Original text

(1) In the train compartment, which I entered late, a man with one arm, judging by his age, a war veteran, was putting on soft slippers with rose appliqués on the toes of a pretty, youthful lady. (2) Booted and encouraged, the lady went into the corridor , bored, looked out the window. (3) The disabled man began to make the bed. (4) You can’t say anything, he did this work with one hand quite deftly, although not very quickly - he was, apparently, used to doing household chores. (5) But one hand is one hand, and he was pretty tired while making two beds. (6) - Murochka! (7) “Everything is in order,” he informed the lady and sat down at the table. (8) The lady entered the compartment, with her finger she adjusted the sheet that was not quite cleverly tucked under the mattress and looked at me victoriously: “That’s how he loves me!” (9) The disabled man faithfully intercepted her gaze like a dog. (10) Then they argued about the bottom place, and the lady condescendingly conceded: (11) - Well, okay, okay! – (12) She kissed her tired companion, her husband, as it turned out later, she wished him Good night and began to settle down in the lower place. (13) Having gone to the toilet, the disabled person tried to bravely jump onto
the second shelf - it didn’t work out. (14) He became embarrassed, began to apologize to me, asking Murochka if he had disturbed her. (15) - Go to bed, for God’s sake, go to bed! (16) Why are you bothering? - the lady said sternly, and her husband apologized again and hurried off. (17) It ended with me having to help him climb onto the second shelf. (18) Since we were both front-line soldiers, we somehow hushed up the awkwardness and laughed it off. (19) We met. (20) The disabled man was a famous architect, he was traveling from an important meeting, his wife accompanied him so that it would not be so difficult for him on the way. (21) For a long time the architect on the second shelf could not sleep, but he was afraid to move: he did not want to disturb his Murochka. (22) And I thought that love, of course, can be very different and, probably, I understand it somehow in a simplified, straightforward way, or I don’t understand it at all. (23) In any case, such love, if it really is love, was beyond my power to comprehend.

(According to V. Astafiev)

Composition

Unfortunately, very often people do not notice how their love, which first manifests itself in adoration, develops into worship of another person, his deification. Some are ready to do anything for the sake of the object of their love, no matter what: neither health problems, nor the opinions of others, nor own pride and self-esteem. And others take advantage of this, thereby receiving some benefit for themselves. But is it worth loving a person with such a “sick” love? Is it worth giving yourself completely to another without receiving anything in return? V. Astafiev speaks about this problem, the problem of slave love, in his text.

The author treats with understanding the main character - a disabled war veteran who, despite his limited physical capabilities, puts on slippers for his wife, makes the beds and goes to sleep on the top bunk in the compartment, although this is clearly given to him with great difficulty. He is ready for anything, for any inconvenience, for the sake of Murochka, and the “devoted look of a dog” is further proof of this. The husband loves his wife, not paying attention to how she humiliates him, and this saddens the author.

But in the description of the wife of a front-line architect, one can feel the author’s obvious irony. Speaking about her victorious look, about how she “straightened the not quite deftly closed sheet with her finger” and how she “condescendingly gave in” to her husband, V. Astafiev shows us that the heroine is unpleasant to him, since she is focused only on herself. She does not inspire respect , because she accompanies her husband formally, without helping him at all on his journey.

Of course, love comes in different forms. However, it is difficult for the author to understand the relationship between the front-line soldier and Murochka: “such love, if it really is love,” was beyond his ability to comprehend. It seems to me that for V. Astafiev it is important that relationships between close people are built on respect, sincerity and mutual assistance.

I, as a reader and as a person who is also capable of loving and being loved, also do not understand the relationships of the characters in the text. In my opinion, Murochka is unworthy of the love of a front-line soldier, and devotion should never develop into fanaticism, into humiliation, otherwise it is no longer love.

Love is a mutual feeling. And if you don't get any response, then it passes. Perhaps in the future the architect’s eyes were opened and his attitude towards Murochka changed. Or perhaps not. It’s just that, unfortunately, there are people who in life are only capable of either loving or being only loved...

