Essay on the topic: what is “Sharikovism.” Sharikovism is a social phenomenon

The story of M. A. Bulgakov “ dog's heart" written in 1925. By this time, the consequences of the October Revolution - a social experiment on a nationwide scale - had already become completely clear. It is from this point of view that the results of Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment - Sharikov and “Sharikovism” - are considered in the story.

By origin, Sharikov, on the one hand, is a stray dog, on the other hand, a dissolute drunkard, and combines many of their traits. Sharikov's main feeling is hatred of everyone who offended him.

It is characteristic that this feeling somehow immediately turns out to be close to the class hatred of the proletariat for the bourgeoisie (Sharikov reads the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky), the hatred of the poor for the rich (distribution of living space by the house committee), the hatred of the uneducated for the intelligentsia. It turns out that all new world built on hatred of the old. But it doesn’t take much to hate. Sharikov, whose first word was the name of the store where he was scalded with boiling water, very quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to the servants, and turns his ignorance into a weapon against education. He even has a spiritual mentor - the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder.

Shvonder needs Sharikov, because Shvonder inside is exactly the same as Sharikov. He has the same hatred and fear of power, the same stupidity. After all, it is he who contributes to Sharikov’s promotion - he becomes authorized to exterminate stray dogs and cats. Well, cats are understandable - a relic of the past. But why dogs? And here the moral basis of “Sharikovism” manifests itself - ingratitude and the destruction of one’s own kind in order to prove one’s difference from them, to assert oneself. The desire to rise at the expense of others, and not at the cost of one’s own efforts, is characteristic of representatives of the so-called new world. Shvonder, who inspires Sharikov to perform feats (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky’s apartment), simply does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.

When Sharikov was a dog, one could feel sympathy for him. Completely undeserved hardships and injustices accompanied his life. Maybe they give Sharikov and others like him the right to take revenge? Maybe they are fighting for justice? But the fact of the matter is that Sharikov and the Sharikovs think only about themselves. Justice in their understanding is to use the benefits that others previously enjoyed. There is no question at all about creating something for others. Professor Preobrazhensky speaks about this: “Devastation is in our heads.” People have stopped doing business, and are busy fighting, snatching a piece. Why, after the revolution, do you need to walk on carpets in galoshes and steal hats from front doors? People themselves create destruction and “Sharikovism”. This is social basis“Sharikovism”: slaves who came to power, but completely retained the slave psychology. On the one hand, this is obedience and servility towards superiors, on the other hand, servile cruelty towards people dependent on them or people like them.

In M. Bulgakov's story, Professor Preobrazhensky himself corrects his mistake. This is much more difficult to do in life. The cute dog Sharik does not remember that he was the authorized Sharikov and destroyed stray dogs. Real Sharikovs don’t forget this. Therefore, social experiments that result in “Sharikovism” are very dangerous.

WHAT IS “SHARIKOVSHCHINA”

