotesque humor, he tries to convey to the reader the absurdity of the confrontation between the old Russian intelligentsia, which in the post-revolutionary era found itself humiliated and destroyed, and the bureaucrats, who in every possible way encouraged and supported the true “masters of life” - and the Tarii.
Shvonder takes an active part in the fate of Sharikov, who is collectively, personifying the “new man” - the lumpen proletarian. Shvonder considers it his direct duty to help Sharikov adapt to life and obtain legal rights. In the story, Shvonder makes sure that the former dog has documents. However, we soon see that Sharikov disappoints his patron. He doesn’t want to go to war, he openly states that he “is entitled to a white ticket.”
Sharikov is useless to society, but Shvonder does not understand this. We see that Shvonder is a step above Sharikov, he is vested with power. However, this does not affect his mental abilities too much. Shvonder is used to thinking in clichés, and it is difficult for him to understand that such a thing as Sharikov does not correspond to any rules and canons. Sharikov is the personification of all the bad qualities and inclinations that a person can have. Devoid of any human feelings, he is aggressive and therefore scary. No one can control Sharikov, not even Shjonder. But he, unfortunately, does not understand this.
In the analyzed episode, we see that Shvonder is surprised and shocked by Sharikov’s lack of consciousness, who is not going to go to war. There is nothing surprising in this: the developed instinct of self-preservation forces the newly-minted lumpen-proletarian to look for any way to ensure his safety. A society that tries to rely on such “balloons” will be doomed to ruin. Professor Preobrazhensky understands this very well, but Shvonder, unfortunately, does not.
The professor is trying to buy a free room for Sharikov. Naturally, he is refused. This attempt embodies the intention of the Russian intelligentsia to try to draw a line between themselves and the “new people.” After all, after the revolution, not immediately intelligent people realized that it was impossible to coexist peacefully with the “new masters of life”. The aggressive and cruel Sharikovs do not spare anyone, including people like Shvonder.
The true value of the episode, which shows the communication of the main characters of the story, is that we get an idea of ​​the methods by which certain people acted in the post-revolutionary era. The “new people,” personified by Sharikov, do not yet feel like true masters. But they have already realized that they are willing to support them, which is what Shvonder is doing.
The old Russian intelligentsia finds itself defenseless before the proletarians and the bureaucrats. Attempts to somehow outline the boundaries of their world, to protect what has always belonged to them, turn out to be futile. Professor Preobrazhensky realizes with the deepest bitterness that he and others like him are becoming more and more alien and hostile to the new Russia every day.
Shvonder seems to be letting the genie out of the bottle. Sharikov, of course, plays the role of the “genie”. He gains strength, realizes his confidence and rightness. A readiness to act is about to manifest itself in him. And then this active and terrible force will be impossible to stop. Everyone will suffer from it, including Shvonder.

2.2. Analysis of the story “Heart of a Dog”

The first lesson on analyzing the work opens with the teacher’s story about the history of the creation and “non-publication” of the story “The Heart of a Dog.”

In January 1925, M. Bulgakov began work on a satirical story for the Nedra magazine. It was originally called “Dog's Happiness. A Monstrous Story,” but soon the writer changed the title to “Heart of a Dog.” Completed in March of the same year, the story came to the reader only in 1987. L. B. Kamenev, who familiarized himself with Bulgakov’s manuscript at the request of the publisher of “Nedra” Angarsky, pronounced a verdict on the work: “This is a sharp pamphlet on modernity, under no circumstances should it be published.”

To study “The Heart of a Dog” in class, you can choose different ways of analysis. Following the author analysis assumes that the class will focus on working on the composition of the story. The figurative analysis will focus the attention of schoolchildren on the conflict between the two central characters of the work - Sharikov and Professor Preobrazhensky. The system of lessons we propose involves a problem-based study of the story.

The core problematic question that the students have to solve can be formulated based on their answers to the questionnaire: “What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand at the end of the story? Does the author agree with him? Most students may not see the difference between the positions of the author and his hero; they narrow the author’s position, reducing it to the fact that “you can’t make a man out of a dog”, that “it is useless to impose something on nature.” But there are other opinions. For example: “Bulgakov believes that the experiment will be successful if we can understand and reveal the world of the human soul.” None of the statements given here will satisfy us, but by confronting them in the lesson, we create a problematic situation. in the course of solving which students will come to a deeper understanding of the work, a problematic question for all lessons: “Does the author's position with the position of Professor Preobrazhensky?

To resolve this problem, it is necessary to understand the position of the professor and the position of the author. At the center of the story is the conflict between Preobrazhensky and Sharikov, and it is in this conflict that the essence of each character is revealed. Therefore, the first problem - the first step - will be the question of who is right in the dispute: Professor Preobrazhensky or Doctor Bormental? The survey convinces us that this question also raises different opinions in the class: some believe that the professor is right, some that Dr. Bormental, some that both are right, and some that both are wrong. This lesson will be dedicated to the search for truth.

In order to awaken the students’ imagination and show them that what is unfolding before us is a collision not of a private, but of a universal scale, we ask them to imagine and describe Moscow, in which the events of the story take place.

The guys see Moscow as dirty, uncomfortable, cold and gloomy. In this city, where wind, blizzard and snow reign, there live embittered people trying to hold on to what they have, or even better, to grab more. Students find details in the text that confirm their impressions, and come to the conclusion that in Moscow there is a climate of chaos, decay, and hatred:

a person who was a nobody now receives power, but uses it for his own benefit, regardless of the people around him (an example of this is the fate of the “typist”).

Is there anything in the story that counters this chaos and hatred?

Students easily cope with this issue: Bulgakov introduces the reader to Philip Philipovich’s apartment, where life seems to follow different laws: there is order, comfort, and respect for one’s neighbor. True, this life is under threat, because the house committee, headed by Shvonder, is constantly trying to destroy it, remake it to its own taste, according to its own laws.

When making a generalization about what connects the two worlds in the story, we ask students to find another connecting line. Of course, this is Sharik, a dog, homeless and rootless, as if in fairy tale transported from a world of darkness, hunger and suffering to a world of warmth, light and peace.

We ask the students how many parts they divided the story into and from whose perspective the story is told in each part. This task does not pose any difficulties, since the composition of “Heart of a Dog” is quite transparent: two parts with a prologue and an epilogue. In the prologue to the dramatic events, which is the first chapter, the author creates the atmosphere of a universal cataclysm. Chapters II-IV - the first part. Chapters II and III slowly introduce us to the inhabitants of the house on Prechistenka, their way of life and thoughts and, of course, the character of the dog Sharik. Both the prologue and these chapters are presented mainly through the eyes of a dog - a technique of detachment that allows the author to “hide” his attitude to what is happening and at the same time most fully reveal the character of the observer through his perception of events and their assessment. The author only records the action, avoiding direct commentary on it, but his ironic smile is in the details, in the composition: in the clash of remarks, assessments, and behavior of the characters. The fourth chapter is the culmination and denouement of the first part - the operation and the supposed death of Sharik. This scene is presented directly by the author, who notes the ambiguous impression of what is happening.