“In the train compartment, which I entered late, a man with one arm, judging by his age, a war invalid, was putting on soft slippers with rose appliqués on the toes of a pretty, youthful lady. Booted and encouraged, the lady went into the corridor, bored, looking out the window. The disabled man began to make the bed. You can’t say anything, he did this work with one hand quite deftly, although not very quickly - he was apparently used to doing household chores. But one hand is one hand, and he was pretty tired while making the bed. - Murochka! “Everything is fine,” he informed the lady and sat down at the table. The lady entered the compartment, used her fingers to adjust the sheet that was not quite cleverly tucked under the mattress and looked at me triumphantly: “That’s how he loves me!” The disabled man, like a dog, faithfully intercepted her gaze, as if confirming: “That’s how I love her!” Then they argued about the bottom place, and the lady condescendingly conceded. - Well, okay, okay! - She kissed her tired companion, her husband, as it turned out later, wished him good night and began to settle down in the lower place. After going to the toilet, the disabled person tried to bravely jump onto the second shelf - it didn’t work. He became embarrassed, began to apologize to me, and asked Murochka if he had disturbed her. - Go to bed, for God’s sake, go to bed! Why are you bothering? - the lady said sternly, and her husband again apologized and hurried. It ended with me having to help him climb onto the second shelf. Since we were both front-line soldiers, we somehow hushed up the awkwardness and laughed it off. We met. The disabled man was a famous architect, he was traveling from an important meeting, his wife accompanied him so that it would not be so difficult for him on the road. For a long time the architect on the second shelf could not sleep, but he was afraid to move: he did not want to disturb his Murochka. And I thought that love, of course, can be different and, probably, I understand it somehow in a simplified, straightforward way, or I no longer understand it at all. In any case, this kind of love, if it really is love, was beyond my power to comprehend.” .

And after the text immediately came task 28: “In what meaning does the author use the word “such” in sentence 23? 1) devoted, 2) slavish, 3) true, 4) proven.” Auto RU, famous writer, a man with a huge life experience , what he saw was “impossible to comprehend.” But eleventh-graders are obliged to comprehend and accurately indicate right there, during the exam. I wrote “devoted”. (While the students are doing their homework, I have to go through all the options.) Every single one of my students wrote “slave.” A few days later the answers came. It turned out that she was a slave. Everything here is vicious. Why should schoolchildren accurately define something that the author himself does not undertake to define accurately? And even in the exam, for the mark. By what right do schoolchildren have to judge someone else’s family life and relationships between men and women quickly and unambiguously? After all, during a test test, three answers are always wrong, and only one is correct. And that's what's especially terrible. Next, graduates must complete task “C” based on this very text. But they were already told in advance, before completing the task, where to go: the compilers-provocateurs gave the key to completing the task - slavish love. So you don’t need to think for yourself. And off we go: “The problem posed in the text (and this is exactly how they are obliged to begin) is the problem of slave love.” In two classes, only one student defined this very problem in human terms: “Astafiev reflects on love, namely, what it can be and how it manifests itself in different ways.” Remember how Anna Karenina in Tolstoy’s novel says: “If how many heads there are so many minds, then how many hearts there are so many kinds of love.” But what slavish thing did my students see in this love? “Despite the fact that the man had no hand, he began to make the bed while his wife was idle and bored. And also, despite his disability, the man gave up the bottom bunk to his wife, after which he tried to climb onto the top bunk, and, having climbed, tried not to turn around so as not to disturb his wife’s sleep.” And what's so slavish about that? “In the entrance of my house,” I say, analyzing the work, “there lives a lonely man without hands. Every time I see him with a bag on his elbow, I have a desire to help him. But I understand that this is not necessary. And when he opens the door himself with the key, I also try to help him, but I immediately understand that there is no need to do this either. He himself does not want to be reminded of his disability... In the story that V. Astafiev talks about, the husband’s desire to assert himself every time and in everything as a man, and not as a disabled person, must be understood and understandable”... It’s even worse with the author’s attitude (required task: “formulate the author’s position”). “The author believes that such love is not love, but some kind of slavery.” “The author did not understand such love, slavish, not devoted, but slavish.” “The author treats this woman with contempt.” A simple syllogism: “We are not slaves, slaves are not us.” Love is slave. Therefore... By the way, the word “slave” (let me remind you once again: the word is not the writer V. Astafiev, but the would-be compilers of materials for the exam) can also have a derogatory meaning (like Lermontov: “Before danger they are shamefully cowardly / And despised slaves before power.” ), and sublime (as in Blok’s poem: “I am defeated by the power of your passions, / Sometimes a servant, sometimes a dear; / And forever a slave”)... Only four people from two classes did not agree with the concept of the compilers: “This is the most ordinary love , in which a person is ready to do anything for the sake of his loved one”; "This real love. I have not yet comprehended this feeling and I don’t really imagine what it’s like to love like that. But I think that such love is happiness”; “Isn’t that the kind of great and sincere love and trust that all people dream of? I believe that there can be no talk of any servility here.” I asked the author of the fourth work for permission, without mentioning her name, to read the answer in class: “I fell in love with young man and gave herself up to him completely. My chosen one used me for some time. And I still blindly and unrequitedly idolized him and was afraid to breathe next to him, although I knew about everything. As sad as it may be, love can be unrequited, it can be blind, it can be slavish. Still, it’s better than never loving at all.” But here’s what’s characteristic: these four also answered “slave” in answer to the 28th question. Don't lose a point. The “correct” answers to such difficult questions they left an eerie impression: “Love should under no circumstances be unequal” (italics in quotes throughout are mine. - L.A.); “This shouldn’t happen if you love”; “Love must be mutual”; “Love cannot be one-sided”; “The man made a mistake by choosing such a woman as his wife”; “I think love is definitely a good feeling. It makes our life fuller and more interesting. But in everything you need to know the acceptable limits”; “Feelings should never be left to chance, so as not to become a slave in love”; “In love there must be mutual understanding. It’s wrong when there is a manifestation of love on only one side”... Real life deeper, wider, more diverse, richer than any schemes. But - of the four proposed epithets, you need to choose only one. They chose “slave”. And, if it’s slavish, it means it’s not devoted, not tested, not verified. Trouble test tasks is that they foster one-dimensional thinking. Extremely dangerous in life and impossible in relation to literature, because, according to Yu.M. Lotman, “ artistic text doesn’t have one solution.” Now let’s think for sure: in whom Procrustean bed Are the Unified State Exams turning children?

