Trifonov's house on the embankment - the main characters. House on the embankment. essay sample
Analysis of the specific character of the hero in the story “House on the Embankment”
The writer was deeply concerned about the socio-psychological characteristics of modern society. And, in essence, all his works of this decade, the heroes of which were mainly intellectuals big city, - about how difficult it is sometimes to preserve human dignity in the complex, sucking interweavings of everyday life, and about the need to preserve moral ideal in any circumstances of life.
Trifonov’s story “The House on the Embankment,” published by the magazine “Friendship of Peoples” (1976, No. 1), is perhaps his most social work. In this story, in its sharp content, there was more “novel” than in many bloated multi-line works, proudly designated by their author as “novel”.
Time in The House on the Embankment determines and directs the development of the plot and the development of characters; people are revealed by time; time is the main director of events. The prologue of the story is openly symbolic in nature and immediately defines the distance: “... the shores change, the mountains recede, the forests thin and fly away, the sky darkens, the cold approaches, we must hurry, hurry - and there is no strength to look back at what has stopped and froze like a cloud at the edge of the sky” Trifonov Yu.V. House on the embankment. - Moscow: Veche, 2006. P. 7. Further references in the text are given from this publication. The main time of the story is social time, on which the hero of the story feels dependent. This is a time which, by taking a person into submission, seems to free the individual from responsibility, a time on which it is convenient to blame everything. “It’s not Glebov’s fault, and not the people,” goes the cruel internal monologue of Glebov, the main character of the story, “but the times. This is the way with times that doesn’t go well” P.9.. This social time can radically change a person’s fate, elevate him or drop him to where now, 35 years after his “reign” at school, a drunken man sits on his haunches, literally and figuratively In the sense of the word, Levka Shulepnikov, who has sunk to the bottom and has even lost his name, “Efim is not Efim,” Glebov guesses. And in general, he is now not Shulepnikov, but Prokhorov. Trifonov considers the time from the late 30s to the early 50s not only as a certain era, but also as the fertile soil that formed such a phenomenon of our time as Vadim Glebov. The writer is far from pessimism, nor does he fall into rosy optimism: man, in his opinion, is an object and, at the same time, a subject of the era, i.e. shapes it.
Trifonov closely follows the calendar; it is important to him that Glebov met Shulepnikov “on one of the unbearably hot August days of 1972,” and Glebov’s wife carefully scratches in childish handwriting on jars of jam: “gooseberry 72,” “strawberry 72.”
From the burning summer of 1972, Trifonov returns Glebov to those times with which Shulepnikov still “says hello”.
Trifonov moves the narrative from the present to the past, and from modern Glebov restores the Glebov of twenty-five years ago; but through one layer another is visible. The portrait of Glebov is deliberately given by the author: “Almost a quarter of a century ago, when Vadim Aleksandrovich Glebov was not yet bald, plump, with breasts like a woman’s, with thick thighs, with big belly and sagging shoulders... when he was not yet tormented by heartburn in the morning, dizziness, a feeling of weakness throughout his body, when his liver was working normally and he could eat fatty foods, not very fresh meat, drink as much wine and vodka as he wanted without fear consequences... when he was quick on his feet, bony, with long hair, round glasses, his appearance resembled a commoner of the seventies... in those days... he was unlike himself and inconspicuous, like a caterpillar" P.14 ..
Trifonov visibly, in detail down to physiology and anatomy, down to the “livers”, shows how time flows like a heavy liquid through a person, similar to a vessel with a missing bottom, connected to the system; how it changes its appearance, its structure; shines through the caterpillar from which the time of today's Glebov, a doctor of sciences, comfortably settled in life, was nurtured. And, turning the action back a quarter of a century, the writer seems to stop the moments.
From the result, Trifonov returns to the reason, to the roots, to the origins of “Glebism”. He returns the hero to what he, Glebov, hates most in his life and what he does not want to remember now - to childhood and youth. And the view “from here,” from the 70s, allows us to remotely examine not random, but regular features, allowing the author to concentrate his influence on the image of the time of the 30s and 40s.
Trifonov limits the artistic space: basically the action takes place on a small heel between a tall gray house on Bersenevskaya embankment, a gloomy, gloomy building, similar to modernized concrete, built in the late 20s for responsible workers (Shulepnikov lives there with his stepfather, there is an apartment Ganchuk), - and a nondescript two-story house in the Deryuginsky courtyard, where Gleb’s family lives.
Two houses and a platform between them form a whole world with its own heroes, passions, relationships, and contrasting social life. The large gray house shading the alley is multi-story. Life in it also seems to be stratified, following a floor hierarchy. One thing is the Shulepnikovs’ huge apartment, where you can almost ride a bicycle along the corridor. The nursery in which Shulepnikov, the youngest, lives is a world inaccessible to Glebov, hostile to him; and yet he is drawn there. Shulepnikov’s nursery is exotic for Glebov: it is filled with “some kind of scary bamboo furniture, with carpets on the floor, with bicycle wheels and boxing gloves hanging on the wall, with a huge glass globe that rotated when a light bulb was lit inside, and with an old telescope on window sill, well secured on a tripod for ease of observation” P.25.. In this apartment there are soft leather chairs, deceptively comfortable: when you sit down, you sink to the very bottom, what happens to Glebov when Levka’s stepfather interrogates him about who attacked in the yard for his son Lev, this apartment even has its own film installation. The Shulepnikovs’ apartment is special, incredible, according to Vadim, social world, where Shulepnikov’s mother can, for example, poke a cake with a fork and announce that “the cake is stale” - with the Glebovs, on the contrary, “the cake was always fresh,” it couldn’t be otherwise, a stale cake is a complete absurdity for the social stratum to which they belong.
The Ganchuk family of professors also lives in the same house on the embankment. Their apartment, their habitat is a different social system, also given through Glebov’s perceptions. “Glebov liked the smell of carpets, old books, the circle on the ceiling from the huge lampshade of a table lamp, he liked the walls armored to the ceiling with books and at the very top the plaster busts standing in a row like soldiers” P.34..
Let's go even lower: on the first floor of a large house, in an apartment near the elevator, lives Anton, the most gifted of all the boys, not oppressed by the consciousness of his squalor, like Glebov. It’s no longer easy here - the tests are playful, half-childish. For example, walk along the outer eaves of the balcony. Or along the granite parapet of the embankment. Or through the Deryuginsky courtyard, where the famous robbers rule, that is, the punks from the Glebovsky house. The boys even organize a special society to test their will - TOIV.
What criticism, by inertia, denotes as the everyday background of L. Kertman’s prose. Line spacing of bygone times: rereading Y. Trifonov / L. Kertman // Issue. lit. 1994. No. 5. P. 77-103 Trifonova, here in “The House on the Embankment”, maintains the structure of the plot. The objective world is burdened with meaningful social meaning; things do not accompany what is happening, but act; they both reflect the destinies of people and influence them. So, we perfectly understand the occupation and position of Shulepnikov, the eldest, who gave Glebov a formal interrogation in an office with leather chairs, in which he walks in soft Caucasian boots. So, we accurately imagine the life and rights of the communal apartment in which the Glebov family lives, and the rights of this family itself, paying attention to such, for example, a detail of the material world: grandmother Nina sleeps in the corridor, on a trestle bed, and her idea of happiness is peace and quiet (“so that they don’t snort for days”). A change in fate is directly associated with a change in habitat, with a change appearance, which in turn even determines the worldview, as ironically stated in the text in connection with the portrait of Shulepnikov: “Levka became a different person - tall, foreheaded, with an early bald spot, with a dark red, square, Caucasian mustache that was not just fashion of the time, but denoted character, lifestyle and, perhaps, worldview” P. 41.. So is the laconic description new apartment on Gorky Street, where Levka’s mother and her new husband settled after the war, reveals the whole background of the comfortable life of this family during a difficult war for the entire people: “The decoration of the rooms is somehow noticeably different from an apartment in a big house: the luxury of today, There are more antiques and a lot of things on a nautical theme. There are sailing models on a cabinet, here the sea in a frame, there sea battle almost Aivazovsky - then it turned out that it was really Aivazovsky...” P. 50.. And again Glebov is gnawed by the old feeling of injustice: after all, “people sold the last thing during the war”! His family life contrasts sharply with everyday life, decorated by the memorable brush of Aivazovsky.
