Education Committee of the city of Podolsk, Moscow region
Municipal educational institution "Secondary school No. 29"
ABSTRACT ON LITERATURE
(final examination)
Topic "Tragic and comic in Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog""
Prepared by a student of class 9 "A"
Orlova Evgeniya Alekseevna
Scientific supervisor: Borovaya Elena Valerievna
Teacher: Borovaya Elena Valerievna
Reviewer: Lifanova Lyudmila Ivanovna
Plan
I. Introduction: Tragic and comic as a way of expressing satire
II. Main part: Manifestation of the tragic and comic in the work
1) Professor Preobrazhensky and the collapse of his philosophy
2) Sharikov: satire or bitter truth?
3) About “Sharikovism” and “Shvonderism”
III. Conclusion: The fate of the story and its influence
M.A. Bulgakov is a satirist of the 20th century, and his life made him a satirist. Every image he created carries his love or hatred, admiration or bitterness, tenderness or regret. When you read a truly immortal work - “The Heart of a Dog” - you inevitably become infected with these feelings. With satire, he only “snarled” at all the bad things that arose and multiplied before his eyes, from which he had to fight off more than once himself, and which threatened the people and the country with tragedy. The writer could not stand violence against people, but in his time it was used more and more widely and was primarily directed at the breadwinner of the country - the peasant - and against the intelligentsia, whom he considered the best part of the people. Bulgakov saw the main misfortune of his “backward” country in lack of culture and ignorance. Both the first and the second, with the destruction of the intelligentsia, despite the “cultural revolution” and the elimination of illiteracy, did not decrease, but, on the contrary, penetrated both the state apparatus and those layers of society that, in all respects, should have constituted its intellectual environment. Realizing what tragedy all this could lead to, he rushed into battle to defend everything “reasonable, good, eternal” that the best minds of the Russian intelligentsia sowed in their time and that was discarded and trampled on in the name of the so-called class interests of the proletariat.
I was very interested in this work, so I set myself a goal: to more deeply explore the manifestation of the tragic and comic in it, and also to consider the intertwining of these two seemingly opposite categories. Therefore, before starting work, it is necessary to define them in order to consider their manifestation in the “Heart of a Dog” in its entirety. So:
The combination of the comic and the tragic in Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog" has one goal - to present in art the fullness of life, the diversity of its manifestations. The tragic and comic in the story do not exist in their pure form, but transforming one into the other, combining with each other, and the contrast that arises between them further enhances the facets of both. That is why the writer uses this technique in his works. The genre of satire in which the work is written involves showing in a funny way something that is not at all funny in reality. So let's get started.
Using the principles of “fantastic realism” and the grotesque, interfering with the reality of NEP Russia and original fiction, the writer creates a fascinating and ominous story. The theme of disharmony, brought to the point of absurdity thanks to human intervention in the eternal laws of nature, was revealed with brilliant skill and talent by Bulgakov in a story whose plot is unusual, it combines the comic and the tragic.
The main character of "Heart of a Dog" is Professor Preobrazhensky - a typical Moscow intellectual, surgeon, and highly cultured person. His assistant is Dr. Bormenthal. Preobrazhensky critically perceives everything that has been happening since March 1917:
“Why, when this whole story began, did everyone start walking in dirty galoshes and felt boots up the marble staircase?.. Why was the carpet removed from the main staircase?.. Why the hell did they remove the flowers from the landings?
Devastation, Philip Philipovich.
No,” Philip Philipovich objected quite confidently, “no.” You are the first, dear Ivan Arnoldovich, to refrain from using this very word. This is smoke, a mirage, a fiction. "..." What is this destruction of yours? Old woman with a stick? The witch who broke all the windows? Yes, it doesn't exist at all. What do you mean by this word? "..." This is this: if, instead of operating every evening, I start singing in chorus in my apartment, I will be in ruins. If, entering the restroom, I start, excuse the expression, urinating past the toilet and Daria Petrovna does the same, the restroom will be devastated. Consequently, the devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads. So, when these baritones shout “beat the destruction!” - I am laughing. I swear to you, I find it funny! That means they have to hit themselves in the back of the head!"
The professor's views have much in common with the author's views. They are both skeptical of the revolution and oppose terror and the proletariat. When Shvonder and his company come to the professor, he calls one of the patients and declares that he will not perform surgery on him, “stops the practice altogether and leaves for Batum forever,” because workers armed with revolvers came to him (and this is actually no) and force him to sleep in the kitchen and perform operations in the restroom. A certain Vitaly Vlasievich calms him down, promising to give him a “strong” piece of paper, after which no one will touch him. The professor is triumphant. The working delegation is left with its nose.