"SLAVE LOVE"

This book is about teaching literature. Therefore, I do not touch upon the problems of Russian language exams. Those interested in my attitude towards them can read my just mentioned article in Znamya. But there is a part C in this exam, which has direct relation to teaching literature. Because this is a coherent text, an argument, and this text largely determines how our students will now write about literature.

Task C is assessed according to twelve indicators, and they are checked not by computers, but by human experts. These experts are given cheat sheets for each text. No, no, they are, of course, called differently: “text information”, “response model” or even “response standard”.

“For experts checking the work of a graduate,” we read in methodological recommendations, - information about the text is given in tabular form, reflecting the issues of the source text and the position of the author. These problems in one form or another must be reflected(italics mine. - L.A.) in the essays of graduates."

That is, if it is impossible to assign a computer to do the work, then the person should be lowered (or maybe raised?) to his level, having been programmed in advance.

Let's see what all this actually looks like in practice.

First, in exams, and now in the manual for students, the sad reflection of Sergei Mikhalkov is offered as a text. Here is a paragraph from it:

“Once I visited the places where grandfather Mazai saved unfortunate hares. The guys I talked to in one of the villages were talking about spaceships, about flights to the moon, about events in the world. But when I talked to them about Nekrasov, I recalled the lines where the poet described their native places, the guys hesitated, and no one could recite a single quatrain from “Ded Mazai” by heart. I thought with bitterness: wouldn’t their souls be richer if, along with what they know about science, politics and technology, they also knew poetry - a lot of poetry! - Pushkin, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Fet, Tyutchev, Blok and other wonderful Russian poets?”

This is written in a human way - freely, vividly, emotionally. But what this text has become in “information about the text” - that is, in a cheat sheet for teachers who will check exam papers, comparing them with this very standard:

“The main problems: 1) the problem of reading in childhood (what is the role of reading in childhood during the formation of a person’s personality); 2) the problem of the influence of a book on a person’s destiny (how does a person change under the influence of books?). The author's position: 2) reading in childhood is of great importance, since communication with a book shapes a person’s personality and enriches it; A book read in time can determine the psychology, worldview, and moral principles of a person...”

This all didn't start today. Here is what Vasily Rozanov wrote in “Twilight of Enlightenment”:

“The language is terribly strange... it was somehow made, invented, as if it were a language for written tests, a specifically developed pedagogical “volapuk” (let’s look in the dictionary: “volapuk” is a set of incomprehensible words, empty, meaningless phrases. - L. A.). His samples should be published: this is a monkey who has learned Russian, just as in a zoological garden there are elephants dancing the French quadrille. The Russian language, in its color and liveliness, in its folk flavor, has been completely forgotten.”

Korney Chukovsky gave his name to this pseudo-language in the book “Alive as Life” - “office worker”. With pain and bitterness he wrote that

“...there is an aesthetics that prefers colorless, anemic, sterilized, dry words to beautiful, figurative words of the people.”

And the point here is not just words:

“Template people most often speak out of inertia, completely not experiencing the feelings they are talking about. Damage to the tongue too often leads to corruption of the soul.”

I'm working out school essays more than fifty years, wrote many articles and three books about this, read most of the articles, brochures and books on this problem published in Russian. I have never seen anywhere where the content was judged not by the nature of the arguments, but by their number and order. This is truly know-how. Meanwhile, according to my observations, both in essays and in oral responses, the first arguments are not as interesting as the subsequent ones. It's clear why. The first ones are what lies above, this is common, familiar. And underneath this lies something deeper and more creative. But it is said: only two and only the first!