The second part, like the first, opens with a kind of prologue, which is the diary of Doctor Bormenthal (Chapter V). The author gives the story of the miraculous transformation of a dog into a human to a medical professional who notes the facts, but does not have the experience and insight of his teacher, Professor Preobrazhensky. Bormenthal's overwhelming admiration, bewilderment, and hopes are reflected in the change in handwriting, which is noted by the author, who supposedly does not undertake to judge fantastic events. This technique intrigues the reader, who, together with Bormenthal and Preobrazhensky, is trying to understand what is happening.

In chapters VI-IX, the story about the evolution of the “new man” is narrated by the author, the only one who can keep all the characters in sight and objectively present all the details of the ongoing catastrophe. He does not convey the observations to Sharikov. as I did in the first part with Sharik, since, unlike a dog, it is impossible to detect thoughts in this person.

The end of Chapter IX talks about a new operation. The events in the first and second parts are repeated: the choice of name, Philip Philipovich's visit to the house committee, the outrage committed by Sharik-Sharikov (owl - cat), lunch, the professor's thoughts before the operations, conversations with Dr. Bormental, the operation - but the changes are all the more striking , occurring in the house and in people.

The story ends with an epilogue in which the situation, thanks to the wonderful skill of Professor Preobrazhensky, is returned to the original state of the first part - the double ring has closed.

Of course, it is difficult to independently comprehend the role of composition in the plans of the author of “The Heart of a Dog,” but drawing up a plan for the story at home, highlighting the narrators, is the first step on this path.

Let's try to figure out with them why Bulgakov depicts almost all the events of the first part using the technique of detachment, giving the narration to Sharik. After all, you can decide who is right in the dispute about the “heart of a dog” only by observing both the dog and the “new man.” So, we organize observation in the class and compare Sharik-Sharikov as he appears in the first and second parts of the story, using the following questions and tasks:

What do you think of Sharik? Describe it at the moment of meeting with the professor. Which qualities of Sharik do you like and which do you not? What qualities does the author emphasize in Sharike? For what purpose is he doing this? What does Sharik notice in the reality around him and how does he react to it? What does Sharik like about the professor’s house and what doesn’t? Read the patient reception scene expressively. What can you tell about the dog from its behavior in this episode? How does the dog perceive the inhabitants of the apartment? Read expressively the scene of Philip Philipovich’s visit to the house committee. What does Sharik understand and what does not understand? Does Sharik change from December 16 to December 23? Highlight the stages of these changes. How do the residents of the apartment and the author feel about Sharik?

Analysis of the first chapters of the story reveals a lot of new things to students. They understand that from the first lines the dog’s “stream of consciousness” unfolds before the reader. And from the first lines it is clear that the dog in front of us is fantastic.

A dog whose body has been violated by people, of course, knows how to hate, but the “typist” evokes sympathy and pity in him. And the author openly sympathizes with the dog and the young lady, given over to be torn apart by people and the natural elements: “Some typist receives four and a half chervonets for the IX category, well, however, her lover will give her fildepers stockings. But how much bullying does she have to endure for this fildepers... ""Bowing her head, the young lady rushed to the attack, broke through the gate, and on the street it began to spin her, toss her around, then screwed her in with a snow screw, and she disappeared.” “The dog’s soul was so painful and bitter, so lonely and scary, that small dog tears, like pimples, crawled out of his eyes and immediately dried up.”

A meeting with Professor Preobrazhensky saves Sharik from death. And although the dog is aware of his slave soul and vile fate, he gives his love and devotion to “mental labor to the master” for a piece of Krakow sausage. The lackey's servility, awakened in Sharik, is manifested not only in the readiness to lick the master's boots, but also in the desire to take revenge for past humiliations on one of those whom he previously feared like fire - “to bite the doorman by the proletarian calloused foot.” A wonderful meeting changed Sharik’s position in society, turned him from a homeless, rootless dog into “Mr. Sharik” and allowed the author to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of his fantastic character.

The first act of a peculiar drama begins, in which the dog gets acquainted with the house of Professor Preobrazhensky and its inhabitants. He, like a child, observes a new world for him, sometimes noticing something. which a person who has lost the acuity of perception will not see. But sometimes Sharik doesn’t understand much. Ready to endure physical punishment for biting Dr. Bormenthal’s leg, he hears the professor’s “strange” words about the need to treat a living creature kindly (the dog will draw conclusions from them a little later). The scene of receiving patients, constructed by the author with the help of an ironic collision of high and low, gives Sharik such an interest that even the nausea that tormented him after anesthesia goes away. The first visitor, whom Sharik crosses with “fruit,” turns to the professor, who has suddenly become “extraordinarily important and personable”:

“- Hee hee! “You are a magician and sorcerer, professor,” he said, embarrassed.

“Take off your pants, my dear,” Philip Philipovich commanded and stood up” (Bulgakov M. Cited op. - P. 153).

Receiving vulgarities and libertines who are ready to pay any money for the return of youth, Professor Preobrazhensky hums a serenade of Don Juan (music by P. I. Tchaikovsky to the words of A. K. Tolstoy), which gives the scene an even greater comic effect and helps the reader understand author's attitude to what is happening. And the dog “became completely foggy, and everything in his head went upside down”: “Well, to hell with you,” he thought dully, putting his head on his paws and dozing off with shame...” But the spirit of conformity is strong in the dog: “Indecent apartment , but how good..."

Watching the scene of Philip Philipovich’s visit to the house committee headed by Shvonder, Sharik is convinced of the omnipotence of the professor, not understanding on what it is based: “What a guy!<...>How he spat! What a guy!”

After a hearty lunch, Sharik finally recognizes the professor as very a good man, “a wizard, magician and sorcerer from a dog’s fairy tale...”. The philosophy of the fantastic dog is by no means fantastic: it’s good where it’s warm, satisfying and not beaten; He who has strength and power is right - an ordinary slave philosophy.

During his week at the professor's house, Sharik changed significantly. From an unfortunate dying dog, he turned into a shaggy, fat, arrogant, handsome dog. Changes also occur in his consciousness: concern about why the professor needed him is replaced by suspicions about the presence of his own certain merits: “Or maybe I’m handsome.” The emerging fear of losing “warmth and satiety” is quickly replaced by the confidence that he “pulled out the most important dog ticket, that he is a handsome man, an incognito canine prince.” Dissatisfaction with the collar also quickly passes as soon as Sharik notices “the mad envy in the eyes of all the dogs he meets. And he, who only recently felt sorry for the “typist,” begins to treat people like a lord: Philip Philipovich is the main deity, and he is shown the highest canine respect; Daria Petrovna is the queen of the kitchen (warmth and satiety), and with the help of touching persistence, keys are selected that open access to the kingdom of fire and food; Dr. Bormenthal is simply a “bitter”. plays virtually no role in Sharik’s life, and Zina is a servant, whom Sharik patronizes himself as Zinka.