The details of the appearance, portraits and especially the clothes of Glebov and Shulepnikov are also sharply contrasting. Glebov is constantly experiencing his “patchedness”, his homeliness. Glebov, for example, has a huge patch on his jacket, albeit very neatly sewn on, causing tenderness to Sonya, who is in love with him. And after the war, he was again “in his jacket, in a cowboy shirt, in patched trousers” - a poor friend of the boss’s stepson, the birthday boy of life. “Shulepnikov was wearing a beautiful American jacket made of brown leather, with many zippers.” Trifonov plastically depicts the natural degeneration of feelings of social inferiority and inequality into a complex mixture of envy and hostility, the desire to become like Shulepnikov in everything - into hatred of him. Trifonov writes the relationships between children and adolescents as social.
Clothing, for example, is the first “home”, closest to the human body: the first layer, which separates it from the outside world, covers the person. Clothes determine social status as much as a house; and that is why Glebov is so jealous of Levka’s jacket: for him it is an indicator of a different social level, an inaccessible way of life, and not just a fashionable detail of the toilet, which in his youth he would like to have. And the house is a continuation of clothing, the final “finishing” of a person, the materialization of the stability of his status. Let's go back to the departure episode lyrical hero from a house on the embankment. His family is relocated somewhere to an outpost, he disappears from this world: “Those who leave this house cease to exist. I am oppressed by shame. It seems to me that it’s a shame to reveal the pitiful insides of our lives in front of everyone, on the street.” Glebov, nicknamed Baton, walks around like a vulture, looking around at what is happening. He cares about one thing: home.
“And that apartment,” asks Baton, “where will you move, what is it like?”
“I don’t know,” I say.
Baton asks: “How many rooms?” Three or four?
“One,” I say.
- “And without an elevator? Will you walk?” “He’s so pleased to ask that he can’t hide his smile.” P.56
The collapse of someone else's life brings Glebov an evil joy, although he himself has achieved nothing, but others have lost their home. This means that not everything is so tightly fixed in this one, and Glebov has hope! It is the house that determines Glebov’s values human life. And the path that Glebov takes in the story is the path to home, to the vital territory that he longs to capture, to a higher social status which he wants to find. He feels the inaccessibility of the big house extremely painfully: “Glebov was not very willing to go to visit the guys who lived in the big house, not only reluctantly, he went willingly, but also with caution, because the elevator operators at the entrances always looked suspiciously and asked: “Who are you going to?” Glebov almost felt like an intruder caught red-handed. And you could never know that the answer was in the apartment...” P.62..
Returning to his place in the Deryuginskoe courtyard, Glebov “excitedly described the chandelier in the dining room of Shulepnikov’s apartment, and the corridor along which one could ride a bicycle.
Glebov's father, a firm and experienced man, is a convinced conformist. The main life rule that he teaches Glebov is caution, which also has the character of “spatial” self-restraint: “My children, follow the tram rule - don’t stick your head out!” And, following his wisdom, my father understands the instability of life in a big house, warning Glebov: “Don’t you understand that living without your own corridor is much more spacious?... Yes, I won’t move into that house for two thousand rubles...” P.69.. The father understands the instability, the phantasmogorical nature of this “stability”; he naturally experiences fear in relation to the gray house.
The mask of buffoonery and buffoonery brings Father Glebov closer to Shulepnikov, both of them are Khlestakovs: “They were somewhat similar, father and Levka Shulepnikov.” They lie loudly and shamelessly, receiving true pleasure from buffoonery chatter. “My father said that he saw in Northern India how a fakir grew magic tree...And Levka said that his father once captured a gang of fakirs, they were put in a dungeon and they wanted to shoot them as English spies, but when they came to the dungeon in the morning, there was no one there except five frogs... - They had to shoot the frogs , - said the father” P. 71..
Glebov is gripped by a serious, heavy passion, there is no time for jokes, not a trifle, but fate, almost cancer; his passion is stronger even than his own will: “He did not want to be in the big house, and, however, he went there whenever he was called, or even without an invitation. It was tempting, unusual there...” P.73.
That is why Glebov is so attentive and sensitive to the details of the situation, so memorized for details.
“I remember your apartment well, I remember in the dining room there was a huge mahogany buffet, and the upper part of it was supported by thin twisted columns. And on the doors there were some oval majolica pictures. Shepherd, cows. “Huh?” he says after the war to Shulepnikov’s mother.
“There was such a buffet,” said Alina Fedorovna. - I already forgot about him, but you remember.
Well done! - Levka slapped Glebov on the shoulder. - Hellish powers of observation, colossal memory” P.77..
Glebov uses everything to achieve his dream, including the sincere affection of Professor Ganchuk’s daughter, Sonya, for him. Only at first does he chuckle internally; can she, a pale and uninteresting girl, really count on this? But after a student party in the Ganchuks’ apartment, after Glebov clearly heard that someone wanted to “lurk” in the Ganchuks’ mansion, his heavy passion finds a way out - he must act through Sonya. “... Glebov stayed at Sonya’s apartment at night and could not sleep for a long time, because he began to think about Sonya completely differently... In the morning he became a completely different person. He realized that he could love Sonya.” And when they sat down to have breakfast in the kitchen, Glebov “looked down at the giant bend of the bridge, along which cars were running and a tram was crawling, to the opposite bank with a wall, palaces, fir trees, domes - everything was amazingly picturesque and looked somehow especially fresh and clear from such a height, I thought that in his life, apparently, something new was beginning...
Every day at breakfast you can see the palaces from a bird's eye view! And sting all the people, all without exception, who run like ants along the concrete arc down there!” P.84.
The Ganchuks not only have an apartment in a large house - they also have a dacha, a “super-house” in Glebov’s understanding, something that further strengthens him in his “love” for Sonya; it is there, at the dacha, that everything finally happens between them: “he was lying on an old-fashioned sofa, with rollers and brushes, throwing his hands behind his head, looking at the ceiling, lined with clapboard, darkened with time, and suddenly - with a rush of all the blood, until dizziness - he felt that all this could become his home and maybe now - no one has guessed yet, but he knows - all these yellowed boards with knots, felt, photographs, a creaking window frame, a roof covered with snow, belongs to him! She was so sweet, half dead from fatigue, from hops, from all the languor...” P. 88..
And when, after intimacy, after Sonya’s love and confessions, Glebov remains alone in the attic, it is by no means a feeling - at least of affection or sexual satisfaction - that overwhelms Glebov: he “went to the window and with a blow of his palm opened it. The forest cold and darkness enveloped him; right in front of the window, a heavy spruce branch with a cap of damp snow - it barely glowed in the darkness - was blowing pine needles.
Glebov stood by the window, breathed, and thought: “And this branch is mine!”
Now he is at the top, and the look from top to bottom is a reflection of his new view of people - “ants”. But life turned out to be more complicated, more deceptive than Glebov, the winner, imagined; Father, in his tram wisdom, was right about something: Ganchuk, from whom Glebov writes thesis, the famous professor Ganchuk staggered.
And here the main thing happens, no longer a childish, not a joke test of the hero. Those test of will decisions seemed to foreshadow what would happen later. This was a plot anticipation of Glebov’s role in the situation with Ganchuk.
I remembered: the boys invited Glebov to join a secret society testing will, and Glebov was delighted, but answered absolutely wonderfully: “... I’m glad to join TOIV, but wants to have the right to leave it at any time. That is, I wanted to be a member of our society and at the same time not be one. Suddenly the extraordinary benefit of such a position was revealed: he owned our secret without being completely with us... We found ourselves in his hands.”