But that's not all. Until 2009, the assignment contained the words:

“Justify your answer based on knowledge, life or reading experience.”

Since 2009, this “or” has been removed. Now you need to give “at least 2 arguments, one of which is taken from fiction, journalistic or scientific literature", in this case you can get three points. If a student, God forbid, has given two arguments, but none of them are taken from the literature, then he can only count on two points. And if he gave only one argument from literature, then he will also receive two points. And if he gives only one argument, but based on life experience, then only one point. But tell me why something seen in life and giving birth to a personal impression is worth less than something someone else read. In my opinion, more. By the way, among the sources of argument there are no cinema, television, or the Internet.

And here's the most important thing:

“Explain why you agree or disagree with the author of the text you read.”

And here is what is addressed to the inspection experts in “ Methodical manual”, published especially for them, and then posted on the Internet:

“The point of argumentation for the student will be to Once again(Italics are mine throughout. - L.A.) show relevance, vitality, moral consistency, inviolability proven ethical axioms. In this case, argumentation most often acts not as a logical justification, but as a certain way of formalizing the expression of a personal attitude towards the statement put forward.”

So, no “agree” or “disagree”: just confirm once again the inviolability, the axiom. After all

“The problems that the student considers and comprehends have value meaning"

(this is already their italics), and therefore there cannot be any “disagree” here.

It is characteristic that among the dozens of works cited in “ Guidelines“, there is not a single one where the student argues, disagrees, or refutes. But such a need arises more than once. In the spring of 2008, in all versions of the monitoring carried out in Moscow, texts taken from the works of Russian philosophers of the early 20th century were proposed. One of them stated that a person who does not think about the meaning of life every day is not worthy of the title of man. One of my students wrote: “If you think about the meaning of life every day, then when will you give birth and raise children, run a house, and work?” But she knew that I would check all this. It's a different matter there, during the exam. “Write what you think,” I admonished my students at the Unified State Examination in the Russian language. “No,” they answered me, “we will think about what THEY need.”

And here is the natural result. I will cite an essay that is given in the “Methodological Instructions” as deserving the highest rating. More precisely, that part of it where it is written about its position.

"IN. Rozov clearly proves his position by citing examples from own life. I, too, am a supporter of a positive perception of life, close to Viktor Rozov’s understanding of happiness. In classical Russian literature, I am close in my perception of life to Pierre Bezukhov in L. Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace.” Pierre feels happiness only when, having abandoned an idle and soulless life, he has found inner harmony in Natasha's love. But in “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov, everything looks different. Ranevskaya, having a house and a garden, was unable to find spiritual harmony; she does not feel happiness. One of the brightest works where author's position Close to mine is the poem by N. A. Nekrasov “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” Nekrasov in the poem concludes that happiness is not in the material image of Grisha Dobroslonov; he shows that a person who strives not for personal well-being, but for the realization of significant goals, liberation from serfdom, can be happy.”

Let me remind you once again: all this is assessed with the maximum possible score.

“Nekrasov’s conclusion that happiness is not in the material image of Grisha Dobrosklonov” is so absurd that you don’t even know what to say. Pierre Bezukhov never lived a soulless life and felt happiness after Borodin, in captivity. Ranevskaya no longer has a house or garden, and what is written about her is complete nonsense. Grisha Dobrosklonov could not fight for liberation from serfdom, since the people had already been liberated from it before him and without him. As you can see, the “standard” answer is at odds with the Russian language, Russian history and Russian literature. And most importantly, this text is speculative, cynical and devoid of even a glimpse of living thought and living words.

And in October 2008, the first in the new academic year monitoring in eleventh grades. I will limit myself to just one example. In the second version, the guys were offered the text V. Astafiev, or rather “according to Astafiev”. The text, from my point of view, is not flawless. In my interpretation of it, I disagreed with my students and even with some of my colleagues. In principle, this is all normal: students often disagree with me and sometimes they are right. But here the stake is 21 points out of 60, admission or non-admission to the institute. I will quote this text in full.

“In the train compartment, which I entered late, a man with one arm, judging by his age, a war invalid, was putting on a pretty, youthful lady soft slippers with rose appliqués on the toes.

Booted and encouraged, the lady walked into the corridor, bored, looking out the window. (If the narrator was in the compartment at that time, then he could not see what was happening in the corridor, especially the bored look out the window: the lady had her back to the corridor. - L.A.) The disabled man began to make the bed.