Yes, while Sharik is in a dog’s skin, his philosophy does not bring much harm - except that he “explained” the owl - students’ observations and reflections on the first part of the story, on the image of a strange dog, lead to this conclusion. At home, the children will think about the following questions and tasks:

Highlight the stages of transformation " sweetest dog into filth." Compare the behavior of a dog and a person (Sharikov) in the episodes of the first and second parts: choosing a name, lunch, visiting the house committee. Does anything canine manifest itself in a person? Why? What is in Sharikov from the dog, what is from Chugunkin? What is Shvonder’s role in Sharikov’s upbringing? Why does Professor Preobrazhensky say that “Shvonder is the biggest fool?

The next lesson is devoted to observing how the dog has changed, becoming a human, and solving a problematic situation about who is right in the dispute: Professor Preobrazhensky or Doctor Bormental?

Let's start the lesson by thinking about the question of why M. Bulgakov needed to introduce metamorphosis into the story, to make the transformation of a dog into a man the spring of intrigue. If in Sharikov only the qualities of Klim Chugunkin are manifested (as many eighth-graders believe), then why shouldn’t the author “resurrect” Klim himself? But before our eyes, “gray-haired Faust,” busy searching for means to restore youth, creates a man not in a test tube, but by transforming a dog.

It is still difficult for students to answer this question, but it awakens in them a desire to find the truth.

Let's remind them of Dr. Bormenthal's diary. Most of the guys were not able to fully comprehend his role in the story during the first reading: their answers are reproductive in nature. Let us sharpen the problematic situation with an additional question: “Why is it Dr. Bormental who keeps the diary, and not Professor Preobrazhensky?”

Dr. Bormenthal is a student and assistant to the professor, and, as befits an assistant, he takes notes, recording all stages of the experiment. We have before us a strict medical document that contains only facts. However, soon the emotions overwhelming the young scientist will begin to be reflected in changes in his handwriting. The doctor's guesses about what is happening appear in the diary. But, being a professional. Bormenthal is young and full of optimism; he does not yet have the experience and insight of a teacher. Thus, “by eliminating the author and bright hopes for the result of the experiment, they increase the reader’s interest, keep the reader in suspense, giving him the opportunity to make his own guesses about the events. The dates of the entries in the diary allow us to note a sacred parallel: December 23, in the evening, an operation was performed; from December 24 to January 6, when the new creature loses one by one the signs reminiscent of a dog, from Christmas Eve to Christmas the dog is transformed into a human. Is this why Bulgakov chose the surname Preobrazhensky for the playwright?

What stages of development does it go through? new person", who recently was not only a nobody, but a dog? Even before the complete transformation, on January 2, the creature swore at his creator, and by Christmas his vocabulary was replenished with all kinds of swear words. A person’s first meaningful reaction to the creator’s comments is “get off, you nit.” Dr. Bormental puts forward the hypothesis that “we have before us the unfolded brain of Sharik,” but we know, thanks to the first part of the story, that there was no swearing in the dog’s brain, and we accept a skeptical assessment of the possibility of “developing Sharik into a very high mental personality,” expressed by Professor Preobrazhensky. But is the professor absolutely right when he believes that he has revived Klim Chugunkin - a lumpen and a criminal? Let's continue our observations.

Smoking is added to the swearing (Sharik did not like tobacco smoke); seeds; balalaika (and Sharik did not approve of music) - and balalaika at any time of the day (evidence of attitude towards others); untidiness and bad taste in clothing. At this stage of the lesson, you can use a video recorder to watch a fragment from the film directed by V. Bortko “Heart of a Dog” - a conversation between Sharikov and Philip Philipovich. Let’s compare the image created by the actor and director with the author’s description: what did the filmmakers keep and what did they “forget”? Is this how the children imagined Sharikov when they read the story?

Sharikov's development is rapid: Philip Philipovich loses the title of deity and turns into a “daddy.” These qualities of Sharikov are accompanied by a certain morality, more precisely, immorality (“I’ll register, but fighting is a piece of cake”), drunkenness, and theft. This process of transformation “from the sweetest dog into scum” is crowned by a denunciation of the professor, and then an attempt on his life.

Students cannot help but notice that when talking about the development of Sharikov. the author emphasizes the remaining canine features: attachment to the kitchen, hatred of cats, love of being well-fed, idle life. A man catches fleas with his teeth, and in conversations barks and yapps indignantly. But it is not the external manifestations of canine nature that disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistenka. The impudence that seemed sweet and harmless in a dog becomes unbearable in a person who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, with no intention of “learning and becoming at least somewhat acceptable member of society.” His morality is different: he is not a NEPman, therefore, he is a hard worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: thus Sharikov shares the idea of ​​“dividing everything,” which is captivating for the mob.

Shvonder, who becomes " godfather» Polygraph Poligrafovich. tries to raise Sharikov in his own way. Ideas about universal equality, brotherhood and freedom, assimilated by the undeveloped consciousness of the head of the house committee, are instilled in the “new man.” It must be said that they end up in the brain, which is generally devoid of consciousness (instincts live in it!). The results are felt instantly: the instinct of the struggle for existence - natural, eternal - finds support in ideology. Shvonder is a fool because he doesn’t understand what kind of genie he’s letting out of the bottle. Soon he himself will become a victim of the monster that he is so intensively “developing.”

Observations from these lessons impart knowledge of the “heart of a dog” and the “heart of man.” They draw a conclusion that is important for understanding the meaning of the entire story: Sharikov took the worst, most terrible qualities from both the dog and the person. The experiment led to the creation of a monster who, in his baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, betrayal, or murder; who understands only power, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything he has submitted to at the first opportunity. A dog must remain a dog, and a person must remain a person.

Homework for the last lesson could be like this:

Come up with a title for Chapter IV so that it fully reveals its content. Write down the author's characteristics of Professor Preobrazhensky in the episode of the operation. Draw up a “code of honor for Professor Preobrazhensky. Explain the theory of education according to Professor Preobrazhensky and Dr. Bormental. Describe the professor in the scene of receiving patients, visiting the house committee, at lunch.

2.3.Final lesson

We called the fourth lesson and the final lesson “What is Professor Preobrazhensky’s fault?” The title of the lesson is central problematic issue, therefore, it is in the last final lesson that students will look for the answer to the question posed.