“At present, everyone has their own right,” Sharikov says to Professor Preobrazhensky, and behind the harmlessness of the phrase lies the very essence of “Sharikovism.” After all, in fact, this phenomenon is by no means new, it has always been and, unfortunately, its eradication is not expected. But what is “Sharikovism”? Before answering this question, we need to follow the character of “Heart of a Dog” who received the dubious honor of giving his name to a problem as ancient as the world. So, before us is Sharikov Poligraf Poligrafovich, a man obtained by transplanting the seminal glands and pituitary gland of the murdered Klim Chugunkin into a stray dog. That is, in fact, two personalities in one. The first half of the character is Sharik, or rather a homeless dog, who was named so by the “typist of the IX category” Vasnetsova. In essence, there are no special vices to be found in him, but there are enough reasons for pity and sympathy: a burned side, the threat of starvation, naive dreams of summer, sausage skins and special medicinal herbs. And how touching are the thoughts of a dog in front of the mirror when, already fed and cured, he looks for the features of a purebred aristocratic dog in his mongrel appearance. “I am handsome. Perhaps an unknown incognito prince,” he thinks, and, reading these lines, it is absolutely impossible not to smile. But not because it’s funny, but because it’s so reminiscent of the fun of a child who imagines himself as a driver and enthusiastically “steers” a train from a pair of stools. Sharik is a creature who knows how to sincerely feel sorry (for the same typist Vasnetsova), who can be devoted and experience true gratitude. And even if this gratitude looks servile, it is there, it is not hypocritical - where does hypocrisy come from next to the bitter lot of a tramp? And the shortcomings that are also present in the future person are completely forgivable for a dog on the street. A dislike for cats, excessive curiosity, which resulted in a torn stuffed owl, a certain amount of cunning and impudence - all this is harmless. Moreover, without these qualities (except for hatred of cats) stray dog not survive. He must be able to sniff out something edible in the garbage, and steal a tasty morsel from a gaping person, and stand up for himself in competition with other stray dogs. Here, after all, the law of the jungle works in full force: it is not for nothing that Sharik prophesied his inevitable death because of his burned side. A very clear evidence of Sharik’s kindness is the phrase that flashed through his thoughts, in the thoughts of a deathly frightened dog, confident in his doom, when he was stunned with chloroform to heal his wounded side. “Brother flayers, why are you taking me?” - there is only resentment here and nothing more. Sharik even calls the flayers, the fierce enemies of stray animals, “brothers.” But the second half of Professor Preobrazhensky’s brainchild is, in some way, the same devil who stands behind the left shoulder of every person. During his lifetime, Klim Grigoryevich Chugunkin had two convictions for theft, was sentenced to hard labor on probation, abused alcohol and made a living playing the balalaika in taverns. He also died in a very typical way - from a stab wound. Especially for people like Chugunkin, there is a definition of “declassed element”. We can safely say that the unfortunate experimental dog was very unlucky with an organ donor for transplantation. Sharik, who can safely be compared to a child, has received a criminal, a playmaker and a thief as a neighbor in his body. In addition, he is also a scoundrel, completely devoid of any sense of gratitude to the one who actually resurrected his worthless essence, who gave him a chance to live a little longer in this world. Although, if you take a closer look, it becomes clear that gratitude cannot come from anywhere. Judge for yourself - what did he see in his life, this same Klim Chugunkin? - Tavern ragamuffins, prowling girls, drunken brawls - the usual and terrible in their ordinariness dirt of the city bottom. This is a swamp that does not let go of an accidentally fallen victim from its sticky embrace, but for the original inhabitants it is no less familiar than a cozy apartment is for a person, and a nest in a high tree is for a bird. The disgusting and ugly creatures of this swamp swarm in the rotten mud, devour each other and do not even try to find a better fate for themselves. But at the same time, they see those who live differently. Urban lumpen, tavern-groomed, bosota - their whole life passes from drinking to heavy sleep, from hangover to odd jobs, then back to drinking. Sometimes the vicious circle expands with theft, robbery, robbery (additional livelihood), a fight, a fleeting romance with a shabby girl of unknown freshness. And with this, the habitat of thousands of Klimov Chugunkins closes, like a magic circle, not letting anyone or anything inside. But he doesn’t hide the rest of the world. Expensive shops, lovely young ladies, sparkling cars (a rare and expensive dream come true), apartments with many rooms - these are just a small part of the reasons for fierce, black envy. And black envy is incapable of generating good feelings even for the one who pulled you out from the brink of death. And again in the text we find a description of Chugunkin’s soul, sketched out in a few very apt words: “two criminal records, alcoholism, “divide everything,” a hat and two ducats were missing.” Sharing someone else’s property is also their special skill that has reached the level of art. And also an argument to justify your own insignificance: why bend your back for years, if you can right now demand your share from someone who is richer. Motive? Yes, because all people should be equal. Oh, the lumpen especially strongly supported this slogan of the revolution - it