You can’t say anything, he did this work with one hand quite deftly, although not very quickly - he was apparently used to doing household chores. But one hand is one hand, and he was pretty tired while making the bed.

Murochka! “Everything is fine,” he informed the lady and sat down at the table.

The lady entered the compartment, used her fingers to adjust the sheet that was not quite cleverly tucked under the mattress and looked at me triumphantly: “That’s how he loves me!”

The disabled man, like a dog, faithfully intercepted her gaze, as if confirming: “That’s how I love her!” Then they began to squabble about the bottom spot, and the lady condescendingly conceded.

Okay, okay! - Having kissed her tired companion, her husband, as it turned out later, wished him good night and began to settle down in the lower place.

After going to the toilet, the disabled person tried to bravely jump onto the second shelf - it didn’t work. He became embarrassed, began to apologize to me, and asked Murochka if he had disturbed her.

Go to bed, for God's sake, go to bed! Why are you bothering? - the lady said sternly, and her husband again apologized and hurried.

It ended with me having to help him climb onto the second shelf. Since we were both front-line soldiers, we somehow hushed up the awkwardness and laughed it off. The disabled man was a famous architect, he was traveling from an important meeting, and his wife accompanied him so that it would not be so difficult for him on the way.

For a long time the architect on the second shelf could not sleep, but he was afraid to move: he did not want to disturb his Murochka. And I thought that love, of course, comes in different forms and, probably, I understood it somehow in a simplified, straightforward way, or I no longer understand it at all. In any case, this kind of love, if it really is love, was beyond my ability to comprehend.”

Without saying anything substantive for now, let’s turn to elementary logic. In tasks A, test tasks, from four options you need to choose one correct one, because the rest are incorrect.

After that, I only came across words about “slave love” twice. One is in the book by Vladimir Kornilov in the chapter on Mayakovsky:

And in an interview with Catherine Deneuve. She admitted to the correspondent that at 65 years old she was ready to “fall madly in love.”

“It won’t necessarily happen,” the movie star admits, “but I’m interested in love in all its manifestations. And in love I agree to be a slave, to obey a man."

So be it. But you must agree that in both cases slavery does not exclude either devotion, truth, or proven™.

Now to the point.

For the author, a famous writer, a person with vast life experience, what he saw was “impossible to comprehend.” But eleventh graders are required to immediately comprehend and accurately mark them during the exam (and monitoring is a rehearsal for the exam). I wrote "devoted". (While the students are doing their assignments, I have to reconsider all the options.) Every single one of my two eleventh grade students wrote “slave.” A few hours later the answers came, it turned out that she was a slave.

Everything here is vicious. Why should schoolchildren determine something that the author himself does not undertake to define accurately? Yes, even in the exam, for the mark. By what right should schoolchildren judge family life men and women quickly and unambiguously and generally judge this. But it’s clear: after all, in the tests only one thing is correct.

And that's what's especially terrible. Next, graduates must complete task “C” based on this very text. But already in advance, before completing the task, this question suggested where to go: the compilers-provocateurs gave the key to completing the task - slavish love. So you don’t need to think for yourself.

And off we go. After all, at the beginning of the work, the student must “formulate one of the problems of the source text.” (What a masterpiece of bureaucracy: “source text”!)

“The problem posed in the text is the problem of slavish love.”

In two classes, only one student identified this very problem in human terms:

“Astafiev reflects on love, namely, what it can be and how it can manifest itself in different ways.”

Remember how Anna Karenina in Tolstoy’s novel says:

“If how many heads there are so many minds, then how many hearts there are so many kinds of love.”

But what slavish thing did my students see in this love?

“Despite the fact that the man had no hand, he began to make the bed while his wife was idle and bored. And also, despite his disability, the man gave up the lower shelf to his wife, after which he tried to climb onto the upper shelf, having climbed, he tried not to turn around, so as not to put his wife in his sleep.”

And what's so slavish about that?

“In the entrance of my house,” I say, later analyzing the work, “there lives a lonely man without hands. Every time I see him with a bag on his elbow, I have a desire to help him. But I understand that this is not necessary. Sometimes he opens the door himself with the key, I also try to help him, but I immediately understand that there is no need to do this either. He himself does not want to be reminded of his disability. And in the story that the writer Viktor Astafiev tells, the husband’s desire to assert himself as a man every time and in everything, and not to show that he is disabled, should be understood and understandable.”