The conversation develops around the following questions:

How does Professor Preobrazhensky appear before us? How does the author treat his hero in the first part of the story? What can you say about the professor’s lifestyle and views? What are his moral principles? For what purpose did the professor pick up a stray dog? Why is he performing an experimental operation? Is Professor Preobrazhensky omnipotent? Compare the educational theories of Professor and Dr. Bormenthal. Which one was more effective and why? How did the results of the experiment affect the professor and his assistant? Does the author's attitude towards the professor change throughout the story? What are these changes related to? What did Professor Preobrazhensky understand and what did he not understand by the end of the story? Does his position coincide with the author's? What is Professor Preobrazhensky’s fault? What does the author warn his reader about? Why did the fate of the story “Heart of a Dog” turn out this way?

In this lesson, the focus of the students' attention is on another participant in the dramatic events in the house on Prechistenka - Professor Preobrazhensky. The European famous scientist is searching for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the old principles of life. Everyone, according to Philip Philipovich, in this world should do his own thing: sing in the theater, operate in the hospital, and then there will be no devastation. He rightly believes that achieving material well-being, the benefits of life, and a position in society can only be achieved through labor, knowledge and skills. It is not origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. Convictions do not drive a club into the enemy’s head:

“Nothing can be done with terror.” The professor does not hide his dislike for the new order, which has turned the country upside down and brought it to the brink of disaster. He cannot accept new rules (“to divide everything,” “who was nobody will become everything”) that deprive true workers of normal working and living conditions. But the European luminary still compromises with the new government; he returns her youth, and she provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. To stand in open opposition to the new government means to lose your apartment, the opportunity to work, and perhaps even your life. The professor made his choice. In some ways, this choice reminds readers of Sharik’s choice.

In II and III chapters In the story, the image of the professor is given by Bulgakov in an extremely ironic manner. In order to provide for yourself. Philip Philipovich, looking like a French knight and king, is forced to serve scum and libertines, although he tells Doctor Bormental that he is doing this not for money, but out of scientific interests. But, thinking about improving the human race, Professor Preobrazhensky is so far only transforming depraved old men and prolonging their opportunity to lead dissolute lives.

To the house committee members. for whom there is no difference at all between a man and a woman, and the word “gentlemen” is humiliating, who have no idea about the culture of behavior and the culture of work, Philip Philipovich looks “like a commander at his enemies.” Shvonder’s hatred, which the author emphasizes, turns out to be powerless in this episode thanks to “telephone law.” But the professor is omnipotent only for Sharik. The scientist is guaranteed safety while he serves those in power; as long as representatives of the authorities need him, he can afford to openly express his dislike for the proletariat, he is protected from the libels and denunciations of Sharikov and Shvonder. But his fate, like the fate of the entire intelligentsia, trying to fight against the stick with words, was guessed by Bulgakov and predicted in Vyazemskaya’s story: “If you were not a European luminary and you would not stand up for you in the most outrageous way<„.>persons, whom I am sure we will explain later, you should have been arrested.” By the way, Sharik uses exactly the same word “let’s explain” to express his subconscious hatred of the owl that irritates him.

In Chapter III, over lunch, we become more familiar with the professor’s views. The description of the dishes makes the reader's mouth water, and he, like Sharik, is ready to bang his tail on the parquet. We ask the students: “Why did Bulgakov need to describe the table setting, dishes, and smells in such detail?” Schoolchildren are able to appreciate the landscape created by man for man's enjoyment! This is beauty, this is tradition and remains in nutrition cultured person, not to eat, but to receive aesthetic and gastronomic pleasure: “You need to be able to eat, but imagine - most people don’t know how to eat at all.” It is against culture, tradition, and therefore a whole series of rules and prohibitions that Sharikov will rebel at dinner in the second part of the story.

And the professor is most concerned about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov House), in work and leading to devastation. Alas, Philip Philipovich’s remarks are too modern that the devastation is in the minds, that when everyone minds their own business, “the devastation will disappear by itself.”

But the students do not notice the author’s irony in this scene: “Having gained strength after a hearty lunch, he (Preobrazhensky) thundered like an ancient prophet, and his head sparkled with silver.” The teacher must definitely draw the students' attention to these lines: it is easy to be a prophet on a full stomach! Sharik’s reaction also enhances the author’s irony: “He could earn money right at rallies... a first-class businessman.”

In Chapter IV the narrative speeds up sharply. The abundance of verbal vocabulary and sound writing give the scene dynamism, tension and expression. In this episode, Sharik appears before the reader as a martyr performing a “difficult feat. These associations are confirmed by another detail - the “red crown” on the dog’s forehead. Professor Preobrazhensky appears in several guises at once. First, he raised his hands, as if blessing Sharik for a “difficult feat.” And then he instantly transforms into a robber (maybe this ability of his to transform is reflected in his surname?) - into a murderer, torturing his victim, he “waved his knife”, “pulled Sharik long across the stomach”, “attacked predatorily”, “slashed a second time” , “the two of them began to tear it apart with hooks,” “reached into the depths,” “teared it out of the body”... Finally, the priest making the sacrifice (a new hypostasis) “fell away from the wound” (like a vampire who drank blood). The author directly compares Philip Philipovich with a robber, emphasizing the bestiality in the expression of his face, in the sound of his voice, using sound writing: “Philip Philipovich’s teeth clenched, his eyes acquired a sharp, prickly shine, and, waving his knife, he accurately and long stretched a wound across Sharik’s stomach. The skin immediately split open and blood sprayed out into the different sides» .

And from a robber, Preobrazhensky also instantly turns into a creator: “With one hand he grabbed a dangling lump, and with the other, with scissors, he cut the same one in the depths somewhere between the spread out hemispheres. He threw the little ball of balls onto a plate, and put a new one in the brain along with a thread, and with his short fingers, which had become miraculously thin and flexible, he managed to wrap it there with an amber thread.”

If you use a film fragment in a lesson, then students will see that the film has completely lost the author’s ambiguous attitude to what is happening; the director was unable to find adequate image techniques for the author.

Philip Philipovich makes an important conclusion for himself and for the author: “... humanity takes care of itself<... >and in an evolutionary order, every year persistently, singling out from the mass of all scum, creates dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn Earth!»

Having received an extract of the sex hormone from the pituitary gland, the professor did not assume that there were many hormones in the pituitary gland. An oversight and miscalculation led to the birth of Sharikov. And the crime that the scientist Dr. Bormenthal warned against. nevertheless, it happened, contrary to the views and beliefs of the teacher. Sharikov, clearing a place for himself in the sun, does not stop either at denunciation or at the physical elimination of the “benefactors.” Scientists are no longer forced to defend their beliefs, but their lives: “Sharikov himself invited his death. He raised his left hand and showed Philip Philipovich a bitten pine cone with an unbearable cat smell. And then with his right hand, directed at the dangerous Bormental, he took a revolver out of his pocket.” Forced self-defense, of course, somewhat softens in the eyes of the author and the reader the scientists’ responsibility for Sharikov’s death, but we are once again convinced that life does not fit into any theoretical postulates.