Buy then, comrade,” says the worker, “literature for the benefit of the poor of our faction.”
“I won’t buy it,” the professor answers.
Why? After all, it's inexpensive. Only 50 kopecks. Maybe you don’t have money?
No, I have money, but I just don’t want it.
So, does that mean you don’t like the proletariat?
Yes,” the professor admits, “I don’t like the proletariat.
A great many more examples could be given, examples of the fact that Bulgakov definitely hates and despises the entire Sovstroy, denies all its achievements. But there are few such professors, the overwhelming majority are Sharikovs and Shvonders. Isn't this a tragedy for Russia? According to the professor, people need to be taught basic culture in everyday life, at work, in relationships, then the devastation will disappear by itself, and there will be peace and order. Moreover, this should not be done through terror: “Nothing can be done with terror...” They are in vain to think that terror will help them. No, no, no, it won’t help, no matter what it is: white, red or even brown! Terror is absolutely paralyzes the nervous system." You need to act with affection, persuasion and your own example. Preobrazhensky recognizes that the only cure against devastation is to ensure order, when everyone can go about their business: “A policeman! This and only this! And it doesn’t matter at all whether he will be with a badge or in a red cap. Put a policeman next to each person and force this policeman to moderate vocal impulses of our citizens. I'll tell you... that nothing will change for the better in our house, or in any other house, until you pacify these singers. As soon as they stop their concerts, the situation will change by itself! the best!" But this philosophy of his suffers a tragic collapse, because even he himself cannot raise a reasonable person in Sharikov. What are the reasons for the failure of this brilliant experiment? Why didn’t Sharik develop further under the influence of two educated and cultured people? The point is not at all in genetics or physiology, but in the fact that Sharikov is a type of a certain environment. The creature's actions are determined by the dog's instincts and Klim's genes. The contrast between the intellectual beginnings of Preobrazhensky and Bormental and the instincts of Sharikov is so striking that it turns from comic to grotesque and colors the story in tragic tones.
And it all starts like this: Professor Preobrazhensky picks up a mongrel and conducts an experiment: he transplants a human pituitary gland into the dog. The result is unexpected, comic: the dog turns into a man. This gives the professor and his assistant, Dr. Bormenthal, a reason to dream of creating a new, highly developed personality. But from an ordinary mongrel dog an ignorant boor is formed, inheriting from the donor Klim Chugunkin not only the pituitary gland, but also an unattractive appearance, bad habits and a tendency towards alcoholism. The author shows how gradually, under the influence of the chairman of the house committee Shvonder, Poligraf Poligrafovich (as he wished to be called) makes more and more demands on Professor Preobrazhensky and becomes a threat to the entire house. And the comic gradually becomes tragic.
Here is a creature, still a dog, ready to lick the professor’s boots and exchange freedom for a piece of sausage. This animal is content with small, ordinary “happiness,” like many people in the early 20s, who began to get used to living in unheated apartments, eating rotten corned beef in the Councils of Normal Nutrition, receiving pennies and not being surprised by the lack of electricity. While the dog lies on the street and suffers from a burned side, he thinks. His statements “humanly” are rational, they have a certain logic: “A citizen appeared. It was a citizen, not a comrade, and even - most likely - a gentleman. - Closer - clearer - a gentleman. Do you think I judge by my coat? Nonsense. Nowadays, many of the proletarians wear coats. But by their eyes, you can’t confuse them both up close and from a distance... You can see everything - who has great dryness in their soul, who can poke the toe of a boot in the ribs for no reason, and who He's afraid of everyone." Having received help from the professor and settled in his apartment, the dog begins to grow in his own eyes: “I am handsome. Perhaps an unknown incognito canine prince.”... It is very possible that my grandmother sinned with the diver. I look - I have a white spot on my face. Where does it come from, I ask? Philip Philipovich, a man with great taste, will not take the first mongrel that comes his way.” But the psychology of this dog is dictated only by living conditions and its origin.