gave them a sense of their own importance, justified their thirst for someone else's, free goods. “Why are we worse?!” - the Klim Chugunkins were surprised - and reveled in the opportunity to sleep on feather beds, eat silverware from expensive china, wear patent leather shoes and sculpt partitions in apartments that once belonged to the rich. However, let's return to Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. For all his vileness, this character deserves close consideration. There is no need to justify him in any way - he didn’t deserve it, but it should be understood, because otherwise the “Sharikovism” will not be known in all its abomination, which means we will not receive the proper immunity to it. Klim Chugunkin becomes a distorting mirror, disfiguring all the features that Poligraf Poligrafovich inherited from the dog. Even the typist Vasnetsova, whom Sharik felt so sorry for at the beginning of the story, at the end becomes a victim of the newly-minted “head of the department for cleaning the city of Moscow from stray animals.” Although the “cunning” Sharikov is trying to hide his fraud behind his desire for good for the unfortunate woman. It’s good, at least it didn’t come down to declarations of love, otherwise the vile trace of the half-human trapper would have remained here, stinking no less strongly than himself. By the way, what a terrible flesh the eternal hostility of cats and dogs has taken on! Previously, a dog could chase a meowing victim, drive it up a tree, and bark. But it is unlikely that he could cause real harm to the cat. After all, she also has teeth and claws and is capable of perfectly standing up for herself, defending herself from anyone, provided that this “someone” walks on four legs. Neither tooth nor claw can save you from a person; Even fast paws are against him - very bad remedy . He is more cunning, he is armed, he is ruthless even without the heart of a dog, and with him... “they will go to the Polts, we will turn them into squirrels for work credit.” I wonder what if it came to hunting stray dogs? However, the resourceful ingenuity of the balalaika player Chugunkin would probably have told Sharikov how to maintain a “clear conscience” here too. And cats - why stand on ceremony with them? Especially if you were a dog in the past. In general, not in the past. The human form became just a screen for the animal essence of Poligraf Poligrafovich. No wonder fleas tormented him even when the transformation was complete. They, primitive, guided only by the simplest instincts, cannot be confused. All the time, starting from that blizzard evening when the stray dog first crossed the threshold of the professor’s apartment, and right up to the last paragraph of the story, the animal lived under the same roof with the surgical genius Philip Philipovich. Only his character changed from good to terrible. From his homeless life, Sharik-Sharikov retained his cowardice, combined with a readiness to bite at the right opportunity. When Dr. Bormenthal took the impudent man by the throat, he tucked his tail between his legs and whined. But there were also anonymous letters with absurd accusations, and threats with a revolver, and an instant change in behavior - as soon as Polygraph Poligrafovich acquired documents. This is also not surprising - which of the powerless stray dogs would miss an opportunity to take revenge on the offender? Figuratively speaking, documents are the same fangs, only prepared and sharpened specifically for a person, making it possible to tear him to pieces without being found guilty and not going to jail. People also have laws that are not very different from animals. Only if the law of the jungle does not recognize allies, then human law welcomes them and even partially gives birth to them. Sharikov's main ally is the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder. And since we are not considering Sharikov, but “Sharikovism,” we should study him as if under a magnifying glass, for Shvonder generates “Sharikovism” no worse than Poligraf Poligrafovich himself. Firstly, Shvonder has no name. Only a last name, and even then it’s more like a nickname, and at the same time like the biting and unpleasant word “trash.” You can’t think of a better illustration for the saying “from rags to riches.” He, too, underwent a transformation, rising from a galosh thief to the chairman of a housing association. What is typical - give him free rein - he will continue to steal galoshes even now. Shvonder is a typical creation of his time. While absolutely useless as a productive unit, it is very much in its place where it is necessary to subtract and divide. In any case, the house manager would have had a death grip on Preobrazhensky and would probably have bitten off the eyesore of the supposedly extra room. But the professor found powerful patrons, and Shvonder had to behave quite like a dog: tuck his tail and squeal in fear, and when the immediate danger to the skin receded, assert himself at least by yapping after him. Let's remember the note in the newspaper signed “Shv...r”. The same one: “Everyone knows how to occupy seven rooms until the shining sword of justice flashes over him with a red ray.” Speaking beautifully is the hobby of the lumpen, who has seized control of even the most insignificant structure. Through Poligraf Poligrafovich Shvonder hopes to find vulnerable spot Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky. The professor himself is a high-flying bird, but Sharikov is allegedly registered in his apartment at sixteen arshins and his petty mongrel psychology can easily be influenced. Let Preobrazhensky still have seven rooms, but the conscious element Poligraf Poligrafovich will also live there, who from reading the correspondence of Marx and Kautsky took away the main thing for himself: “Take everything, and divide