In all childhood trials, Glebov stands a little to the side, in an advantageous and “exit” position, both together and, as it were, separately. “He was absolutely nothing, Vadik Baton,” recalls the lyrical hero. - But this, as I later realized, is a rare gift: to be nothing. People who know how to be nothing go far” P. 90..
However, the voice of the lyrical hero is heard here, and not the author’s position. The loaf is just “nothing” at first glance. In fact, he clearly carries out his line, satisfies his passion, achieves what he wants by any means. Vadik Glebov “crawls” upward with a persistence equal to the fatal “sinking” of Levka Shulepnikov down to the very bottom, lower and lower, right down to the crematorium, where he now serves as the gatekeeper, the guardian of the kingdom of the dead - it is as if he no longer exists in the living life, and even his name is different - Prokhorov; That’s why his phone call today, in the hot summer of 1972, seems to Glebov like a call from the other world.
So, at the very moment of Glebov’s triumph and victory, the achievement of the goal (Sonya the bride, the house is almost his own, the department is secured), Ganchuk is accused of sycophancy and formalism and at the same time they want to use Glebov: he is required to publicly refuse the leader. Glebov’s thoughts are painfully fussing: after all, it wasn’t just Ganchuk who was shaking, the whole house was shaking! And he, as a true conformist and pragmatist, understands that he now needs to provide for his home somehow differently, in a different way. But since Trifonov writes not just a scoundrel and a careerist, but a conformist, self-deception begins. And Ganchuk, Glebov convinces himself, is not so good and correct; and there are some unpleasant traits in him. This was already the case in childhood: when Shulepnikov Sr. is looking for “those responsible for the beating of his son Lev”, looking for the instigators, Glebov betrays them, consoling himself, however, with this: “In general, he acted fairly, bad people will be punished . But an unpleasant feeling remained - as if he had, or something, betrayed someone, although he said the honest truth about bad people" P.92..
Glebov does not want to speak out against Ganchuk - and cannot avoid speaking out. He understands that now it is more profitable to be with those who are “rolling the barrel” against Ganchuk, but he wants to remain pure, on the sidelines; “It’s best to delay and patch up this whole story.” But it is impossible to delay it indefinitely. And Trifonov analyzes in detail the illusion of free choice (test of will!) that Glebov’s self-deceptive mind builds: “It was like at a fairy-tale crossroads: if you go straight, you’ll lose your head, if you go to the left, you’ll lose your horse, to the right, there’s also some kind of death. However, in some fairy tales: if you go to the right, you will find a treasure. Glebov belongs to a special breed of bacteria: he was ready to stagnate at a crossroads until the last opportunity, until that final second when he fell to death from exhaustion. The hero is a waiter, the hero is a tire puller. What was it -... confusion in front of life, which constantly, day after day, throws up large and small crossroads? P.94. In the story, an ironic image of the road on which Glebov stands appears: a road that leads nowhere, that is, a dead end. He has only one way - up. And only this path illuminates him guiding star, a fate that Glebov ultimately relied on. He turns to the wall, withdraws (both figuratively and literally, lies on the couch at home) and waits.
Let's take a small step aside and turn to the image of Ganchuk, who plays such a significant role in the plot of the story. It is the image of Ganchuk, believes B. Pankin, who generally regards the story as “the most successful” among Trifonov’s urban stories, that is “interesting, unexpected.” What does B. Pankin see as the uniqueness of Ganchuk’s image? The critic puts him on a par with Sergei Proshkin and Grisha Rebrov, “as another hypostasis of the type.” I will allow myself a long quotation from B. Pankin’s article, which clearly indicates his understanding of the image: “... Ganchuk... was destined to embody in his own destiny both the connection of times and their break. He was born, began to act, matured and showed himself as a person precisely at that time when a person had more opportunities to express and defend himself and his principles (to defend or perish) than in other times... a former red horseman, a grunt turned into a into a rabfakov student, then into a teacher and scientist. The decline of his career coincided with a time, fortunately short-lived, when it was easier for dishonesty, careerism, opportunism, dressed in the clothes of nobility and integrity, to win their pitiful, illusory victories... And we see how he, even now, remains a knight without fear and reproach, and today trying, but in vain, to defeat his enemies in a fair fight, yearns for those times when he was not so unarmed.” Pankin B. In a circle, in a spiral // Friendship of Peoples, 1977, No. 5. pp. 251, 252.
Having correctly outlined Ganchuk’s biography, the critic, in my opinion, was hasty in his assessment. The fact is that Ganchuk cannot be called a “knight without fear and reproach”, based on the full amount of information about the professor - the grunt, which we receive in the text of the story, and already the conclusion is that a positive author’s program is being built on Ganchuk, and completely unproven.
Let's turn to the text. In frank and relaxed conversations with Glebov, the professor “talks with pleasure” about “fellow travelers, formalists, Rappovites, Proletkult... he remembered all sorts of twists and turns of literary battles of the twenties and thirties” P. 97..
Trifonov reveals the image of Ganchuk through his direct speech: “Here we struck a blow at Bespalovism... It was a relapse, we had to hit hard, “We gave them a fight...”, “By the way, we disarmed him, do you know how?” The author’s comment is restrained, but significant: “Yes, those were really fights, not quarrels. True understanding was developed in a bloody chopping block” P.98.. The writer clearly makes it clear that Ganchuk used methods in literary discussions, to put it mildly, that were not of a purely literary order: it was not only in theoretical disputes that he asserted the truth.
From the moment when Glebov decides to “crawl” into the house using Sonya, he begins to visit the Ganchuks every day, accompanies the old professor on evening walks. And Trifonov gives a detailed external characteristic of Ganchuk, which develops into a characteristic internal image professor. What appears before the reader is not “a knight without fear or reproach,” but a person who is comfortably positioned in life. “When he put on an astrakhan hat, got into white burkas trimmed with chocolate-colored leather and a long fur coat lined with fox fur, he looked like a merchant from Ostrovsky’s plays. But this merchant, walking leisurely, with measured steps, along the deserted embankment in the evening, talked about the Polish campaign, about the difference between the Cossack cabin and the officer's cabin, about the merciless struggle with the petty-bourgeois elements and anarchist elements, and also talked about Lunacharsky's creative confusion, Gorky's hesitations, Alexei's mistakes Tolstoy...
And he spoke about everyone... although respectfully, but with a touch of secret superiority, like a person possessing some additional knowledge.”
The author's critical attitude towards Ganchuk is obvious. Ganchuk, for example, does not know or understand the modern life of the people around him at all, declaring: “In five years, every Soviet person will have a dacha.” About indifference and how Glebov, accompanying him in a student coat, feels in the twenty-five degree frost: “Ganchuk turned sweetly blue and puffed in his warm fur coat” P.101.
However, the bitter irony of life is that Trifonov gives Ganchuk and his wife, who talk about the petty-bourgeois element, not a proletarian origin: Ganchuk, it turns out, is from the family of a priest, and Yulia Mikhailovna with her prosecutorial tone, as it turns out, is the daughter of a bankrupt Viennese banker...
Just as then, in childhood, Glebov betrayed, but acted, as it seemed to him, “fairly” with “bad people,” so now he will have to betray a person, apparently not the best.
But Ganchuk is a victim in the current situation. And the fact that the victim is not the most sympathetic person does not change the vile unity of the case. Moreover, the moral conflict only becomes more complicated. And, in the end, the biggest and most innocent victim turns out to be bright simplicity, Sonya. Trifonov, as we already know, ironically defined Glebov as a “tire-pulling hero,” a false hero at a crossroads. But Ganchuk is also a false hero: “a strong, fat old man with rosy cheeks seemed to him a hero and a grunt, Eruslan Lazarevich” P.102. “Bogatyr”, “merchant from Ostrovsky’s plays”, “slasher”, “rosy cheeks” - these are Ganchuk’s definitions that are not refuted in any way in the text. His vitality and physical stability are phenomenal. After the defeat at the academic council, with bliss and genuine passion, Ganchuk eats cakes - Napoleon. Even when visiting his daughter’s grave - at the end of the story, he is in a hurry, rather, to get home in order to catch some television program... Personal pensioner Ganchuk will survive all the attacks, they do not hurt his “roddy cheeks.”