While still a dog, Sharik understood the tragedy of people, the decline of their morals: “I’m tired of my Matryona, I’ve suffered with flannel pants, now my time has come. I’m now the chairman, and no matter how much I steal - everything, everything on a woman’s body, on cancerous cervixes, on Abrau-Durso! Because I was hungry enough in my youth, that’s enough for me, but there is no afterlife!” The dog’s reasoning makes you smile, but it’s just grotesquery covered with a thin layer of comedy. And what are the professor’s patients worth? Take the old man who boasted about his love affairs or this:
" - I'm too famous in Moscow, professor! What should I do now? - Gentlemen! - Philip Philipovich shouted indignantly, - you can't do this! You need to restrain yourself. How old is she? - Fourteen, professor... You understand, publicity will ruin me . One of these days I should get a business trip abroad. - But I’m not a lawyer, my dear... Well, wait two years and marry her - I’m married, professor!
And so “the master’s dog, an intelligent creature,” as Sharik called himself, who closed his eyes in shame in the professor’s office, one terrible day turns not into a developed personality, as Dr. Bormental assumed, but into a cattle, a boor and a regular at Klim Chugunkin’s taverns. The first words this creature speaks are vulgar swearing, the vocabulary of the lower strata of society. He is unattractive in appearance, dressed tastelessly, and is pristinely pure in relation to any culture. Sharik, at all costs, wants to become a popular person, but does not understand that this requires a long path of development, it requires work, work on oneself, and mastering knowledge. But there are countless such Sharikovs throughout Russia, and this misunderstanding leads to tragedy not only in the story, but also in reality. Attempts to instill basic manners in Sharik evoke staunch resistance in him: “Everything is like at a parade, a napkin is here, a tie is here, and “please, merci,” but in a real way, no. You’re torturing yourself, like under the tsarist regime." The author follows how, under the influence of the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder, and as the creature’s self-esteem grows, his demands also grow. The chairman of the house committee does not burden this child of the experiment with any culture, and hammers home an extremely attractive program. Shvonder does not realize that this program: whoever was nothing will become everything can play a cruel joke not only on the intelligentsia, but also on the Shvonders themselves, if anyone decides to direct it against them. The writer predicted purges among the communists, when the more successful Shvonders drowned the less successful ones. Tragedy! The way Sharikov becomes a participant in the revolutionary process, how he ideally approaches it, perceives its ideas, in 1925 looked like the worst satire on the process and its participants. Two weeks after he turned into a person, he has a document proving his identity, although in fact he is not a person, which is what the professor expresses: “So he said? ...” This does not mean being human." Another week later - Sharikov is already a minor official, but his nature remains the same as it was - dog-criminal. Just look at his message about his work: “Yesterday cats were strangled and strangled.” But what kind of satire is this if thousands of people like Sharikov, a few years later, also “strangled and strangled” not cats - people, workers who had not done anything wrong before the revolution?
Polygraph Poligraphych becomes a threat to the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment, and to the whole society as a whole. He, citing his proletarian origin, demands from the professor documents, living space, freedom, and in response to fair comments he snaps: “Somehow, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me.” In his speech, the terminology of the ruling class appears: “In our time, everyone has his own right,” “I am not a master, everyone is a gentleman in Paris.” Moreover, the last phrase is especially frightening, since it is no longer a repetition of what Shvonder said, but Sharikov’s own thought. Bulgakov's story the heart of a dog ball
On the advice of Shvonder, Poligraf Poligrafovich is trying to master the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky and adds his own very comical line to it, following the principle of universal egalitarianism, which he learned from what he read: “Take everything and divide it.” Of course, this sounds funny, which is what the professor notes: “And you, in the presence of two people with a university education, allow yourself “…” to give some kind of advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity about how to divide everything...”; but isn’t that what the leadership of the young republic did, equating the benefits of honest peasants who worked hard and lazy people like Chugunkin? What awaits Russia with such Sharikovs, Chugunkins and Shvonders? Bulgakov was one of the first who realized that it would come to a tragic ending. This is the tragicomic nature of Bulgakov: to make the reader laugh and cry at the peak of laughter. It should also be noted that “Sharikovism” is obtained only as a result of “Shvonder” education. And there are more and more Shvonders every day...
Poligraf Poligrafych brings suspicious individuals to the living space allocated to him in the professor’s apartment. The patience of the apartment's inhabitants is running out, and Polygraph, sensing a threat, becomes dangerous. He disappears from the apartment, and then appears in it in a different form: “He was wearing a leather jacket from someone else’s shoulder, worn leather trousers and English high lace-up boots to the knees.” Now he is the head of the department for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals (cats, etc.) in the MKH department. Having felt the taste of power, Polygraph uses it roughly. He brings his bride to the house, and after the professor explains to her the essence of the Polygraph and the unfortunate lady leaves, he threatens to take revenge on her: “Okay, you’ll remember from me. Tomorrow I’ll make you redundant.” Bulgakov raises the question point blank no longer about whether there will be a tragic ending or not, but asks about the size of the tragedy to which Russia will be subjected.