it.” Otherwise, your head will swell. Shvonder sees Sharikov as his twin, brother. And therefore he takes an active part in shaping the fate of the product of the experiment. And he gives him a name and subsequently gives him a position. And that’s all Sharikov needs - he grows in his own eyes, he has more and more courage and impudence to stick out his chest in front of Bormenthal and Preobrazhensky. After all, in fact, here there is an exact repetition of the domestication of the tramp. There was a homeless dog Sharik - he became the professor's favorite, there was a rootless product of medical experience - he became the head of cleaning. Only now Sharikov is tamed by Shvonder. And now we can talk about “Sharikovism”. So what is it? Accidental ingratitude or a long-established social phenomenon? More likely - the second. Because at all times there have been denunciations and envy of those who have succeeded. There was always vindictiveness and a readiness to bite from behind, and even if it was scary to do this, then at least the opportunity to bark at a person. Is it really only in Poligraf Poligrafovich that one can find petty conceit, the dimensions of which are many times greater than the actual significance of the position occupied. Why go far for examples? How many petty officials are there who consider themselves the rulers of this world, how many watchmen imagine themselves superior to the director? Is it really only on the pages of “Heart of a Dog” that we encounter the primitiveness of judgments hiding under the guise of everyday experience and wisdom? And is indiscriminateness in ends and means just a literary fiction? Of course no. The story with the typist Vasnetsova could well have been taken from real, not book life. There are so many of them in the world - women who are not considered human by all sorts of “benefactors”, who are quite capable of giving Fildepers stockings and promising pineapples, but only in exchange for dog-like, unconditional devotion. Shvonder's anonymous letters seem like childish babble compared to the tricks that people use, not in books, to get their coveted living space. Cat hunting is simply nothing compared to the persecution that a person is capable of inflicting on his fellow man. At least a coat will be made from the skin of a killed cat, but a person will simply be mixed with dirt. There is no practical benefit, but self-satisfaction is of the highest class. Singing in a choir instead of doing business is also familiar to each of us, not only from the words of Bulgakov. And this is also one of the manifestations of Sharikovism. In dogs it looks like howling at the moon. A person, as usual, has an ideological basis for everything. The house committee, led by Shvonder, cannot help but sing. Then their service to proletarian ideals will be incomplete. Jackals that have torn their prey to pieces always announce their success with a joyful squeal. And if Professor Preobrazhensky declares that the devastation in the country is precisely because people sing in chorus instead of doing business, then this statement comes from his, the professor, bourgeois irresponsibility. “If there was a discussion now,” the woman began, worried and blushing, “I would prove to Pyotr Alexandrovich...” Of course, engaging in verbal duels is much easier than building the very housing that conscious proletarians, engaged in vigorous revolutionary activity, always lack. “Sharikovism” is omnipresent and all-pervasive. Every person, regardless of the conditions and circumstances of his birth and upbringing, has his own Polygraph Poligrafovich. Only some manage to take him by the throat, like Bormenthal, while others simply release the creature to freedom and themselves do not notice that the heart beating in their chest is no longer human, but canine. Well, all that remains is to draw a conclusion, to give the final formulation of “Sharikovism.” Having studied Polygraph Poligrafovich, taking a closer look at Shvonder, comparing what is described in the story with the realities of life, we can do this. “Sharikovschina” is petty vindictiveness, when the inability to bite can well be compensated for by yapping from afar. This is raking in the heat with someone else's hands and being ready to squeal and tuck your tail at any moment. “Sharikovschina” is a reluctance to break out of one’s limited and often dirty habitat. This demonstrative darkness - “there is absolutely no need to learn to read when the smell of meat is already a mile away.” This is the ability to draw primitive conclusions, subordinated to selfish interests, even from the most intelligent things. “Sharikovism” is ingratitude in all its manifestations, even towards those who gave you life. This is painful pride - “I didn’t ask you.” This is selfishness and unwillingness to understand people who differ in their way of thinking. It is much easier to declare them irresponsible - blaming someone else for their poor mind is always easier than admitting their own poor mind. “Sharikovism” is elementary everyday meanness. This is a carrot and stick method for an obviously defenseless person. You should be mine. And if today you give up cars and pineapples, then tomorrow you will be laid off. We could continue, but everything is already clear. Clear - and scary. After all, “Sharikovism” is not only the focus of abomination and vices. It is also the surest way to survive among people. Anyone who lives according to the method of Polygraph Poligrafovich is invulnerable. He will be able to get out of any trouble, he will defeat any opponent, he will overcome any obstacle. And in his eyes, victory will be cheap - what could be more useless than another person? Elephants are also necessary creatures. “Sharikovism” cannot be obeyed. Because, as Professor Preobrazhensky wisely noted: “Science does not yet know how to turn animals into people.”