The genre of a fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to safely resolve the dramatic situation. But the author’s thought about the scientist’s responsibility for the right to experiment sounds cautionary. Any experiment must be thought through to the end, otherwise its consequences can lead to disaster.

This conclusion is made at the end of the lesson. And the children are given several essay topics to take home - essays of their choice, so that the children can speculate on the topics posed by the author of the work.

2.4.Working with literary concepts: humor, satire, pamphlet, fantasy.

The determining factor in the story “Heart of a Dog” is satirical pathos (by the mid-20s, M. Bulgakov had already proven himself as a talented satirist in short stories, feuilletons, and the stories “Diaboliad” and “Fatal Eggs”). Therefore, the story is of certain interest from the point of view of the originality of the satirical image inherent in this work.

The first question that arises when studying the story is the definition of the subject. satirical image. In “Heart of a Dog,” the writer uses satire to expose the complacency, ignorance and blind dogmatism of other government officials, the possibility of a comfortable existence for “labor” elements of dubious origin, their impudence and sense of complete permissiveness. It should be noted that the writer’s views fell out of the mainstream then, in the 20s. However, ultimately, M. Bulgakov’s satire, through ridicule and denial of certain social vices, carried within itself the affirmation of enduring moral values.

The children are already familiar with the term “satire,” but it is necessary to recall the very definition of “satire,” characterize it and mention satirical works that have been studied earlier or introduce others in the form of a review. This can be done through student reports. And in the course of analyzing the story, dwell on the originality of M.A. Bulgakov’s satire.

The satirical content of the story is revealed primarily through the system of characters. It is easy to notice that the characters form a kind of antagonistic pairs, allowing the main conflict of the work to be most fully revealed. From this point of view, it is interesting to consider the interaction of such characters as Professor Preobrazhensky - Sharikov, Preobrazhensky - Shvonder.

Professor Preobrazhensky is a significant figure in the story. This is, first of all, a high-class professional, a talented scientist who conducts experiments on human rejuvenation and has come across an unexpected discovery in this area. The entire way of life of the professor's house maintains a connection with the old, pre-revolutionary time, and the professor himself is sensitive to any violation of this way of life. In Philip Philipovich's office everything sparkles and shines, which reveals the professor's love for order - both internal and external. Everything related to science and work is of paramount importance for Professor Preobrazhensky. It is to his work that he owes everything - his name, European fame, wealth.

Only the moral principles of a professor can inspire respect. “Never commit a crime... Live to old age with clean hands,” he tells Dr. Bormenthal.

The professor’s public position, which is not so simple and certainly not straightforward, deserves thoughtful reflection. The professor says a lot of “seditious things (“Yes, I don’t like the proletariat...”). He gives great importance disappearance of galoshes. Galoshes are not important for him in themselves; he sees them as a kind of symbol of the reigning devastation. Despite all his aggressiveness, Preobrazhensky does not deny the new order; on the contrary, it is its absence that arouses the professor’s anger. He insists on establishing order based on the fact that in modern society this is necessary, since this is a society with a strict division of labor: “In the Bolshoi, let them sing, and I will operate. That’s good - and no destruction..."

The results that Professor Preobrazhensky arrives at are very important. He admits not only the fallacy of his experiments, but also their danger. You can, of course, graft Spinoza’s pituitary gland and build another, higher organism out of a dog. But why? “Please explain to me why it is necessary to artificially fabricate Spinoza, when any woman can give birth to him at any time!.. After all, Madame Lomonosov gave birth to this famous one of hers in Kholmogory... My discovery... costs exactly one broken penny...” .

Shvonder (and other members of the house committee) take a completely different position in life in the story.

Shvonder is a person in power. But the man is not smart and not too subtle, for whom Sharikov with his “proletarian” origin means more than Professor Preobrazhensky with all his works. Shvonder loves to express himself in flowery phrases (“the shining sword of justice will sparkle with a red ray”), for him all external manifestations of the matter are extremely important (in the evenings the singing of “chorales” can be heard in the Kalabukhovsky house). Shvonder himself is deeply convinced of the significance of his person. Meanwhile, the professor is a thousand times right: it will be much more beneficial for everyone if everyone, instead of singing songs, begins to do his own thing. Shvonder is ready to follow all directions and instructions straightforwardly and thoughtlessly. It would be wrong to see in this character a caricature of Bolshevism (for which Bulgakov was reproached at one time). Professor Preobrazhensky identifies Shvonder and the members of the house committee with the proletariat, but they are rather his “deputies.” And they discredit themselves not only by their senseless actions, but also by their alliance with Sharikov.

The deepest conflict in the story arises between Professor Preobrazhensky and his “brainchild” - Sharikov. As a result of a scientific experiment, a good-natured dog turned out to be a liar, a drunkard, a rude person, and, moreover, endowed with exorbitant claims. Sharikov demands his documents, enters the service and is even planning to get married. He also develops a certain philosophy of life: he proudly calls himself a “labor element” and talks about his rights. Justice in his concept is to “take everything and divide it.” It was already said above that the professor is aware of the danger of the results of his experiment. What is this danger? Sharikov, with his minimal intelligence and complete lack of moral principles, not only easily adapts to any conditions, but also shows aggressiveness. And this aggression is easy to direct anywhere. In the story, the professor says: “Well, Shvonder is the biggest fool. He doesn’t understand that Sharikov is an even more formidable danger for him than for me... if someone, in turn, sets Sharikov against Shvonder himself, then all that will be left of him is his horns and legs!” Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, realizing the terrible social dangers arising from his experiment, manages to perform a second operation, and Sharikov returns to his original dog existence.

Let us note in passing that M. A. Bulgakov was always attentive to the choice of names for his characters. The writer could have been attracted by the mobility, roundness, and “swing” contained in the satirical surname “Sharikov”. And the name “Poligraf Poligrafovich” satirically sharpened the tendency to invent new names that arose in the post-revolutionary decade. In addition, the ridiculous name chosen by Sharikov, with its pretentiousness, does not correspond to the surname, creating a comic effect. Sometimes the character’s surname reflects the nature of his activity: “Preobrazhensky” - from the verb “to transform,” which emphasizes the creative, transformative nature of the professor’s activities.

An important tool in revealing the satirical content of the story “Heart of a Dog” is language. Bulgakov was characterized by a serious, thoughtful, deeply conscious attitude towards this side of his works. Here it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of M. Chudakova. Comparing the attitude of two writers to the direct author's word - M. Zoshchenko and M. Bulgakov, she, in particular, writes the main way of Bulgakov's attitude to someone else's word - his alienation from the author and from the heroes close to him, isolation, isolation. Someone else's word is incompatible with the author's word; the author's speech develops against the background of words that are close and appealing to her.