Further - worse. Inspired by Shvonder, the offended Sharikov writes a denunciation against his creator: “... threatening to kill the chairman of the house committee, Comrade Shvonder, from which it is clear that he keeps firearms. And he makes counter-revolutionary speeches, and even ordered Engels “...” to be burned in the stove, like an obvious Menshevik...” .
“The crime matured and fell like a stone, as it usually happens...” Sharikov himself invited his death.” He responded to Philip Philipovich’s request to leave the apartment with a decisive refusal and pointed a revolver at Dr. Bormental. Having undergone a reverse operation, Sharik does not remember anything and keeps thinking that he was “so lucky, simply indescribably lucky.” And Bulgakov brightens up the tragic ending with a comic note.
In the foreground is the experiment of a brilliant scientist, a fascinating plot. Before the professor's eyes, a sweet but cunning, slightly sycophantic dog turns into a man. And the biological experiment becomes a moral and psychological experiment. A story about an old school professor who made a great discovery. In the depths of incredibly funny stories, there is hidden tragedy, sad reflections on human shortcomings and the instincts that sometimes guide them, on the responsibility of a scientist and on the terrible power of complacent ignorance. Themes are eternal, relevant, and have not lost their meaning today.
Bulgakov's intelligent and humane satire does not cross boundaries, because one cannot thoughtlessly mock and laugh at human misfortunes, even if the person himself is to blame for them. The personality is destroyed, crushed, all its centuries-old achievements - culture, faith - are destroyed and prohibited. A tragedy of the people, a tragedy of morals. Sharikovs themselves are not born.
Bulgakov's works are a rich school of skill, humor, satire, and grotesque. His influence is easy to detect in the writings of many authors. Each of his works is a fascinating read, enriching and ennobling. To some extent, they are also a prediction. The all-seeing writer saw a lot.
The book itself was banned for a long time and was first published many years after the writer’s death. Bulgakov’s contemporary writer V. Veresaev said: “But censorship is cutting him down mercilessly. Recently they killed the wonderful work “The Heart of a Dog,” and he is completely losing heart. And he lives almost beggarly...” But Bulgakov’s “Heart of a Dog”, for all its depth and the power of artistic criticism was not a destructive denial and ridicule of everything new, although sometimes they were interpreted as such. This satire ingeniously fought the forces of destruction, disunity and evil, highlighted and burned out the ugliness of social life and the “new” human psychology, affirming and consolidating old values: culture, honesty, dignity. The tragedy is that censorship did not allow the story to appear, thereby preventing people from thinking about creating a new life. And they went with the flow, that is, they went down, because the necessary thoughts were not put into their heads by a wise writer (or predictor?).
The story of Sharik, despite all the prohibitions, lived in the shabby bindings of samizdat for about 60 years, exerting a hidden influence on people and literature. Now the story has become the property of cinema, theater and television, which only confirms its permanence and relevance. Only at first glance the play seems comical. Two opposing categories intertwine and dissolve into one another in order to present the fullness of life and feelings in the work, to make the reader realize the realism of the work, because in life nothing happens in its pure form - neither good, nor evil, nor comic, nor tragic. Bulgakov masterfully weaves fantasy into real life, makes it almost real - he combines two more opposites for the same purposes.
Pushkin said: “Where the sword of the law does not reach, the scourge of satire reaches there.” In the story, the scourge of satire penetrated deeply into the real life of the 1920s, and it was helped in this by fiction, showing people from an unexpected side.
List of uses literature
1) Bulgakov M. A. “Novels” // Contemporary // 1988 //
2) Fusso S. B. “Heart of a Dog” On the failures of transformation // “Literary Review” // 1991
3) Shargorodsky S.V. “The Heart of a Dog, or a Monstrous Story” // “Literary Review” // 1991
4) Sokolov B.V. “Bulgakov Encyclopedia” // Lokid // 1996
5) Ioffe S. A. “The Secret Writing in the Heart of a Dog” // New Journal // 1987
6) Internet resources
Similar documents
Basic concepts of linguistic socionics. Linguistic and socionic portraits of the heroes of the story by M.A. Bulgakov: professors Preobrazhensky, Sharik-Sharikov. Speech and author characteristics, description of character personality types. Intertype relationships of the characters in the story.