The conflict in the “house on the embankment” between the “decent Ganchuks, who treat everything with a “shade of secret superiority,” and Druzyaev-Shireiko, to whom Glebov internally joins, exchanging Ganchuk for Druzyaev, as if in a new round, returns the conflict of “exchange” - between the Dmitrievs and the Lukyanovs. The pharisaism of the Ganchuks, who despise people, but live precisely in the way that they verbally despise, is just as little sympathetic to the author as the pharisaism of Ksenia Fedorovna, for whom other “low” people clean out the cesspool. But the conflict, which in “The Exchange” was predominantly ethical in nature, here in “The House on the Embankment” becomes a conflict not only moral, but also ideological. And in this conflict, it would seem. Glebov is located exactly in the middle, at a crossroads, he can turn this way or that way. But Glebov doesn’t want to decide anything, fate seems to decide for him. On the eve of the performance that Glebov’s Friends demand so much from Glebov, Grandma Nina dies - an inconspicuous, quiet old woman with a tuft of yellowed hair at the back of her head. And everything resolves itself: Glebov doesn’t have to go anywhere. However, the betrayal has already happened anyway; Glebov is engaged in outright self-deception. Yulia Mikhailovna understands this: “It’s best if you leave this house...”. And there is no longer a home for Glebov here, it collapsed, fell apart, and now we must look for a home in another place. This is how one of the main moments of the story comes to an end: “In the morning, having breakfast in the kitchen and looking at the gray concrete bend of the bridge. At the little people, the cars, at the gray-yellow palace with a cap of snow on the opposite side of the river, he said that he would call after class and come in the evening. He never came to that house again” P.105.
The house on the embankment disappears from Glebov’s life, the house that seemed so strong, in fact turned out to be fragile, not protected from anything, it stands on the embankment, at the very edge of the land, near the water, and this is not just a random location, but deliberately thrown away by the writer symbol.
The house goes under the water of time, like some kind of Atlantis, with its heroes, passions, conflicts: “the waves closed over it” - these words addressed by the author to Levka Shulepnikov can be applied to the whole house. One by one, its inhabitants disappear from life: Anton and Himius died in the war, the elder Shulepnikov was found dead under unclear circumstances, Yulia Mikhailovna died, Sonya first ended up in a home for the mentally ill and also died.... “The house collapsed.”
With the disappearance of the house, Glebov deliberately forgets everything, not only surviving this flood, but also reaching new prestigious times precisely because “he tried not to remember, what was not remembered ceased to exist.” He then lived “a life that did not exist,” Trifonov emphasizes.
It’s not only Glebov who doesn’t want to remember, Ganchuk doesn’t want to remember anything either. At the end of the story, the unknown lyrical hero, “I,” a historian working on a book in the 20s, is looking for Ganchuk: “He was eighty-six. He shrunk, squinted, his head sunk into his shoulders, but on his cheekbones there was still a glimmer of Ganchuk’s blush, which had not been completely worn out” P.109. And in his handshake one can feel “a hint of the former power.” The unknown person wants to ask Ganchuk about the past, but encounters stubborn resistance. “And the point is not that the old man’s memory is weak. He didn't want to remember."
L. Terkanyan quite rightly notes that the story “The House on the Embankment” is built “on an intense polemic with the philosophy of oblivion, with crafty attempts to hide behind “times.” In this controversy is the pearl of the work" Terakanyan L. Urban stories of Yuri Trifonov. //Trifonov Yu. Another life. Stories, stories. - M., 1978. P. 683.. What Glebov and others like him are trying to forget, burn into memory, is restored by the entire fabric of the work, and the detailed descriptiveness inherent in the story is the artistic and historical evidence of a writer recreating the past, resisting oblivion . The author’s position is expressed in the desire to restore, not to forget anything, to immortalize everything in the reader’s memory.
The action of the story unfolds in several time layers at once: it begins in 1972, then descends into the pre-war years; then the main events fall in the late 40s and early 50s; at the end of the story - 1974. The author's voice sounds openly only once: in the prologue of the story, setting a historical distance; after the introduction, all events acquire internal historical completeness. The living equivalence of different layers of time in the story is obvious; none of the layers is given abstractly, by hint, it is unfolded plastically; Each time in the story has its own image, its own smell and color.
In “The House on the Embankment” Trifonov combines and different voices in the story. Most of the story is written in the third person, but Glebov’s inner voice, his assessments, his reflections are woven into the dispassionate protocol study of Glebov’s psychology. Moreover: as A. Demidov accurately notes, Trifonov “enters into a special lyrical contact with the hero.” What is the purpose of this contact? Convicting Glebov is too simple a task. Trifonov sets as his goal the study of Glebov’s psychology and life concept, which required such a thorough penetration into the hero’s microworld. Trifonov follows his hero as a shadow of his consciousness, plunging into all the nooks and crannies of self-deception, recreating the hero from within himself. The story “The House on the Embankment” became a turning point for the writer in many respects. Trifonov sharply re-emphasizes the previous motives, finds a new type that has not been previously studied in the literature, generalizing the social phenomenon of “Glebism”, analyzes social change through a separate human personality. The idea finally found artistic embodiment. After all, Sergei Troitsky’s reasoning about man as a thread of history can also be attributed to Glebov, he is the thread that stretched from the 30s to the 70s, already in our time. The historical view of things developed by the writer in “Impatience”, using material close to modern times, gives a new artistic result. Trifonov becomes a historian - a chronicler testifying to modern times. But this is not the only role of “House on the Embankment” in Trifonov’s work. In this story, the writer subjected a critical rethinking to his “beginning” - the story “Students”. Analyzing this story in the first chapters of the book, we have already turned to plot motifs and characters who seem to have moved from “Students” to “House on the Embankment.” Shifting the plot and re-emphasizing author's attitude traced in detail in the article by V. Kozheinov “The Problem of the Author and the Path of the Writer.”
Let us also turn to an important, in our opinion, private issue raised by V. Kozheinov and which is not only of purely philological interest. This question is connected with the image of the author in “The House on the Embankment.” It is in the voice of the author, V. Kozheinov believes, that the long-standing “Students” are invisibly present in “The House on the Embankment”. “The author,” writes V. Kozheinov, making the reservation that this is not the imperial Yu.V. Trifonov, and artistic image, - a classmate and even a friend of Vadim Glebov... He is also the hero of the story, a youth, and then a young man... with grateful aspirations, somewhat sentimental, relaxed, but ready to fight for justice.”
“...The image of the author, which appears repeatedly in the prehistory of the story, is completely absent during the unfolding of its central conflict. But in the most acute, climactic scenes, even the very voice of the author, which sounds quite clearly in the rest of the narrative, is reduced, almost completely muffled.” Kozheinov V. The problem of the author and the path of the writer. M., 1978. P.75. V. Kozheinov emphasizes precisely that Trifonov does not correct Glebov’s voice, his assessment of what is happening: “The author’s voice exists here, in the end, as if only in order to fully embody Glebov’s position and convey his words and intonations. This is how and only Glebov creates the image of Krasnikova. And this unpleasant image is not corrected in any way by the author’s voice. It inevitably turns out that the author’s voice is, to one degree or another, echoed here by the voice of Glebov.” Right there. P. 78.