This remark is very important, because Bulgakov’s use of someone else’s word always serves as a sign of a certain speech appearance of the character. And indeed, language features- lexical, intonation - are an important means of characterizing characters. Those of them that are unsympathetic to the author are often expressed in bad Russian, and this is specially emphasized by the writer. In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the clumsy speech of the house committee members is thus ridiculed: “We, the management of the house,” Shvonder spoke with hatred, “came to you after general meeting residents of our building, which raised the issue of densifying the apartments of the building.

Who stood on whom? - shouted Philip Philipovich, - take the trouble to express your thoughts more clearly.”

And the word “I apologize,” repeated several times by those who came, in those years was just coming into use instead of “Sorry” and was considered vulgar. One can imagine how it hurt the ear of Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. The writer also ridicules Shvonder’s passion for pompous, revolutionary-pathetic phrases.

A certain lexical layer is embedded in Sharikov’s speech. An interesting set of phrases that Klim Chugunkin used in everyday life and which then first surfaced in Sharikov’s mind: “a couple more,” “there’s no room,” “get off the bandwagon,” as well as “all the swear words that exist in the Russian lexicon.” . The writer constructs Sharikov’s speech from short, abrupt phrases, which obviously characterizes the primitive way of his thought.

Bulgakov widely uses lexical possibilities when describing a particular event. Thus, when describing the operation on Sharik, the writer uses a deliberate discrepancy between the vocabulary and what is happening. The comparisons are expressive, polished, and figurative: “Both were worried like murderers,” “Bormenthal’s eyes resembled two black muzzles aimed point-blank at Sharikov,” and others. The comic effect here comes from the fact that the description of the surgical operation does not correspond to the vocabulary borrowed from the criminal chronicles.

M. Bulgakov also widely uses various techniques of satirical depiction: grotesque and hyperbole, humor, irony, parody. A special place among them belongs to irony, since it acts as a means of expressing the author’s assessment. Irony is invariably present in the description of the characters in the story - for example, the patients of Professor Preobrazhensky who want to rejuvenate. Sharikov reads... the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky, expresses judgments about what he read. Sometimes the author’s irony is hidden: after the enthusiastic words of Dr. Bormental “Professor Preobrazhensky, you are a creator,” the author’s remark (blot) follows, which reduces the pathos of Bormental’s words.

It is also necessary, when analyzing the story, to explain to schoolchildren that the word “pamphlet” comes from English, meaning “a piece of paper held in the hand.” In literature, a pamphlet is called “a work of a sharply satirical nature, ridiculing in a sharp, denouncing form political system in general, a social phenomenon, etc.” The pamphlet is distinguished by its documentary nature, its fidelity to objective fact and its limited nature. fiction. “The pamphlet can intertwine journalism with satirical methods of evaluation.<...>Pamphletizing can also be inherent in a work of art, in which more or less easily decipherable portrait sketches and characteristics of certain historical figures“We note that in terms of genre, “Heart of a Dog” is clearly not a pamphlet. In addition, the work has not lost its relevance even after more than 60 years, which rarely happens with a pamphlet. Why does the story attract the attention of readers, literary critics, film and theater directors, and why did the name Sharikov almost instantly become a household name? Was it only M. Bulgakov who wrote a pamphlet on Soviet power? These questions help create a mindset for analyzing the story.

A fantastic character in the story is a dog. His unreality lies not only in the fact that he is able to think, read, distinguish people by their eyes, and reason (the technique is not new for literature - let’s remember “Kholstomer” by L. Tolstoy or “Kashtanka” by A.P. Chekhov), but also in the fact that what he knows and what he thinks about it. He can parody Mayakovsky (“Nowhere else will you get such poison as in Mosselprom”), ironically perceive the slogan “Is rejuvenation possible?” (“Naturally, perhaps. The smell rejuvenated me...”). The dog’s consciousness is clearly politicized, and his sympathies, as well as antipathies, are obvious: “Janitors of all proletarians are the most vile scum,” “a doorman... is many times more dangerous than janitors.” The dog knows too well what they feed people in the canteens, how much a Class IX typist earns and how she lives, and even the name of the gentleman he still doesn’t know, whom you can’t feed with rotten meat, because he will immediately print in the newspapers: “...me, Philip Philipovich , fed.” The author's assessments of events are mixed in the first part with Sharik's assessments, enhancing the dog's fantastic omniscience and ironically coloring what is depicted.

Conclusion

The study of each epic work consists of a number of successive stages. These include: introductory activities, reading and analysis literary work, final classes.

Introductory, or introductory, classes prepare students to perceive work of art, arouse their interest in the writer and his work, and direct attention to the main socio-historical, moral and aesthetic problems of the work.

Reading is a direct meeting of the reader with a literary text, the primary perception of the ideological and figurative system of the work on the basis of life and reading experience, formed in the course of all previous work on the study of literature in Russian and native languages.

Analysis deepens students' initial ideas about the work, gives them the opportunity to comprehend their reading impressions, and realizes the educational possibilities of the moral and aesthetic impact of the work on the developing personality. The task is to ensure that the analysis of a literary work becomes a regulator of the relationship between the reader and the writer, eliminates the arbitrariness of subjectivity in the reader’s impression and at the same time maintains a living, personal attitude towards the work of art.

The final lessons recreate the reader’s holistic understanding of the work, incorporating what has been studied into the system of aesthetic values ​​of a wider cultural range.

In the process of studying the topic, certain information of a historical, literary and theoretical and literary nature is assimilated, relationships are established with native literature, work is being done to develop oral and written speech.

Working with works does not exclude, but presupposes a certain connection between the work of individual writers, the study of continuity in issues, images, aesthetic principles and ideological content works. This “roll call” of topics, ideas, and images shapes students’ historical thinking and teaches them to consider the phenomena being studied in connection and interaction. This goal is facilitated by the arrangement of program material in chronological order.

New school program includes the story “The Heart of a Dog” by M. A. Bulgakov. This work is undoubtedly one of the best in the writer’s work and at the same time is one of the least studied.

Written in January - March 1925, the story completes the cycle of the writer's early satirical works and at the same time anticipates his latest novels - in terms of content, images, and plot elements. “Heart of a Dog” shared the fate of most of M. A. Bulgakov’s works, which were kept in the writer’s archive for many years. For the first time in our country, the story was published only in 1987 (Znamya. - No. 6) - many years after the death of the writer and much later than his other works.

Literature

1. Abramovich G. L. Introduction to literary studies. M. - Enlightenment. 1970

2. Belenky G.I. Theory of literature in secondary school. M„ 1970.

3. Bogdanova O. Yu. Peculiarities of studying epic works. In the manual: Methods of teaching literature in secondary specialized educational institutions / Ed. A. D. Zhizhina. – M., 1987.