abstract, added 07/27/2010
The story “Heart of a Dog” is among the satirical works of M. A. Bulgakov. A persistent portrayal of the Russian intelligentsia as the best layer in our country. The experiment of Professor Preobrazhensky and the social experiment of the early 20th century in this story.
abstract, added 01/13/2011
The artistic world of the story "Heart of a Dog" by M.A. Bulgakov: analysis of critical literature. The theme of food as a reflection of the life and morals of Moscow residents in the 20s of the last century in the story “The Heart of a Dog.” Glossary of names of dishes consumed at the beginning of the 20th century.
abstract, added 11/27/2014
Problem-thematic analysis of Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog", a study of critical literature on this topic. The theme of the tragedy of the Russian people in the author’s work. Representation and significance of the theme of the experiment in the work "Heart of a Dog".
course work, added 06/06/2011
Studying epic works at school. Specificity of the epic. Features of studying the story. Introductory lesson and reading of the work. Analysis of the story "Heart of a Dog". Working with literary concepts: humor, satire, pamphlet, fantasy.
course work, added 11/21/2006
Social "metaphors" of the story: revolution and evolution. Reflection of time in the artistic outline of the story. Bulgakov's social skepticism: “dialogue” with Mayakovsky. Nihilism of revolution: "transformation" by destruction. Creation of the "new man": Homo Soveticus.
thesis, added 06/24/2015
Familiarization with the biography of M.A. Bulgakov. Consideration of the influence of family on the future writer; the authority of knowledge and contempt for ignorance. Work in a hospital, medical experience. Analysis of the story "Heart of a Dog", the novels "The White Guard", "The Master and Margarita".
presentation, added 06/03/2015
The plot of the main action, the characteristics of the main characters in Bulgakov’s historical novel “The White Guard”. Philosophical issues of the story "Heart of a Dog", artistic composition and biblical plot in the novel "The Master and Margarita".
abstract, added 06/23/2010
Fantasy as a genre of fiction. Types and techniques of creating the fantastic. Comparative analysis of the works of M.A. Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog", "Diaboliad" and E.T.A. Goffman, S.M. Shelley "Frankenstein" Elements of fantasy in these works.
course work, added 10/22/2012
The essence of fantasy as a genre of fiction. Techniques and ways of creating the fantastic in a text. Elements of fiction using examples from the works of E.T.A. Hoffman, G. Wells, Mary Shelley "Frankenstein", M.A. Bulgakov's "Diaboliad" and "Heart of a Dog".
Description
M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is one of the author’s brightest works. There is a lot of controversy around the novel: some believe that Bulgakov ridicules religion and faith in God with the novel, but this version can be immediately forgotten - it is incorrect. This can be seen from Bulgakov's statements about faith and God. He was a very religious person, and even the family he was born into does not give a chance for this version to exist: his father was a priest, and, definitely, young Mikhail would receive his upbringing in accordance with the spiritual education of his father.
The work consists of 1 file
Tragic and comic in M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”
M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is one of the author’s brightest works. There is a lot of controversy around the novel: some believe that Bulgakov ridicules religion and faith in God with the novel, but this version can be immediately forgotten - it is incorrect. This can be seen from Bulgakov's statements about faith and God. He was a very religious person, and even the family he was born into does not give a chance for this version to exist: his father was a priest, and, definitely, young Mikhail would receive his upbringing in accordance with the spiritual education of his father. Others believe that the author ridicules Soviet society and power with the novel. The authorities claimed that society was growing morally and spiritually... But how could society rise to the top morally and spiritually when the state denied the existence of God and forbade people from visiting churches, and repression awaited those who continued to go to church? The answer to this question is simple: in no way, without communication with God, people morally drowned in sins. This is exactly what the author is trying to show. The entire novel is imbued with moments of subtle or outright humor, through which Bulgakov ridicules Soviet society. But this does not mean that the author believes that people began to drown in sin right now. No, from Woland’s words: “Have people changed in Soviet Moscow?” - you can understand that he has been here before. And from the work it is clear that people have not changed, therefore, in my opinion, the main goal of the author is to ridicule human vices. And the time of what is happening was chosen as such for several reasons: the first is the denial of God, the second is that this time is most familiar to the author and possible readers.
I have already mentioned Woland. So who is he? Woland is the devil who came to Moscow, how much the people in the city have changed during that period of time while he was not here. He was skilled in magic and sorcery. It is with his name that all the humorous moments in the novel are connected. The most comic moment, I would say that this is the very peak of the novel, is the moment of Woland’s performance in the Variety Show.