A simple syllogism: “We are not slaves, slaves are not us.” Love is slave. Therefore... By the way, the word slave(Let me remind you once again: the word is not the writer V. Astafiev, but the unfortunate compilers of materials for the exam) can have a meaning both derogatory (as in Lermontov: “Before danger, they are shamefully cowardly and despised slaves before power”), and sublime (as in Blok’s poem : “I am defeated by your passions, / Sometimes a servant, sometimes a dear one; / And forever a slave...”).

Only four people from two classes disagreed with the drafters' concept:

“This is true love. I have not yet comprehended this feeling and I don’t really imagine what it’s like to love like that. But I think that such love is happiness.”

“This is the most ordinary love, in which a person is ready to do anything for the sake of his beloved.” “Isn’t that the kind of great and sincere love and trust that all people dream of? I believe that there can be no talk of any servility here.”

“I fell in love with a young man and gave myself completely to him. My chosen one used me for some time. And I still blindly and unrequitedly idolized him and was afraid to breathe next to him, although I knew about everything. As sad as it may be, love can be unrequited, it can be blind, it can be slavish. Still, it’s better than never loving at all.”

But here’s what’s typical: these four answered “slave” in response to question 28. Don't lose a point.

The correct answers to such difficult questions left me with an eerie impression (hereinafter, italics are mine throughout):

"Love under no circumstances should not be unequal."

"Must not be like this, if you love.”

"Love must be mutual."

"Love cannot be one-sided."

“The man made a mistake by choosing such a woman as his wife.”

“I think love is definitely a good feeling. She makes our life full and interesting. But in everything you need to know acceptable limits."

"Feelings never You shouldn’t leave it to chance, so as not to become a slave of love.”

"In love there must be understanding. It’s wrong when there is a manifestation of love on only one side.”...

Real life is deeper, wider, more diverse, richer than any schemes. But of the four proposed epithets, you need to choose only one. They chose “slave”. And if it’s slavish, it means it’s not devoted, not tested, not verified.

And the most bitter thing for me: after all, all this was written by students who seriously, deeply, thoughtfully spoke and wrote about “Fathers and Sons,” “Crime and Punishment,” “War and Peace,” Chekhov’s stories about love, Bunin’s stories about love. And where is all this?

The problem with test tasks is that they foster one-dimensional thinking. It is extremely dangerous in life and impossible in relation to literature, because, according to Yu. M. Lotman, “a literary text does not have one solution.”

The point is also that any literary text must first of all be read precisely as an artistic text. But here too we are faced with the blatant illiteracy of the task writers. Here's just one example. In October 2009, another monitoring of the Russian language was carried out in Moscow schools. In one of the options, an excerpt from a story by A.P. Chekhov was proposed as task “C” (more precisely, “according to Chekhov”; did they edit the writer’s text?).

It was about Yulia Sergeevna, who was tormented by the most important question for her at that time: is it possible to get married without love. “Is it impossible to have family life without love?” All her arguments for and against are given. In the end, she solves the problem simply:

“Yulia Sergeevna took the cards out of the chest of drawers and decided that if the cards were shuffled well and then removed again, and if there was a red suit underneath, then we should agree to Laptev’s proposal, but if the card came up black, then no.”

Is it necessary to explain that the heroine of Chekhov’s story is thinking about all this and that the story itself is permeated with irony? But again, alas, the students wrote about whether it is possible or impossible to get married without love. (They definitely need to answer the first question: write about the problem posed in the text!) And the majority think that it is impossible. Although not all. But these are schoolchildren. And after a few hours we receive answers via the Internet. And we read there that the main problem, delivered by the author(!) - you can or cannot get married without love. A author's position (after all, students must clearly formulate what exactly the author’s position is) is that it is absolutely impossible. Only for love!

I tried to imagine how Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, before marrying Olga Leonardovna, agonizes over whether he should marry for love or without love. But nothing worked out for me.

Thus, tasks in exams in the Russian language destroy what we do in class and what they destroy in the Unified State Examination in literature. I I don’t completely reject the ideas of the Unified State Exam. It may be advisable to combine the certification exam for the school course and the entrance exam to the university. But here the main word belongs to institutes and universities. I I am completely in favor of testing students’ knowledge at graduation not by those who taught them. If, of course, it is possible to create a strict, objective and fair system of these exams. But I cannot accept test and measurement materials on literature, and in many ways on the Russian language.

• Kornilov Vladimir. As long as they cry over the poems. A book about Russian poetry. M., 2009. P. 438.
• Izvestia, 2009, March 26.

Love is a very multifaceted feeling. Sometimes it takes extreme forms.

In the text, V.P. Astafiev raises the problem of slave love.

The writer talks about a meeting with a famous architect and his wife. The man was absolutely devoted to his wife, as evidenced by his behavior: despite his disability, he gave up the bottom bunk to his wife, made both beds with one hand, and put on soft slippers for the woman.