“...the whole horror is that he has

not a dog's, but a human's

heart. And the worst thing of all,

that exist in nature."

M. Bulgakov

When the story “ Fatal eggs", one of the critics said: "Bulgakov wants to become a satirist of our era." Now, on the threshold of the new millennium, we can say that he has become one, although he did not intend to. After all, by the nature of his talent he is a lyricist. And the era made him a satirist. M. Bulgakov was disgusted by the bureaucratic forms of governing the country; he could not stand violence either against himself or against other people. The writer saw the main trouble of his “backward country” in lack of culture and ignorance. And he rushed into battle to defend that “reasonable, good, eternal” that the minds of the Russian intelligentsia sowed. And Bulgakov chose satire as a weapon of struggle. In 1925, the writer finished the story “Heart of a Dog.” The content of the story - an incredible fantastic story of the transformation of a dog into a man - was a witty and evil satire on the social reality of the 20s.

The plot was based on the fantastic operation of the brilliant scientist Preobrazhensky with all the unexpectedly tragic consequences for him. Having transplanted the dog into scientific purposes seminal glands and pituitary gland of the brain, the professor received homo sapiens , who a little later was named Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. The “humanized” stray dog Sharik, always hungry, offended by all and sundry, revived in himself the person whose brain served as donor material for the operation. He was the drunkard and hooligan Klim Chugunkin, who accidentally died in a drunken brawl. From him Sharikov inherited both the consciousness of his “proletarian” origin with all the corresponding social mores, and the lack of spirituality that was characteristic of the philistine, uncultured environment of the Chugunkins.

But the professor does not despair, he intends to make a man out of his ward high culture and morality. He hopes that with affection and his own example he can influence Sharikov. But it was not there. Polygraph Poligrafovich desperately resists: “Everything is like at a parade... A napkin is here, a tie is here, and “excuse me,” and “please,” but for real, this is not.”

Every day Sharikov becomes more and more dangerous. Moreover, he has a patron in the person of the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder. This fighter for social justice reads Engels and writes articles for the newspaper. Shvonder took patronage over Sharikov and educates him, paralyzing the professor’s efforts. This unfortunate teacher did not teach his ward anything useful, but he managed to hammer home a very tempting idea: whoever was nothing will become a dog. For Sharikov, this is a program for action. In a very short time he received documents, and a week or two later he became a co-worker and not an ordinary person, but the head of the department for clearing the city of Moscow from stray animals. Meanwhile, his nature is what it was - a dog-criminal one. You need to see and hear, and with what emotions he talks about his activities in this “field”: “Yesterday cats were strangled and strangled.” However, Poligraf Poligrafovich is not content with cats alone. He viciously threatens his secretary, who for objective reasons cannot respond to his advances: “You’ll remember me. Tomorrow I’ll make you redundant.”

In the story, fortunately, the story of Sharik’s two transformations has a happy ending: having returned the dog to its original state, the professor, refreshed and as cheerful as ever, goes about his business, and the “dearest dog” goes about his business: he lies on the rug and indulges in sweet thoughts. But in life, to our great regret, the Sharikovs continued to multiply and “strangle and strangle,” but not cats, but people.

M. Bulgakov’s merit lies in the fact that he managed to use laughter to reveal the deep and serious idea of the story: the threatening danger of “Sharikovism” and its potential prospects. After all, Sharikov and his associates are dangerous to society. The ideology and social claims of the “hegemonic” class contain the threat of lawlessness and violence. Of course, M. Bulgakov’s story is not only a satire on “Sharikovism” as aggressive ignorance, but also a warning about its likely consequences in public life. Unfortunately, Bulgakov was not heard or did not want to be heard. The Sharikovs were fruitful, multiplied, took an active part in social and political life countries.

We find examples of this in the events of the 30-50s, when innocent and irresponsible people were persecuted, just as Sharikov once caught stray cats and dogs in his line of work. The Soviet Sharikovs demonstrated dog-like loyalty, showing anger and suspicion towards those who were high in spirit and mind. They, like Bulgakov’s Sharikov, were proud of their low origins, low education, even ignorance, defending themselves with connections, meanness, rudeness and, at every opportunity, trampling people worthy of respect into the dirt. These manifestations of Sharikovism are very tenacious.

We are now reaping the fruits of this activity. And no one can say how long this will last. In addition, “Sharikovism” has not disappeared as a phenomenon even now, perhaps it has only changed its face.