The audience likes the experiments Woland’s retinue conducts on them. Money flying from above instantly sent the audience into a frenzy:
“Hundreds of hands rose, the audience looked through the pieces of paper at the illuminated stage and saw the most faithful and righteous watermarks. The smell also left no doubt: it was the incomparable smell of freshly printed money.”
When the entertainer Georges Bengalsky proposes to expose the trick and remove these pieces of paper, the audience indignantly demands to tear off his head, which was done at the same moment. The hall is shocked. Only after some time did the audience begin to come to their senses:
“For God’s sake, don’t torture him! – suddenly, covering the din, a woman’s voice sounded from the box.
Forgive, forgive! “At first, separate and predominantly female goals were heard, and then they merged into one chorus with the male ones.”
Watching what is happening, Woland wearily says:
“ - Well, they are people like people. They love money, but this has always been the case... Man loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether leather, paper, bronze or gold. Well, they are frivolous... well, well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... In general, they resemble the old ones... the housing problem only spoiled them... - and loudly ordered: “Put on your head.”
In this phrase of Woland we see hidden humor: people are like people, but here’s the housing problem! This is how people were spoiled by the housing issue.
The session continues. All this time, Sempliarov and his wife are watching what is happening from the balcony. He tried in every possible way to ridicule Woland and did not believe that everything that was happening was magic. He tried to understand how Woland does this. And everything would have continued like this if Woland had not turned his attention to him. Woland turned not to him, but to his wife, and told her a charming story about how the young ballerina became so famous and what business trips her husband went on. She was furious and immediately began a showdown with her husband. The whole hall watched what was happening with a smile and a grin. This is another humorous moment of the novel, it shows that no matter how you disguise yourself, no matter how you hide, punishment will befall you.
Then the next trick was shown. A passage appeared in the wall of the Variety and not just anywhere, but to a chic French boutique, where ladies were invited to change the clothes they were currently wearing for completely new ones. The ladies were afraid, no one dared to take the first step. But then there was one who was not afraid, she went into the boutique and a few minutes later came out in completely new clothes. The ladies were delighted, one after another they ran for new clothes. A stampede began, women grabbed everything. But now they have returned to their places. Woland decided that enough was enough and the session was completed.
The boutique trick is another comic moment in the novel. "What's so funny?" - you ask. Yes, there was nothing in the focus itself, but after the women left the Variety Show, all their clothes disappeared, and they were completely naked, or in only their pantaloons, and found themselves on the street.
Yes, there is a lot of comedy in the novel, but it is comic and tragic at the same time. Moreover, the tragedy is not because we feel sorry for the women or the entertainers, but the tragedy is that all the people were taken in by Woland’s tricks. They weren’t just acting out, but they turned into some kind of non-humans, ready to strangle their seatmate for a few rubles or for a new dress. In my opinion, this is the tragic thing that Bulgakov wanted to show us with his novel. It’s funny to us how Woland punished people, but let’s remember why he punished them. All punishments were for those sins that had long consumed Soviet society. This is the whole tragedy of what is happening.
The tragic and the comic are side by side in the novel, even more than that, they are in the same event, the main thing is to look at it from different sides. In my opinion, this is correct. The author shows how funny we become at people’s misdeeds, although we should burst into tears. We can recognize ourselves in those who are punished. Bulgakov shows that you should not laugh when you need to cry, because responsibility for sins will befall everyone.
We need to look for the core, the deepest
the center of humanity in man.
M. Bulgakov
M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is not only a philosophical and fantastic work, but also a satirical one. However, is the writer a pure satirist? Probably not. Most likely, the comic, like the fantastic, is only a means that allows Bulgakov to more accurately and completely convey his thoughts, his vision of the world, in which there is much more tragic than funny.
Bulgakov’s satire is laughter through tears at modern reality, and this is clearly visible in the novel “The Master and Margarita.” Bulgakov is an amazing writer. Only he was able to make the main “sower” of the funny thing in the work the very ruler of darkness, Satan, appearing in the guise of Woland. It is Woland and his cheerful retinue who help us see the society of Moscow in the 30s of the 20th century in a funny (and in fact, terribly unsightly) way.
Here's a scene from a variety show. Woland organizes an attraction of unprecedented generosity - the fulfillment of desires, although in fact this is a test of the human race, which people cannot cope with. Was there at least one good, sublime desire expressed at this spectacular performance, aimed at the benefit not only for oneself, but also for someone else? No, people wanted money, luxury, material values - who thought about the soul? Greed, dishonesty, depravity, wild selfishness hidden in human nature finally received an unhindered outlet. Is this funny? More like scary. And not as funny as it seems at first glance, the scene of Woland punishing people for their vices, when the coveted “chervonets” melted into the air, rich outfits disappeared. “Hypnotist,” the offended or embarrassed Muscovites shouted with anger, not wanting to understand that it was not someone who had deceived them, but that they were constantly deceiving themselves.