In the lyrical digressions, the voice of a certain lyrical “I” sounds, in which Kozheinov sees the image of the author. But this is only one of the voices of the narrative, from which it is impossible to fully judge the author’s position in relation to events, and especially to himself in the past - the same age as Glebov, the author of the story “Students”. In these digressions, some autobiographical details are read (moving from a large house to an outpost, loss of a father, etc.). However, Trifonov specifically separates this lyrical voice from the voice of the author - the narrator. V. Kozheinov supports his accusations against the author of “The House on the Embankment” not in literary criticism, but in fact, by resorting to his own biographical memories and Trifonov’s biography as an argument confirming his, Kozheinov’s, thought. V. Kozheinov begins his article with a reference to Bakhtin. Let us resort to Bakhtin, too: “The most common occurrence even in serious and conscientious historical and literary work is to draw biographical material from works and, conversely, explain by biography this work, and purely factual justifications seem completely sufficient, that is, simply the coincidence of the facts of life of the hero and the author, - the scientist notes, - selections are made that pretend to have some meaning, the whole of the hero and the whole of the author are completely ignored and, therefore, the most the essential moment is the form of attitude towards the event, the form of its experience in the whole of life and the world.” And further: “We deny that completely unprincipled, purely factual approach to this, which is the only dominant one at the present time, based on the confusion of the author as the creator, the moment of the work, and the author as the person, the moment of the ethical, social event of life, and on a misunderstanding creative principle of the author’s relationship to the hero, resulting in misunderstanding and distortion in best case scenario conveying the bare facts of the ethical, biographical personality of the author...” Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics verbal creativity. M., 1979. P. 11,12. A direct comparison of the facts of Trifonov’s biography with the author’s voice in the work seems incorrect. The author's position differs from the position of any hero of the story, including the lyrical one. He in no way shares, rather refutes, for example, the lyrical hero’s point of view on Glebov (“he was absolutely nothing”), taken up by many critics. No, Glebov is very certain character. Yes, the author’s voice in some places seems to merge with Glebov’s voice, coming into contact with him. But the naive proposal that he shares Glebov’s position in relation to this or that character is not confirmed. Trifonov, I repeat once again, examines Glebov, connects, and does not join him. It is not the author’s voice that corrects Glebov’s words and thoughts, but Glebov’s objective actions and actions themselves correct them. Glebov’s life concept is expressed not only in his direct thoughts, because they are often illusory and self-deception. (After all, Glebov, for example, “sincerely,” is tormented over whether to go and speak out about Ganchuk. “Sincerely,” he convinced himself of his love for Sonya: “And he thought so sincerely, because it seemed firm, final and nothing else there won’t be. Their closeness became closer and closer. He couldn’t live without her even a day.”). Glebov's life concept is expressed in his path. Glebov's result is important, mastery living space, victory over time, which drowns many, including the Dorodnovs and Druzyaevs - they only existed, but he exists, Glebov rejoices. He crossed out the past, and Trifonov scrupulously restores it. It is precisely this restoration that resists oblivion that constitutes the author’s position.
Further, V. Kozheinov reproaches Trifonov for the fact that “the author’s voice did not dare, so to speak, to speak openly next to Glebov’s voice in the climactic scenes. He chose to withdraw altogether. And this diminished the overall meaning of the story. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. P. 12.. But exactly “ open performance"and would belittle the meaning of the story, turn it into a private episode personal biography Trifonova! Trifonov preferred to settle accounts with himself in his own way. A new, historical look at the past, including himself in the study of “Glebism”. Trifonov did not define or distinguish himself - the past - from the time that he tried to comprehend and the image of which he wrote anew in “The House on the Embankment”.
Glebov comes from the lower social classes. And portray it negatively little man, not to sympathize with him, but to discredit him, by and large is not in the traditions of Russian literature. The humanistic pathos of Gogol’s “The Overcoat” could never be reduced to giving life to a hero who has been eaten away by life. But that was before Chekhov, who reconsidered this humanistic component and demonstrated that you can laugh at anyone. Hence his desire to show that the little man himself is to blame for his unworthy position (“Thick and Thin”).
Trifonov follows Chekhov in this regard. Of course, there are also satirical arrows directed at the inhabitants of the big house, and the debunking of Glebov and Glebism is another aspect of the debunking of the so-called little man. Trifonov demonstrates the degree of baseness that can ultimately result in a completely legitimate feeling of social protest.
In “The House on the Embankment” Trifonov refers, as a witness, to the memory of his generation, which Glebov wants to cross out (“the life that never happened”). And Trifonov’s position is expressed, ultimately, through artistic memory, striving for socio-historical knowledge of the individual and society, vitally bound by time and place.
Review of Trifonov’s books: “Exchange”, “House on the Embankment”.
To be honest, I had never heard anything about Trifonov before, I hadn’t read anything and there was no interest. BUT! Once I started reading, I just couldn’t stop, and now this writer is one of my favorites.
It should be noted that until the 60s, the heroes of Soviet works were “ideal” people: shock workers, “Stakhanovites,” conscious comrades working for the good of their Motherland.
But the hero of Trifonov’s works is a sort of “ average person”, with an ordinary, but slightly unsuccessful fate, and the heroes themselves are undecided, “average”, in a word. They are not at all conscious, immersed in their everyday and minor problems.
Let's start with "Exchange".
The plot of the story begins when Dmitriev’s wife, having learned about her mother-in-law’s serious illness, decided to urgently move in with her. Naturally, in order to live in a good apartment after death.
Already here we see the terrible cynicism and insensitivity of the situation as a whole. But the problem is that there has been a skew in people’s principles: everyday problems began to have such great value for people that sometimes they had to step over themselves, through the human in themselves, for the sake of material well-being.
The Dmitriev family are people who do not know how to move in this world; they have never had connections, useful acquaintances, benefits, etc.
The family of Dmitriev's wife - Elena and her parents the Lukyanovs - are people of a completely different kind: they quickly converge with the right people, they can quickly arrange everything, get it through connections - that is, this is the type of new people who appeared in the Soviet Union.
And it is precisely the theme of compromise that is central to this story. WHAT IS A MAN READY FOR TO DETERMINE HIS DESTINY? and the motive of exchange runs through the entire work.
A friend of Dmitriev asked Lena’s father to get him a place in the institution, but main character and his wife come to the conclusion that Dmitriev should be in this place. Thus, an exchange of one worker for another took place - and the main character came to an agreement with his conscience for the sake of material well-being.
His wife and mother did not like each other very much and always quarreled, but he never interfered, he did not have his own opinion. Since the wife was more aggressive, active, and knew how to achieve her goals, the hero began to somehow go with the flow and listen to her more. And his family began to perceive him as a member of that family. And his mother said at the end: “You have already made your exchange. You've "gotten crazy."
In addition, Dmitriev had dreams, some goals, but he did not have enough inner core or determination to achieve them. (I wanted to be an artist, I didn’t get into art school the first time, I became a technician, I wanted to write a dissertation, I didn’t have enough willpower)... (that is, we can talk about exchanging what we want and the need to use willpower for the opportunity to “go with the flow” and about the spiritual exchange for material goods, and this is the main exchange)
At the end of the story, we see the hero suffer a heart attack, he immediately quickly grew old, became weak... That is, we see that everything that seems so important to us in everyday life turns out to be insignificant in fact: before death and illness, everyone is equal.
Probably all works are to some extent about the meaning of life, and this is no exception. Indeed, every person has to make a choice every day, come to an agreement with himself, his conscience, ignore the dreams of his youth, and sometimes it is necessary to look at such a person “from the outside” in order to try not to become like that, in order to remember morality more often.
"House on the Embankment"
The analysis of this work will be shorter, since I have been writing for a long time, but I will note the main thing that struck me:
Firstly, the main character Glebov was jealous of his schoolmate Lyovka Shulepa: he had a “thieves” father, and Lyovka had access to many benefits that were not available to ordinary citizens. And in turn, some school friend was jealous of Glebov, saying that he had everything, but he had nothing. This is how you live, you envy someone, and you don’t understand that you are also a role model for someone.
Secondly, when these heroes met (Glebov and Levka), Glebov was a respected university teacher, and Levka...... worked at hardware store! (but in his youth he knew many famous artists, ballerinas, was one of the first to have a car, etc.) and then became a gatekeeper at the cemetery!!!
Thirdly, throughout his life the hero was “average”, always afraid of something, could not understand for a long time whether he loved a girl or not, in short, he was always undecided.
And he couldn't feel strong feelings, was a little small, or something, without that inner core that makes a man real.
Fourthly, as the hero himself assessed his life: he achieved everything he wanted in his youth, but too much effort, time and everything that is called life was spent.