I believe that the label “politically harmful author“M. Bulgakov received absolutely “fairly” from his high-ranking contemporaries. He portrayed the negative side of the modern world too openly. Not a single work of Bulgakov, in my opinion, has had such popularity in our time as “The Heart of a Dog.” Apparently, this work aroused interest among readers of the widest strata of our society. This story, like everything that Bulgakov wrote, fell into the category of prohibited. I'll try to reason […]
The assessment of the representatives of the intelligentsia in Bulgakov's story is far from clear. Professor Preobrazhensky is a famous scientist in Europe. He is searching for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the principles of morality and ethics. Everyone, according to Philip Philipovich, in this world should mind their own business: in the theater - sing, in the hospital - operate. Then there will be no destruction. And to achieve material [...]
The system of images in M. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog” is a debatable issue. In my opinion, two opposing camps are clearly visible here: Professor Preobrazhensky, Doctor Bormental and Shvonder, Sharikov. Professor Preobrazhensky, no longer a young man, lives alone in a beautiful, comfortable apartment. The brilliant surgeon is engaged in profitable rejuvenation operations. But the professor plans to improve nature itself, he decides to compete with life itself and create a new person by transplanting […]
Bulgakov knew how to talentedly combine the contradictions of the era into one whole and emphasize their interrelations. The writer in his story “Heart of a Dog” showed phenomena and characters in all their contradictions and complexity. The theme of the story is man as a social being, over whom a totalitarian society and state are conducting a grandiose inhumane experiment, embodying with cold cruelty the brilliant ideas of their theoretic leaders. The personality is destroyed, crushed, all its centuries-old achievements - spiritual culture, faith, […]
One of best works Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog", written in 1925. Representatives of the authorities immediately assessed it as a poignant pamphlet on modernity and banned its publication. The theme of the story “Heart of a Dog” is the image of man and the world in a difficult transitional era. On May 7, 1926, a search was carried out in Bulgakov’s apartment, a diary and a manuscript of the story “Heart of a Dog” were confiscated. Attempts to return them led nowhere. Later, the diary and story were returned, but Bulgakov burned the diary and more […]
Plan 1. Introduction 2. “There is only one counter-revolution...” (the difficult fate of Bulgakov’s story) 3. “This does not mean being human” (the transformation of Sharikov into a “new” proletarian) 4. What is the danger of Sharikovism? In criticism it is often called social phenomena or types according to the works that depicted them. This is how “Manilovism”, “Oblomovism”, “Belikovism” and “Sharikovism” appeared. The latter is taken from M. Bulgakov’s work “The Heart of a Dog,” which served as a source of aphorisms and quotes and remains one of the most famous [...]
“I love this novel more than all my works,” wrote M. Bulgakov about the novel “ White Guard" True, the pinnacle novel “The Master and Margarita” had not yet been written. But, of course, the “White Guard” occupies a very important place V literary heritage M. Bulgakov. This is a historical novel, a strict and sad story about the great turning point of the revolution and the tragedy of the civil war, about the fate of people in these difficult times. As if from the heights of time, the writer is looking at this tragedy, although Civil War just ended. “Great […]
It is not for nothing that the novel “The Master and Margarita” is called the “sunset novel” of M. Bulgakov. For many years he rebuilt, supplemented and polished his final work. Everything that M. Bulgakov experienced in his life - both happy and difficult - he devoted all his most important thoughts, all his soul and all his talent to this novel. And a truly extraordinary creation was born. The work is unusual, first of all, in terms of its genre. Researchers still cannot determine it. Many consider The Master and Margarita a mystical novel, citing […]
In a letter to Stalin, Bulgakov called himself " mystical writer" He was interested in the unknowable that makes up the soul and destiny of a person. The writer recognized the existence of the mystical in real life. The mysterious surrounds us, it is close to us, but not everyone is able to see its manifestations. The natural world and the birth of man cannot be explained by reason alone; this mystery has not yet been solved. The image of Woland represents another original interpretation by the writer of the essence of the devil as people understand it. Woland Bulgakova […]
Personally, I read the novel “The Master and Margarita” 3 times. The debut reading, like most readers, probably caused bewilderment and questions, and was not too impressive. It was unclear: what do many generations of inhabitants of the entire planet find in this little book? In some places it is religious, in others it is fantastic, some pages are complete nonsense... After some time, I was again drawn to M. A. Bulgakov, his fantasies and insinuations, controversial historical descriptions and the unclear conclusions that he left […]