And the incident with the official, in whose place his suit began to perform official duties, and, by the way, coped well - few people noticed the substitution. To what extent should bureaucratism take root if the person himself in the workplace turned out to be simply unnecessary?! Material from the site
Thus, by presenting the characters in the novel in a funny position, Bulgakov does not just laugh, but helps us see many human and social vices and negative aspects of life. This is a kind of mirror that allows you to look at yourself from the outside and evaluate what you see. But are people ready for this today, more than seventy years after the events taking place in the novel? Probably, if Woland returned to earth, he would be able to say the same about many of us: “... people are like people. They love money, but that's always been the case. Well, they are light-minded... well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... in general, they resemble the old ones...”
Comic and tragic in the works of M.A. Bulgakov(using the example of the story “Heart of a Dog” and the novel “The Master and Margarita”)
The Russian line of literary satire, to which can be counted in the 19th century N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A.P. Chekhov, in the 20th century A. Averchenko, M. Zoshchenko, V. Voinovich and others, characterized by a large-scale understanding of the essence of human existence. Writers in this category, using techniques that would otherwise make the reader laugh, depict the tragedy of life they themselves feel.
M. Bulgakov is not a satirist in its purest form. The genre of satire, in which “Heart of a Dog” is written, involves showing in a funny way something that is not at all funny in reality. This fantastic work, which depicted what was happening in Russia after the 1917 revolution as an omen of the approaching Apocalypse, turned out to be so topical that it was published only decades after the death of the author.
The comic is an essential element of even Bulgakov’s far from funny works, such as the play “Running” and the novel “The Master and Margarita,” which gives the opportunity to the author, who allowed the reader to laugh, to make him cry at the peak of laughter. The comic in these works is only a very thin upper layer, barely covering the tragedy bursting out. “Heart of a Dog” is a very typical book in this regard.
In the story, the ratio of funny and tragic is very uneven, since a small part of the external, event line belongs to the former. All other faces have second priority.
The fate of the house in Obukhov Lane correlates with the fate of Russia. “The house is gone,” says Professor Preobrazhensky after moving into his house I tenants. Bulgakov (and \. spoke) about Russia after the Bolsheviks seized power. Ridiculous looking, ill-mannered and practically unfamiliar with the culture men and women who do not look like women may seem funny to the reader at first. But it is they who turn out to be aliens from the kingdom of Darkness, bringing discomfort into the life of not only the professor; It is they, led by Shvonder, who “educate” Sharikov in Sharik and recommend him for public service.
The confrontation between Preobrazhensky and Shvonder can be viewed not only as a relationship between an intellectual and the new government. The main thing is that culture and anti-culture, spirituality and anti-spirituality collide, and the bloodless (for now) duel between them is not resolved in favor of the first; in the struggle of Light and Darkness there is no life-affirming ending.
There is nothing funny in the image of the newly created man Sharikov (except, perhaps, for a shade of this funny in Sharik’s pompous and self-aggrandizing internal monologues), because only those who are marked by it can laugh at spiritual and physical ugliness. This is a repulsively unsympathetic image, but Sharikov himself is not a bearer of evil. Only when he finds himself on the field of that very battle of Darkness and Light for his soul does he eventually become the mouthpiece of the ideas of Shvonder the Bolsheviks of Satan.
A similar theme is present in The Master and Margarita, where the Lord of Darkness himself appears on the stage, wearing no mask for the reader. But hidden behind many of them for the heroes of the novel, he and his servants put many in a funny position, allowing others (including the reader) to observe all human and social vices (performance in Variety and other situations). Only in the case of Ivan Bezdomny do absurd and terrible incidents help to cleanse the poet’s inner world of the superficial and enable him to get closer to comprehending the true.
Thus, we see that the combination of the comic and tragic in Bulgakov’s works, while remaining in the stream of Russian literary satire, has an important feature for their understanding: the mixture of funny and sad in terms of events (even not for a very experienced and attentive reader) shows the deepest tragedy, comprehended on an internal level.
Satire is a favorite technique of Russian writers. Works created by Gogol, Saltykov-Shchedrin, and Chekhov are considered textbook satirical. These writers were concerned with the problems of power, the people, the intelligentsia, the little man in the big world. The same problems are touched upon by M. A. Bulgakov in his story “The Heart of a Dog.”