But it seems to me that there is no particular need to criticize the hero; he tried to find compromises in order to please his conscience, respect his interests and at the same time achieve success in this world. But precisely because of these compromises, he never found himself and became disillusioned with life and his personality.
Of course, the analysis is far from complete; the work is multifaceted, but a description would take too much time.
Most importantly, I give the works a 5! Since these are stories, they are not very voluminous, but they are written interesting language and the topics covered are significant - still relevant.
“House on the Embankment” is one of the most poignant and topical works of the 20th century. The story provides an in-depth analysis of the nature of fear and the degradation of people under the yoke of a totalitarian system. Genuine interest in a person, the desire to show him in the most dramatic events his life and turning points in history place Yuri Trifonov’s story among the best works of world literature.
In 1976, the magazine “Friendship of Peoples” published Trifonov’s story “ House on the embankment", one of the most notable edgy works of the 1970s. The story gave the deepest psychological analysis the nature of fear, the nature of the degradation of people under the yoke of a totalitarian system. “These were the times, even if they don’t greet the times,” thinks Vadim Glebov, one of the “anti-heroes” of the story. Justification by time and circumstances is typical for many Trifonov characters. Trifonov emphasizes that Glebov is driven by motives that are as personal as they bear the stamp of the era: the thirst for power, supremacy, which is associated with possession material benefits, envy, fear, etc. The author sees the reasons for his betrayal and moral decline not only in the fear that his career could be interrupted, but also in the fear in which the entire country, muzzled by Stalin’s terror, was immersed.
Its publication became a literary and public life. Using the example of the fate of one of the residents of the famous Moscow house, in which the families of party workers lived (including Trifonov’s family during his childhood), the writer showed the mechanism of the formation of a conformist public consciousness. The story of the successful critic Glebov, who once did not stand up for his teacher-professor, became in the novel the story of psychological self-justification for betrayal. Unlike the hero, the author refused to justify betrayal by the cruel historical circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s.
Exactly " House on the embankment"brought Yuri Trifonov enormous fame - he described the life and morals of the residents of a government building in the 1930s, many of whom, having moved into comfortable apartments (at that time, almost all Muscovites lived in communal apartments without amenities), went straight from there to Stalin's camps and were shot. The writer’s family also lived in the same house, which more than forty years later became known to the whole world as “The House on the Embankment” (after the title of Trifonov’s story). In 2003, a memorial plaque was installed on the house: “ Outstanding Writer Yuri Valentinovich Trifonov lived in this house from 1931 to 1939 and wrote a novel about it, “The House on the Embankment.”
The book takes place in Moscow and unfolds in several time periods: the mid-1930s, the second half of the 1940s, and the early 1970s. Trifonov’s prose is often autobiographical (in 1937-1938, Yuri Trifonov’s parents and uncle were repressed; the writer’s grandmother, a representative of the “old guard” of the Bolsheviks, did not change her convictions despite what was happening to her family, and remained endlessly devoted to the cause of Lenin-Stalin).
The main topic is the fate of the intelligentsia during the years of Stalin's reign, understanding the consequences of these years for the morality of the nation. Trifonov's stories, without saying anything directly, in plain text, nevertheless, with rare accuracy and skill, reflected the world of the Soviet city dweller of the late 1960s - mid-1970s. Trifonov's writing style is leisurely, reflective, he often uses retrospectives and changes in perspective; The writer places the main emphasis on a person with his shortcomings and doubts, refusing any clearly expressed socio-political assessment.
Burning envy, betrayal, prudence, fear, thirst for power, possession of material wealth - everything is intertwined in the motives of the characters, which are both personal and bear the stamp of all Stalin era. This is how it turns out - life is going quite well, but everything that the hero dreamed of and that later came to him did not bring joy, “because it took so much strength and that irreplaceable thing that is called life.”
literary character of tryphons
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF “CHARACTER” IN LITERARY STUDIES
1.1 Definition of the term “character” in a work of fiction
1.2 Methods of disclosure literary character
CHAPTER 2. THE PROBLEM OF CHARACTER IN YURI VALENTINOVICH TRIFONOV’S STORY “THE HOUSE ON THE EMBANKMENT”
2.1 Researchers about the uniqueness of the hero in the works of Yu.V. Trifonova
2.2 Analysis of the specifics of the hero in the story “House on the Embankment”
CONCLUSION
LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
Yuri Trifonov was born in Moscow on August 28, 1925. He had a dazzling happy childhood in a friendly family, with his father, a hero of the revolution and the Civil War, with friends of the same age who lived in the same “government” house on the Moskva River embankment. This house grew up in the early 30s almost opposite the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, competing with it in size and, it seemed, gaining the upper hand in the competition: soon the temple would be blown up. But a few years later, the residents began to disappear one by one, usually at night. There was a wave of mass repressions. Trifonov’s parents were also arrested. The children and their grandmother were evicted to the outskirts. Yura never saw his father again, his mother only many years later...
During the Great Patriotic War he worked at an aircraft factory, and in 1944 he entered the Literary Institute. A.M. Gorky. Once, when his toothy fellow students tore his story to smithereens, the head of the seminar, the famous writer Konstantin Fedin, suddenly flared up and even slammed his fist on the table: “And I’m telling you that Trifonov will write!”
Already in his fifth year, Trifonov began writing the story “Students.” In 1950, it was published in the magazine “New World” and immediately received the highest award - Stalin Prize. “Success is a terrible danger... Many people couldn’t stand it,” Alexander Tvardovsky, then editor-in-chief of Novy Mir, told Trifonov.
The author is very talented,” Ilya Erenburg noted about “Students.” - but I would like to hope that he will someday regret that he wrote this book. And indeed, many years later, Trifonov would respond extremely sharply to the story: “The book that was not written by me.” There was still almost no sense of the author's own view of what was happening around him, but only diligently and obediently reproduced those conflicts, the depiction of which enjoyed the approval of official criticism.
Trifonov was a writer and it is impossible to imagine him as anyone else. Behind the external looseness and phlegmatism, inner strength was hidden. A sense of conviction and independence came from his leisurely demeanor and thoughtful speech.
He began publishing early and became a professional writer early; but the reader truly discovered Trifonov in the early 70s. He opened it and accepted it because he recognized himself - and was touched to the quick. Trifonov created his own world in prose, which was so close to the world of the city in which we live that sometimes readers and critics forgot that this was literature and not reality, and treated his heroes as their direct contemporaries.
Hence the jealousy.
This is the devil knows what - some kind of kitchen squabbles, apartment gossip. corridor passions, where is the living image of our contemporary, active personality? - some were indignant.
Trifonov stigmatizes modern urban philistinism, semi-intellectuals, and distinguishes immoral vulgarities! - others objected.
He distorts the image of our intelligentsia! They are much cleaner and better than they appear in his image! This is some kind of charm, he doesn’t value the intelligentsia! - others were indignant.
This writer just doesn't like people. He is not kind, has not loved people since childhood, from the moment that deprived him of his usual way of life, the fourth analyzed.
Trifonov's world is hermetically sealed! You can't breathe in it! - stated lovers of Peredelkino walks and convinced fans of their air.
Trifonov's prose is distinguished by internal unity. Theme with variations. For example, the theme of exchange runs through all of Trifonov’s works, right down to “The Old Man.” The novel outlines all of Trifonov’s prose - from “Students” to “Exchange”, “The Long Farewell”, “Preliminary Results” and “House on the Embankment”, all Trifonov’s motifs can be found there. “The repetition of themes is the development of the task, its growth,” noted Marina Tsvetaeva. So with Trifonov - the theme deepened, went in circles, returned, but on a different level. “I’m not interested in the horizontals of prose, but in its verticals,” noted Trifonov in one of his last stories.
Trifonov, like other writers, as well as the entire literary process as a whole, was, of course, influenced by time. But in his work he not only honestly and truthfully reflected certain facts of our time, our reality, but sought to get to the bottom of the reasons for these facts. Social historicism is a fundamental quality of his prose: the story “The House on the Embankment” is no less historical than the novel “Impatience,” written on historical material. R. Schroeder described Trifonov’s artistic method as “a novel with history,” and Trifonov defined this characteristic as “very apt.”