4. Bogdanova O. Yu., Ovchinnikova L. V., Romanicheva V. S. Literature exam: from graduation to entrance / Ed. O. Yu. Bogdanova. – M., 1997.

5. Velikanova I.V. Features of M. Bulgakov’s satire // Literature at school -2002- No. 7- P.71

6. The relationship between the perception and analysis of works of art in the process of studying literature at school / Ed. O. Yu. Bogdanova. – M., 1984.

7. Students’ perception of a literary work and methodology school analysis/ Ed. A. M. Dokusova. – M., 1974.

8. Golubkov V.V. Methods of teaching literature. – M., 1962.

9. Gudkov A.V. Comments on M. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog” // Bulgakov M. Collection. cit.: In 5 volumes - M., 1990. - T. 2. - P. 690).

10. Gukovsky G. A. Studying a literary work at school. – M.;L., 1996.

11. Studying literature in evening school / Ed. T. G. Brazhe. – M., 1977.

12. Study of literature of the 19th-20th centuries using new programs. Sat. / Rep. ed. N. A. Bodrova. – Samara, 1994.

13. Studying the works of foreign writers in lessons and extracurricular activities in secondary school / Ed. N.P. Michalskaya and V.V. Trofimova. – M., 1980.

14. Ionin G. N., Khvatov A. I. Russian literature of the 20th century. Textbook for XI grade. – St. Petersburg, 1994.

15. The art of analyzing a work of art / Comp. T. T. Brazhe. – M., 1971.

16. Literature. Russian classics. IX class Workshop textbook / Ed. G.I. Belenky. – M., 1997.

17. Marantsman V. G. Analysis of a work of art and reader’s perception of schoolchildren. – L., 1974.

18. Methods of teaching literature / Ed. Z. Ya. Res. – M., 1985.

19. Poetics literary text in literature lessons. Sat. / Rep. ed. O. Yu. Bogdanova. – M., 1997.

20. Problems of analyzing a work of art at school. Methodological recommendations for students / Rep. ed. O. Yu. Bogdanova. – M., 1996.

21. Problems of teaching literature in secondary school / Ed. T. F. Kurdyumova. – M., 1985.

22. Russian literature XIX century. 10th grade: Workshop / Ed. Yu. I. Lyssy. – M., 1997.

23. Russian literature of the 20th century. XI class In 2 hours / Ed. V.V. Agenosova. – M., 1996.

24. Ryzhkova T.V. The story of M.A. Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog” in the classroom // Literature at school - 1995 - No. 6 - P.43.

25. Dictionary of literary terms / Ed. and comp. L.I. Timofeev and S.V. Turaev. - M., 1974. - p. 257.

26. Yanovskaya L. The creative path of Mikhail Bulgakov, - M., 1983.- p. 112

The story “Heart of a Dog” has its own special principle for characterizing the characters. First of all, attention is drawn to the portrait descriptions with which Bulgakov usually accompanies the appearance of his heroes. It is the portrait that allows you to form a definite opinion about the character and feel the author’s attitude. The portrait sketches in the story are done in a very original way. The writer does not seek to give a comprehensive picture of a particular character. On the contrary, in his appearance he emphasizes the most vivid and expressive detail, but such that the reader can mentally recreate not only the external, but also the internal appearance of a person. This is, for example, what Sharikov looks like during a conversation with a professor: “A poisonous sky-colored tie with a fake ruby ​​pin was tied around the man’s neck. The color of this tie was so striking that from time to time, closing his tired eyes, Philip Philipovich, in complete darkness, either on the ceiling or on the wall, saw a flaming torch with a blue crown. Opening his eyes, he is blind again, because he is on the floor. Sprinkling a fan of light, lacquered boots with white spats were thrown into the eyes.

“Like wearing galoshes,” thought Philip Philipovich with an unpleasant feeling...” Such an absurd outfit of Sharikov reveals him to be an ignorant, uncultured person, but at the same time quite self-confident.

Professor Preobrazhensky himself appears in the story for the first time as seen through the eyes of Sharik. The dog, with his characteristic observation, notes the most significant features of the social status and nature of the gentleman unfamiliar to him: “This one eats abundantly and does not steal. This one will not kick, but he himself is not afraid of anyone, and he is not afraid because he is always well-fed. He is a gentleman of mental labor, with a cultured pointed beard and a gray, fluffy and dashing mustache, like those of French knights, but the smell from him flies through the snowstorm - like a hospital and a cigar.”

The main means of characterizing the characters in the story “Heart of a Dog” is dialogue. It is fully revealed in them. life position, the worldview of such different people as Preobrazhensky, Bormental, Sharikov, Shvonder. The dialogue between Professor Preobrazhensky and Sharikov is very expressive (Chapter VI). The professor's remarks perfectly convey the complex range of feelings that engulfed him in a conversation with a newly minted tenant: disgust towards Sharikov's appearance, irritation at his manners, rage in response to the familiar address “daddy”. At the same time, Sharikov looks quite confident, is not embarrassed in a conversation with the professor, and talks about his rights. Here, both the relationships of the characters and their characteristics are conveyed through dialogue.

READING A WORK AS THE BASIS OF ITS STUDY

The main thing is that it is the condition and basis of all training sessions in literature, is reading a work. The success of all work on a literary topic largely depends on the organization of reading.

Will the book captivate the student, will he be immersed in the world created by the artist, or will the thoughts and feelings of the author leave him indifferent, or even cause internal rejection - the teacher always thinks about this when preparing the student’s first meeting with the work. How should it go? Should students be asked to think about certain questions during their first reading, make notes and notes, or is it better to make this first encounter with the book free, without complicating it? analytical work? At first glance, it seems tempting to layer reading with retellings, drawing up plans, conversation and analytical work; time is saved, which means additional opportunities for deeper analysis open up.

However, this does not mean at all that reading the entire work should always open the work on it. If the book is not difficult and the teacher is confident that it will immediately interest the students, then it is really worth starting to study it by reading. But more often it is preceded by an introductory lesson, which is precisely what should prepare students for reading. And sometimes it is advisable to first read several chapters together in class and only then ask students to read the entire work.