In addition, the author draws attention to the awkwardness that arose as a result of all the actions of a disabled person in favor of his wife in front of a stranger in the compartment, which is evidence of excessive submissiveness and derogatory behavior of a famous person.

I agree with this position. The feeling of love itself is difficult to explain. This fact, in my opinion, is due to the subjectivity of perception and understanding of love, that is, the fact that behavior depends on the people themselves and relationships between them can develop differently.

There are many examples where slavish love has a negative connotation.

In the novel by L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace” the relationship between Pierre and Helen Kuragina is shown. The writing emphasizes that the heroine wants to remain beautiful in appearance for as long as possible, pursuing her own selfish interests. Helen achieved marriage with Bezukhov, who received the inheritance of the deceased count. We see the manifestation negative qualities heroine, cynicism and calculation, which she used to achieve her goals. But people like Helen cannot truly love.

In the work and In A. Bunin’s “Muse” we also see an example of a man’s subordination. main character believes that it is pointless to become attached to a person, it is useless to love him, since there is a risk of experiencing the pain of loss. She burst into the hero’s life suddenly, subjugating his desires and interests. In order to see his beloved more often, the aspiring artist dropped out of school and moved to the village to meet Muse at the station every day. But love is like a toy for her, she doesn’t know how to appreciate feelings loved one, as a result, the heroine leaves the artist without explaining anything to him.

Thus, everyone passes the test of love in their own way. One of the extreme manifestations of this feeling is the slavish devotion of one of the spouses. As a rule, such a manifestation of love indicates the spiritual imperfection of a person who has subjugated another or takes advantage of his submission.

Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) - start preparing

Updated: 2018-06-19

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefits to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

A. Kuprin " Garnet bracelet »: General Anosov's story about the romances of Lieutenant Vishnyakov and Lenochka, the ensign and the wife of the regimental commander allows you to see how unhappy people can be whom love has made slaves: they become a laughing stock in the eyes of others, they are despised and pitied.

Love of convenience

A.N. Ostrovsky “Our people - we will be numbered!”: Podkhalyuzin loves Lipochka, the daughter of a merchant, as a means of achieving wealth, a profitable place and a symbol of his success in life: he is flattered that his wife speaks French.

Good (love) as a resurrecting force

L. Ulitskaya “Pearl Soup”: In the terrible thirties, Marina did not become indifferent to the misfortune of others: she helped the poor, fed them, and forgave even lies and betrayal. The pearl barley soup that she cooked for the unfortunate is a reminder of both the indifference of people and the selfless warmth of Marinochka herself.

B. Ekimov “Containers and bars”: Petty grievances destroyed the relationships in Grandma Lyuba’s family: her daughter and granddaughter hardly communicated with her, the intimate evening conversations that the old woman lived with stopped. But a moment came when the family suddenly acutely felt that Grandma Lyuba was short-lived and humble: she never once reproached them for being heartless. The family realized that they needed to give her their warmth and love while it was possible, while she was alive.

The ratio of internal and external beauty

Yu. Yakovlev “Blueberry”: Kolya Lukovkin fell ill in a pioneer camp and was placed in an isolation ward. The boy felt his complete loneliness and suffered greatly from this. An outwardly ugly girl came to him and treated him to blueberries. But behind her plain appearance he saw kind heart. For Kolya, the world became completely different, he recovered, and the girl began to seem to him more beautiful and smarter than everyone else.

V. Tendryakov “Nakhodka”: Fishery inspector Trofim Rusanov found an abandoned, newborn child in a remote forest hut. The inspector was unable to save the baby, but this incident and subsequent events forced him to reconsider his attitude towards people and sympathize with them.

Uplifting love

A. Kuprin “Garnet Bracelet”: For little man Zheltkov’s love for Princess Sheina became the meaning of life, and his beloved woman became the one in whom “all the beauty of the earth was embodied.” This feeling helped him become morally superior to his brother Vera, who decided that with the help of the authorities it was possible to prohibit love.

Neglect

“Woe from Wit” N.V. Gogol. Pavel Famusov is a typical “head of a government office” for that time. He is not at all interested in the business he is involved in. He has his own approach to things: “It’s signed, off your shoulders.” This phrase emphasizes the official’s negligent attitude towards his duties, which is found not only on the pages of comedy, but also in modern world. For many years, the Famusovs, Skalozubs, and Molchalins prospered in our lives. They covered up shortcomings and hid the truth; under them, bribery and nepotism, and dishonest attitude towards their duties flourished. All this slowed down the country’s development, and it’s still slowing it down now, since people like this still exist.