At the same time, Trifonov’s interest in the past was of a special, individual nature. This interest is not simply an expression of historical emotionality - a trait, by the way, quite common. No, Trifonov dwells only on those eras and those historical facts, which predetermined the fate of his generation. So he “came out” during the civil war and then to the Narodnaya Volya. Revolutionary terror is what Trifonov’s latest essay, “The Riddle and Conduct of Dostoevsky,” is devoted to.
Yuri Valentinovich entered the history of Russian literature of the twentieth century as the founder of urban prose and earned a reputation as the creator of a unique artistic world that does not fit into the rigid framework of groups and movements. According to critic L. Anninsky, such thematic isolation was the reason for Trifonov’s “strange loneliness” in Russian literature. Since the emergence and establishment of tryphon studies as an independent branch of literary criticism, researchers have begun to talk about the integrity and consistency of the entire literary body of his prose. I. Velembovskaya, reviewing the latest lifetime publications of Trifonov’s works, called all his prose “ human comedy ”, in which “the destinies seemed to be intertwined, the situations complemented each other, the characters overlapped one another.” I. Dedkov in a detailed article “Verticals of Yuri Trifonov” defined
One of the best, most studied is the work of Yu. Trifonov “House on the Embankment”. Researchers have not yet determined exactly its genre - whether it is a story or a novel. The explanation, in our opinion, lies in the following: what is novel in this story is, first of all, the socio-artistic development and understanding of the past and present as an interconnected process. In an interview that followed the publication of “House on the Embankment,” the writer himself explained his creative task as follows: “To see, to depict the passage of time, to understand what it does to people, how it changes everything around... Time is a mysterious phenomenon, to understand and imagine it is as difficult as imagining infinity... I want the reader to understand: this mysterious “thread connecting time” passes through you and me, which is the nerve of history.” “I know there is a story in everyone today, in each human destiny. It lies in broad, invisible, and sometimes quite clearly visible layers in everything that shapes modernity... The past is present both in the present and in the future.” Thus, the author managed to fit a huge array of depicted problems and ideas into the volume of the story, which places this work at the intersection of genres.
The purpose of our work is to consider the specifics of solving the problem of character in the work “The House on the Embankment” by Yu. Trifonov.
The object of study is the ways of embodying the images of the heroes in this story.
The subject is a system of characters in a work.
The purpose, object and subject determine the following research tasks in our work:
1. Identify the content of the concept of “literary character”, the main approaches to its definition in literary criticism;
2. Consider the ways of artistic embodiment of the characters’ characters in the work;
3. Analyze the different points of view of Trifonov researchers on the problem of the hero in the works of Yu. Trifonov;
4. Study the features of solving a literary problem in the story “The House on the Embankment” through consideration of specific characters and plot.
The scientific novelty of our work is determined by the fact that for the first time an attempt was made to study the specifics of the literary character in the story “The House on the Embankment” as a complex problem that has a cross-cutting basis in the entire work of Yu. Trifonov.
The practical significance of our research lies in the fact that the material and conclusions presented in it can be used for further study of the work of Yu. Trifonov and his other works. The theoretical part of the work can be used in preparation for classes in the course “Literary Studies” and “Theory of Literature” within the framework of the topics “Hero of a literary work”, “Character and character system”, “Type and character in a work of art”.
One of the most famous buildings Moscow is essentially a city within a city - with its own completely autonomous infrastructure, with its own unique contingent of high-ranking residents, with a dramatic interweaving of destinies and life stories during times of repression and regime change.
The house on the embankment, located on Bolotny Island (formal address, Serafimovicha Street, building 2), opposite the Kremlin, was built in 1931 specifically for the elite of the new, Soviet society. The first residents moved in in the middle of the decade. And soon the Great Terror broke out - and many apartments were empty. In place of the disappeared citizens, new ones were settled, but their fate was often sad.
Since then, the monument of constructivism has been surrounded by an aura of unkind rumors. Someone talks about the ghosts of old residents appearing in the apartments. Someone - about a secret passage that went straight into the kitchens so that it would be easier to arrest eminent residents without unnecessary noise. One way or another, the House on the Embankment really preserves the memory of many tragedies of those years.
The list of residents who perished in the Gulag far exceeds the list of those killed in the Great Patriotic War...
The house on the embankment is not only a “symbol” terrible years Russia", but also a symbol of the creation of a new country, people who created industry lived here Soviet Union, and heroic polar pilots. Do not forget that in that short pre-war period the country's GDP was increased 70 times!
But of course you also need to remember the price.
The house was called differently: the House of Government, the First House of Soviets, the House of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars... In 1976, Yuri Trifonov's story “The House on the Embankment” was published, in which the writer described the life and morals of the residents of the government house, many of whom lived in the 1930s were arrested and left their comfortable apartments for Stalin's camps or were shot. Thanks to the efforts of Yuri Trifonov’s daughter, a museum was opened in the house itself in memory of the repressed residents of the “House on the Embankment” 
The need to build a house for the families of government members and high-ranking leaders arose in 1918, when hundreds of employees moved from Petrograd to Moscow after the state capital was moved there; the housing problem had to be solved.
On June 24, 1927, a decision was made to begin construction of a house for senior employees designed by architect Boris Iofan.
The construction site occupied a block on the artificial Bolotny Island, or rather an incompletely drained swamp that formed back in the 18th century after the construction of the Vodootvodny Canal; in addition, the ancient All Saints Cemetery remained here. One of the legends is connected with the location of the house - supposedly this predetermined the death of its residents.
But the main thing was functionality. The house is located on an island, it was relatively isolated from common people, but was in close proximity to the Kremlin.
building a house on the embankment
Construction. 1928:. From the collection of the Museum of Moscow. At the time of the start of construction, the banks were still earthen, but soon the embankment was dressed in granite and became a place for walks for the residents of the house; a pier for ships and even a swimming pool were equipped right there. A pier existed here before; stone and sand were delivered on barges, and peasants in bast shoes dragged building materials to the shore.
The permanent exhibition of the museum presents the history of the construction of the house (drawings, models, apartment plans, documentary photographs)
The house was designed by Boris Iofan and his architectural bureau in the style of late constructivism. For Moscow at that time it was a grandiose building. The building was high-rise - in those years in Moscow they did not build higher than 6-7 floors, and the House on the Embankment had, depending on the roof configuration, up to 12 floors, 505 apartments, when the apartments were compacted into “communal apartments”, more than 6,000 people lived in the building - the population small town.
This is not exactly a house; in the usual sense, it is a whole complex of closed buildings with courtyards and passages. The area of the territory is about three hectares, and the building complex has 25 entrances.
The building of the house was supposed to be made ultra-modern in order to solve all the everyday issues of the intellectual elite of the Soviet nation, which was supposed to direct all its energy to solving much more important state problems.
Indeed, in the early 30s, the majority of Muscovites did not have access to sewerage and central water supply.
The House on the Embankment had not only all these benefits of civilization. Even the ready-made furnishings of the rooms were luxurious - oak furniture, according to designer sketches by Boris Iofanatipova, but the residents could not change or change anything at their own discretion. The rich property was state property, with inventory numbers, and new residents signed an acceptance certificate for the entire contents of the apartment. One day, the wife of historian Alexander Svanidze got rid of the provided headset and ran into trouble because an inspection took place once a year. I had to pay a huge amount.
There were also kindergarten on the roof, a cinema, a dry cleaner, a canteen, where initially the residents of the house were fed for free, several shops, a dry cleaner, a tennis court and even a club (now the Variety Theater under the direction of Gennady Khazanov). Lawns with fountains were laid out in the courtyards (after the war, the fountains were dismantled and flower beds were installed).
But the biggest miracle for Muscovites in the 1930s was... elevators. The guys living in the house invited the girls on a date - to ride in the elevator!