Such joint reading of the first chapters (or actions) of works that are difficult for schoolchildren to perceive is very important (“The Inspector General,” “Woe from Wit,” “Eugene Onegin,” etc.). While reading a difficult text, the teacher explains and comments on it. Students with a keen sense of literature are the first to respond, their reaction is passed on to others, and then the whole class listens with interest and tension. Bye. There is no such collective response; one cannot demand that all schoolchildren read a complex work. Inaccuracies in perception, even mistakes, can be corrected later, but the first impression of what is read remains for a long time, and it is more difficult to rebuild it than to prepare students to perceive the work. -

But when this preparation has been carried out, the work must be read by the student (in class or at home) in its entirety. The initial reading is sometimes superficial, but it still has an impact on a person's personality. Often work and creativity at this time take place subconsciously. The reader most often does not realize what processes are taking place in his consciousness. Meanwhile, while reading, he absorbs the author’s ideas or, conversely, is repelled by them. The reader may not even notice that the book influenced him and brought something into his spiritual life. But if the book did not leave him indifferent, then he became different, maybe wiser, maybe kinder and better...

And in order for this influence of the book to be lasting and not disappear, the first emotional impressions of the children from the book - both conscious and unconscious - both for the teacher and for the students themselves should become the starting point of analysis. When thinking through a system of lessons, a language teacher must not only preserve the vividness of the students’ first personal impressions of reading, but also lead the class in creative laboratory writer. And the student, starting from his natural reading perception “for the soul,” must, in the course of studying the work, understand the author’s ideas, feel the pathos of the work and see its originality

Reading can be at home or in the classroom. Sometimes in-class reading is given unconditional preference. Why, after reading a work in class, the teacher can be sure that all the children got acquainted with the book and heard it in an expressive sound.

But home reading should not be underestimated. It is more personal, intimate. When reading a work aloud, the teacher involuntarily influences its perception with his interpretation, whereas when reading independently, there is no intermediary between the reader and the author. This is the difficulty of reading “for oneself”, but this is also its originality. Sometimes it is reading “for oneself” that can touch those sides of the soul that are silent when the reader becomes a listener.

It is important to skillfully combine both types of reading in your work. For example, if a work was read aloud in class, then it is advisable to offer a task that requires reading silently. And vice versa, a work read silently, at least in extracts, should be performed in class. The preference for one type of reading over another will depend on many things: the originality of the work, its volume, and the age of the students. and from their reading culture.

It is better to read short works to the teacher himself. If the initial reading takes 30-40 minutes, then it is worth involving schoolchildren. Moreover, the teacher must prepare them

Monitor the quality of your reading very carefully. If the text performed by a student ceases to have an aesthetic impact on the class, then you need to change the reader or get involved in the reading yourself.

Initial reading in grades IV-V is associated with a number of difficulties. Ten- and eleven-year-old children cannot listen to it intensely for a long time without interruptions. They love to be read aloud, but after 25-30 minutes their attention wanders and they begin to get distracted. In addition, in these classes the issue of the need to improve reading technique is especially acute. There is therefore a tendency to merge initial reading with analytical work. But this is not true. An encounter with a work of art cannot be replaced by working on reading technique. The work should be heard in all its strength in the lesson, and reading technique should be dealt with partly in the process of analysis, partly individually;

In short, questions should not require long-winded answers, but short answers. These could be simply emotional remarks from the teacher that will help students re-engage in listening.

Twelve- and thirteen-year-old children no longer have such difficulties when reading aloud for a long time. In high school, primary reading becomes mainly at home.

FINAL LESSONS IN THE SYSTEM OF WORK ON A LITERARY WORK

In the final lessons, it is necessary to create something in which students are required not only to repeat what they have learned, but also to comprehend it anew. It is necessary to convince some of them of the validity of the opinion formed in the class, to defend the conclusions to which the joint analysis led. During the final lessons, you cannot repeat the previous course of analysis of the work. Here a new angle of view on the work should be revealed for students. Only in this case will students come to an in-depth understanding of the literary topic/in general

Active use literary knowledge, obtained by schoolchildren during reading and analysis, largely determines the solution to questions about the viability of teaching our subject. However, often the information obtained in literature lessons remains closed in on itself. The guys don’t find any use for them in real action. At the same time, on the threshold of the final classes, schoolchildren have a feeling of familiarity of the work, when everything in it seems already known and further talk about it seems unnecessary.

How to avoid this? Let's take a closer look at the organization of the final classes and try to make art itself our teacher.

So, to remind, but not to repeat, to grasp the work as a whole and give new light to everything that happened - this is the common property of the finales of works of different arts.

The final lessons should also create a sense of the depth and inexhaustibility of the work. When saying goodbye to it, you should strive for the student not only to take it in with a general glance, but also to experience it anew and re-think it, to understand how much unknown remains in him.

Taking care that the final lessons are not limited to merely reviewing and repeating what has been learned, the teacher uses various forms of work: reading short works by students or masters artistic word(listening to a recording), compiling a montage of the most striking passages of a novel or story, examining illustrations. All this can indeed create a general view of the work, but does not always provide a new comprehension of its meaning, a new awakening of feelings.

The excitement of emotions in the final classes is created by new discoveries in a work that seems to be already quite familiar and even familiar to the students. But for these discoveries to happen, it is necessary to arouse in schoolchildren the need to revisit the work, to force them to think about a more complex problem than those that have already been solved, to create a problematic situation at the end of the analysis.

In the final lessons, it turns out to be fruitful to compare the plot of the work and its real basis.

New material introduced into the lesson (memoirs) allows the class to independently find the author’s internal goal in the story and, in a problem situation, to defend the idea of ​​the hero that they formed during reading and analysis.

In high school, the degree of independence of students in the final classes increases, and the tasks we set for the class gradually become more complex. But the essence of the final lessons remains the same. The final lessons are a stage of analysis, its completion, and not just a lesson in saying goodbye to the work. Therefore, the questions that the class worked on during the analysis process should find their complete expression here. Not an analysis of the text in its details, but a look at the work as a whole - this is the goal of the final lessons.

So, the final classes of studying a literary work at school require the implementation of many tasks. Firstly, after the analysis, it is necessary to arouse in schoolchildren the need to again turn to the work and comprehend it. generally

Tale. Its innovation lies in its complex philosophical concept: according to the author, humanity turns out to be powerless in the fight against the dark instincts awakening in people. The theme of the experiment in the story “The Heart of a Dog” is distinguished by an extremely clear author’s idea: the revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of the natural spiritual development of society, but an irresponsible and...

The enterprise "Pampush on Tverbul" makes billions from it. Subsequently, it turned out that such an enterprise did not exist, and the abbreviation means “Monument to Pushkin on Tverskoy Boulevard". The leading theme of M.A. Bulgakov's work in the 20s is the understanding of the tragedy of the revolutionary and fratricidal struggle. The main book of this period is " White Guard". Its main language is literary, in which it is often...

Which deepens the subject, makes to appear brightly what would have slipped through, without whose penetrating power the trifles and emptiness of life would not frighten a person so much.” Chapter 2. The influence of satirical creativity of N.V. Gogol on the satire of M.A. Bulgakov 2.1 N.V. Gogol as a model for creative imitation of M.A. Bulgakov Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is an unusually truthful and sensitive artist. Us, ...