Bulgakov is a wonderful writer. He is not just a talented satirist, but also a deep philosopher and subtle mystic. Bulgakov lived during a difficult turning point for Russia. The author embodied everything he saw and realized in his works. But the tragic is much more realized if it is conveyed through comic remarks and situations. This is why Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” is so deeply satirical.
“Heart of a Dog” became Bulgakov’s response to the cultural and socio-historical situation in Soviet Russia in the first half of the 20s. The scientific experiment depicted in the story is a picture of the proletarian revolution and its results. And the results were not long in coming. Using the example of the Kalabukhov House, Bulgakov showed changes throughout the country. The author’s bewilderment sounds very precise and bitter: “But I ask: why, when this whole story began, did everyone start walking in dirty galoshes and felt boots along the marble stairs? Why do galoshes still need to be locked? And also to assign a soldier to them so that someone doesn’t steal them? Why was the carpet removed from the main staircase? Professor Preobrazhensky prophetically exclaims: “Kalabukhov’s house has disappeared,” and with it all of Russia. Of course, these are the thoughts of Bulgakov himself.
“Heart of a Dog” compares different layers of society: the intelligentsia, personified by the author of the experiment, Professor Preobrazhensky, and the “new” people born of the revolution, whose representative is Polygraph Sharikov. Dr. Bormenthal calls Professor Preobrazhensky, whose scalpel “brought into life a new human unit,” a creator; this word has not only a specific everyday meaning, but also a general cultural one.
What is Sharikov’s rebirth if not a transformation of the social system, in which everyone who was “nobody,” the social lower classes, became “everyone”? The plot of this dystopia reflects the general mood of the era of unrest, repression, and the dominance of dull animal force over common sense. Sharikov is a kind of anti-hero, personifying an anti-reasonable society that does not have strong moral values, which has abandoned the experience of generations, traditions, and historical wisdom.
It should be noted that “Sharikovism” is the result of “Shvonder” upbringing. The professor was Sharikov’s first teacher of humanity. After all, learning to speak does not mean becoming human! He wanted to overcome the original bestial essence of his creation, to make him a highly developed personality. Professor Preobrazhensky, the embodiment of education and high culture, becomes the spokesman for the author's thoughts in the story. By conviction, he is a supporter of the old pre-revolutionary order. All his sympathies are on the side of the previous regime, under which “there was order” and he lived “comfortably and well.” The scientist speaks very definitely about the coming “devastation”, about the inability of the proletarians to cope with it. In his opinion, first of all, people need to be taught elementary culture, only then the devastation will disappear and there will be order. But this philosophy of Preobrazhensky fails. He cannot raise a reasonable person in Sharikov: “I have been more exhausted in these two weeks than in the last fourteen years. . . ”
Shvonder saw in Sharikov only a cell of Soviet society, a “tenant” of his big “House,” and his goal was to make Sharikov not a person, but a “proletarian.” And Shvonder triumphed, because it turned out that it was easier to become a proletarian than a human being, and the image of the “proletariat” drawn by Bulgakov turns out to be frankly negative.
We see the results of such Shvonderian upbringing in the behavior of a half-human who has not yet formed. One of the first words that he clearly uttered was the definition - “bourgeois”. This derogatory address applied to those who “did not love the proletariat”, and therefore were not one. Shvonder plays an important role in the development of Sharikov’s character. His influence cannot be ignored: this creature, in a conversation with Preobrazhensky, literally repeats Shvonder’s words and phrases not only about rights, but also about his superiority over the bourgeoisie: “We did not study at universities, we did not live in apartments of 15 rooms with baths. . . "The episode at dinner is incredibly eloquent when the following conversation takes place between the professor and Sharikov:
“What are you reading?
- This... what's her name... correspondence between Engels and this... what's his name - the devil - with Kautsky.
………………………………………………. .
- Let me know what you can say about what you read? ... What could you offer for your part?
- What is there to offer?... And then they write, write... Congress, some Germans... My head is swelling. Take everything and share..."
This is a clear result of Shvonder’s upbringing! A creature standing at the lowest level of development, according to Professor Preobrazhensky, still just forming, weak mentally, “whose actions are purely bestial,” “allows himself, with a swagger that is completely unbearable, to give some kind of advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity about how to divide everything”! Isn’t this exactly what the proletariat was doing, thoughtlessly taking what belonged to others, destroying it to the ground, and stupidly dividing it? .