One of the legends of the House on the Embankment was also associated with elevators. Allegedly, there was a portal in the house to another dimension, where people entered, but from where there was no return exit. But of course many knew what kind of portal it was...
At the height of Stalin’s repressions, no one asked unnecessary questions if, within a couple of nights, all the people suddenly disappeared from the apartment opposite. The less you know, you sleep better, and there is a chance that they won’t come to you in the middle of the night on a freight elevator - of course, there was wiretapping in the House.
Yes, Stalin’s repressions affected many, but they naturally affected the highest party and government officials very strongly. The Museum of the House on the Embankment has two lists: those killed in the Great Patriotic War and those repressed. So, the list of those repressed is much longer.
The construction was supervised by People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Genrikh Yagoda, who did not fail to use new house in the interests of his department. On the ground floor there were safe apartments for security officers, and in entrance No. 11 there was only a staircase and windows - no apartments, no elevator. According to the conspiracy theory, from this entrance they bugged the apartments of high-ranking officials who had barely celebrated their housewarming and immediately found themselves under the hood of the “competent authorities.” One of the secrets of the House on the Embankment is connected with the absence of the 11th entrance, whether there was a direct passage to the Kremlin and straight to the Lubyanka, or an exit to the basements where residents were shot, and there was even a berth for a submarine... A small light submarine without a massive periscope, in order to swim in the shallow Moscow River it could well take a VIP person on board and save his life in the event of a palace coup or repression.
Only employees of various departments and services, “responsible workers”, heroes of the Civil War, old Bolsheviks, outstanding scientists and writers, employees of the Comintern, heroes of the war in Spain, as well as service staff with an impeccable worker-peasant biography and a willingness to serve in the Cheka.
The most prestigious were considered to be the entrances with windows overlooking the Kremlin. There were six- and seven-room apartments, and of course there were also one-room apartments, overlooking the service premises.
Apartments were given according to rank, and not according to money, as now.
By the standards of those times, the residents were very lucky - separate comfortable and fully furnished apartments, decorated with frescoes and stucco. There are elevators, hot and cold water, full provision. No worries or hassle - others could only dream of such luxury. Live, as they say, and be happy.
But this joy was poisoned every day by the poison of fear - “chekists” in black-black jackets and black-black crispy boots, coming at night.
They took the accused and took him to an unknown direction. Then they came for his wife. She was exiled to ALZHIR (Akmola camp for the wives of traitors to the motherland in Kazakhstan), and her children were sent to an orphanage. In orphanages, children were renamed, and it was incredibly difficult to find them later.
The children of Stalin himself lived in the House for some time - Svetlana and Vasily, the son of Felix Dzerzhinsky - Yan, the architect of the House on the embankment Boris Iofan (he designed it himself - and lived there);
Among the first residents are Kuibyshev, Marshal Zhukov, Marshal Tukhachevsky (shot in 1937); Marshal Bagramyan, General Kamanin, future Secretary General Nikita Khrushchev, scientists and technical specialists, rocket and space technology designer Glushko, pilot and participant in Arctic expeditions Mikhail Vodopyanov, oncologist surgeon academician Nikolai Blokhin, poet Demyan Bedny, and also Artem Mikoyan, Alexey Kosygin, writer Alexander Serafimovich, in whose honor the street on which the House is located is named. Choreographer Igor Moiseev. The apartment of the famous ballerina Ulanova has been preserved in all its details - a huge number of people who influenced History.
/fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/evge-chesnok ov/album/173001/view/962819?page=1" target="_blank"> 
vge-chesnokov/album/173001/view/962817?p age=1" target="_blank"> 
Separately, among the celebrities who lived in the House on the Embankment is the name of the writer Yuri Trifonov, the author of the story “The House on the Embankment,” which later replaced the original “Government House.”
Yuri Trifonov’s family lived in this house and his parents found themselves in the millstone of Stalin’s repressions in 1937-1938. At the heart of the story - real events that happened to the residents of the House.
November 2, 1989 is considered the birthday of the local history museum “House on the Embankment”, the director of which is Olga Romanovna Trifonova: “We are in the former apartment, to put it roughly, a guardhouse, and to put it politely, the guard of the first entrance, the most prestigious entrance of the House on the embankment. After the redevelopment, the museum received another room where the interiors of the living room were recreated.
The museum was organized by a resident of the house, a woman of fantastic energy, Tamara Andreevna Ter-Eghiazaryan (1908-2005). With time folk museum transformed into a municipal one, and then into a state one.
Visitors are greeted by a stuffed penguin, once brought from a northern expedition by pilot Ilya Mazuruk (either the penguin climbed onto the plane itself, or the pilots took the animal as a souvenir.
The habitat of party workers and the Soviet intelligentsia of the 1930s has been recreated (personal belongings, photographs, original furniture made according to the sketches of the chief architect of the house B.M. Iofan)
All exhibits were donated to the museum by the residents of the house, some were even found by chance. The previous generation dies or sells apartments, new residents move in, they take priceless evidence of history and cultural values: old photographs of famous people, household items and clothing.
For example, they may take out a general's uniform of a major Soviet military leader or glass photographic plates of a famous photographer.
And how many interesting things were told by the old residents of the House on the Embankment!
excursions are conducted with a gramophone turned on
Personal belongings of the residents of the house. Fragment of the Museum’s exhibition “House on the Embankment”
The archives are of particular value and pride to the museum staff. The correspondence of the repressed residents of the building, numerous documents, even personal notes and diaries have been preserved here.
The NKVDEShnik's cap is not real.
Both victims and executioners lived in the House on the Embankment: the bloody G. Yagoda, the People's Commissar-murderer Yezhov, Vyshinsky, Kaganovich, or the man who participated in the execution of the royal family (later Philip Goloshchekin was arrested on charges of Trotskyism and shot). Here everything is mixed up, as in the entire Russian history of the twentieth century.
Portrait of Stalin drawn by one of the residents
Yuri Trifonov wrote a great phrase in his novel “Time and Place”: “These were times of greatness in small deeds.”
For example, the creator of the Botanical Garden, Nikolai Tsitsin, once saw boys with baby. It turned out that the guys heard crying, secretly climbed into the neighbors’ sealed apartment and found a baby in the closet. The academician, favored by the authorities, did not pass by, took the child of the “enemies of the people” and ordered his housekeeper to take him to the village. So he saved one life.
Now it is difficult to separate legends from facts... Among the most “famous” ghosts of the house is the nameless daughter of the army commander. Allegedly, her father and mother were arrested during the day at work, and when they came for her in the evening, the girl refused to open the door, threatening the security officers with her father’s revolver. According to legend, they did not take risks and simply boarded up the windows and doors to the apartment, turning off the water, electricity and telephone. The girl asked for help for a long time, then the screams from the walled-up apartment died down. Since then, the ghost of the army commander's daughter allegedly sometimes appears at night on the embankment in front of the Variety Theater.
In the house with which so many tragically cut short destinies are connected, a real story happened with one of the modern residents of the house, who was pursued by a poltergeist. When they looked up the archives of her apartment, it turned out that during the years of repression, all the residents were shot.
But were there many such apartments in the House on the Embankment? In those years, entire families were shot and exiled, and the vacated areas were quickly repopulated.
Another legend of the House on the Embankment, the boy prophet Leva Fedotov, who in his diaries allegedly predicted the Second World War and that the USSR would initially suffer heavy losses, and the war would become protracted.
In the center of the hall there is an installation dedicated to the people who died in 1937, and nice people from some factory in Ostankino helped find pieces of old-style barbed wire.
The House on the Embankment Museum is not only a museum of the history of all the inhabitants of the house of the 1930-50s, but also the history of the country. A concentrate of history, culture, and politics has been preserved here. Material evidence of past life has been preserved here: household items, photographs.
In a surprising way, people of that era continue to live here, some have passed their 100th anniversary. A large number of centenarians lived and continue to live in the House on the Embankment.
Since 1997, every year in March, exhibitions and “Centennial” meetings have been held, dedicated to the memory of those residents of the House who would have turned 100 years old in the past year.