Article from the newspaper " TVNZ» Just recently, in the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, I read an article about how a woman had an operation. The operation went well. But after the woman returned home, she felt unwell. It turns out that the doctors forgot to remove the napkins after the operation and left them in the woman’s body. This example speaks of the negligence of doctors, that we do not think about who we trust with our precious life.

The problem of the relationship between human qualities and creative obsession

Article from the Musical Newspaper Recently, in the Musical Newspaper, I read a biography of the legendary musician Yuri Morozov. An obsession with creativity and a penchant for solitude left their mark on Morozov’s character, which was already difficult. He did not communicate with his mother or other relatives. He did not have a wife and children, because he believed that they would prevent him from creating. He wore cheap fake jeans and a naval jacket, in winter - in a guard sheepskin coat, bought cheaply from a stolen soldier. Morozov did not read Soviet newspapers, did not listen to the radio, did not knew official pop and movie stars and never paid for travel on public transport. Morozov did not have good relationships with most of his fellow underground members

M.A. Bulgakov "Notes of a Young Doctor". M.A. Bulgakov in the story “Notes of a Young Doctor.” The hero of the chapter “Morphine” is a doctor, with the terrible truth and consistently described in his diary the steps that lead to drug addiction. What caused this behavior? Negligence or self-sacrifice? After all, he is well aware of what he is doing, perhaps that is why in his suicide note he warns the living against taking drugs. But the doctor is trying to justify his already craving for morphine by the fact that the doctor must test the effect of certain drugs on himself in order to understand the feelings of patients

Akutagawa Ryunosuke "The Torment of Hell". Creates psychological picture the elder artist Yoshihide, very famous in his area - first of all, for his terrible, asocial character and corresponding paintings. The only thing that pleases his eyes is his only daughter. One day, the ruler ordered a painting from him depicting Hell and the torment of sinners in it. The old man agreed, however, on the condition that for greater realism he would see the death of a woman in a falling carriage. He was given this opportunity, however, as it turned out later, that woman turned out to be his own daughter. Yoshihide calmly works on the painting, but upon completion, he commits suicide. Thus, it is worth assessing art through morality, but this assessment entirely depends on the actual ideals of the assessing subject. Yoshihide had one value - his daughter, whom he lost because of art. The result is appropriate

Topic: National enmity. Emigration

National enmity

A. Pristavkin “The golden cloud spent the night.” The problem of national enmity is especially acute in A. Pristavkin’s story “The Golden Cloud Spent the Night.” The author shows us the tragic events of the 40s of the twentieth century associated with the resettlement of orphanages to the Caucasus, to territories “liberated” from local residents- Chechens. The revenge of people forcibly evicted from the land of their ancestors falls on innocent people, including children. We see how a brutal murder separates twin brothers Sashka and Kolka Kuzmenysh. It is symbolic that at the end of the story Kolka calls him his brother Chechen boy Alkhuzura. So the author convinces us that all peoples are brothers, that the humane human principle stronger than evil that the government that incites national hatred is committing a crime against humanity and mankind.

73). The problem of attitude towards the homeland. Emigration.(can a noble man forget his homeland if it betrayed his interests, and consider the country where he emigrated as his homeland?)

Many outstanding poets left Russia forcibly, but forever retained Love for it in their hearts. There is a lot of tragedy, bitterness, and despair in the poems of Russian emigrants.

So, for example, I. A. Bunin was so traumatized by his isolation from home that he was forced into silence for a while and colored what he wrote in pessimistic tones. The few poems created in exile are permeated with a feeling of loneliness, homelessness, and longing for the Motherland. Bunin's love for his homeland is higher than ideological political strife. Bunin, an emigrant, did not accept the new state, but today we have returned as a national treasure all the best that was created by the writer

It is indisputable that our compatriots - emigrants and exiles - at all the turning points of fate turned their faces to Russia. Despite all the hardships of exile, they remained faithful to their homeland to the end. This feeling of boundless fatherly love gave rise to many wonderful creations. This is “And it was recently, but it was a long time ago, And it might not even have happened...” A. Galich, I.A. Bunin “And flowers, and bumblebees, and grass, and ears of corn...”, poems by Tsvetaeva, Gippius, Balmont and many others. Those who are forced to leave, but have not lost their sense of the Motherland and have a feeling of Love for it, who keep a handful of its land all their lives, and who work voluntarily in the name of its interests - these are all people with a highly developed structure of the soul. Nostalgia - pain for what was lost - is a state that none of those who left their homeland could avoid. Let us remember, for example, F.I. Tyutchev, whose genius long years grew up far from his homeland. He was a brilliant European, never ceasing to be Russian