Ancient Yershalaim is described by Bulgakov with such skill that it is remembered forever. Psychologically deep, realistic images of diverse heroes, each of whom is bright portrait. The historical part of the novel makes an indelible impression. Individual characters and crowd scenes, city architecture and landscapes are equally talentedly written by the author. Bulgakov makes readers participants in the tragic events in the ancient city. The theme of power and violence is universal in the novel. The words of Yeshua Ha-Nozri about [...]
Depicting the Moscow reality of the 20s and 30s in the novel “The Master and Margarita,” M. Bulgakov uses the technique of satire. The author shows crooks and scoundrels of all stripes. After the revolution, Soviet society found itself in spiritual and cultural self-isolation. According to the leaders of the state, high ideas were supposed to quickly re-educate people, make them honest, truthful builders of a “new society.” Facilities mass media praised labor feats Soviet people, their devotion to the party and the people. But […]
With the arrival of Margarita, the novel, which until then had resembled a ship in the depths of a storm, cut through the transverse wave, straightened the masts, set sails to the oncoming wind and rushed forward towards the goal - fortunately, it was outlined, or rather, it opened - like a star in a break in the clouds. A guiding landmark that you can rely on, like the hand of a reliable guide. Probably no one doubts that one of the main themes of the novel is the theme of “love and mercy”, “love between a man and a woman”, “true […]
When people are completely robbed, like you and me, they seek salvation from an otherworldly force. M. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” is unusual in that reality and fantasy are closely intertwined in it. Mystical heroes immersed in the whirlpool of the stormy Moscow life of the 30s, and this erases the boundaries between the real world and the metaphysical world. In the guise of Woland, none other than the ruler of darkness himself, Satan, appears before us in all his glory. The purpose of his visit to [...]
The life of M. Gorky was unusually bright and seems truly legendary. What made it so, first of all, was the inextricable connection between the writer and the people. The talent of a writer was combined with the talent of a revolutionary fighter. Contemporaries rightly considered the writer the head of the advanced forces of democratic literature. IN Soviet years Gorky acted as a publicist, playwright and prose writer. In his stories he reflected the new direction in Russian life. The legends about Larra and Danko show two concepts of life, two ideas about it. One […]
There is a type of book where the reader is captivated by the story not from the first pages, but gradually. I think that “Oblomov” is just such a book. Reading the first part of the novel, I was inexpressibly bored and did not even imagine that this laziness of Oblomov would lead him to some sublime feeling. Gradually, the boredom began to go away, and the novel captured me, I was already reading with interest. I have always liked books about love, but Goncharov gave it an interpretation unknown to me. It seemed to me that boredom, monotony, laziness, [...]
In I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” one of the main techniques for revealing images is the technique of antithesis. Using contrast, the image of the Russian gentleman Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and the image of the practical German Andrei Stolz are compared. Thus, Goncharov shows the similarities and differences between these characters in the novel. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a typical representative of the Russian nobility of the 19th century. His social status can be briefly described as follows: “Oblomov, a nobleman by birth, a collegiate secretary by rank, […]
Having gone through many works by A.S. Pushkin, I accidentally came across the poem “God forbid I go crazy...”, and I was immediately attracted by the bright and emotional beginning, which attracted the reader’s attention. In this poem, which seems simple and clear and understandable, like many other creations of the great classic, one can easily see the experiences of the creator, the true, free-minded poet - experiences and dreams of freedom. And at the time this poem was written, freedom of thought and speech was severely punished […]
Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol noted that the main theme “ Dead souls"became contemporary Russia. The author believed that “there is no other way to direct society or even an entire generation towards the beautiful until you show the full depth of its real abomination.” That is why the poem presents a satire on landed nobility, bureaucracy and others social groups. The composition of the work is subordinated to this task of the author. The image of Chichikov traveling around the country in search of the necessary connections and wealth allows N.V. Gogol […]
Dramatic events of the play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" takes place in the city of Kalinov. This town is located on the picturesque bank of the Volga, from the high cliff of which the vast Russian expanses and boundless distances open up to the eye. “The view is extraordinary! Beauty! The soul rejoices,” enthuses local self-taught mechanic Kuligin. Pictures of endless distances, echoed in lyrical song. Among the flat valleys,” which he hums, have great importance to convey a sense of the immense possibilities of Russian […]

Sharikovism today

The concept of “Sharikovism” appeared in our language thanks to the story “Heart of a Dog” by Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, created by the writer in 1925. It is traditionally accepted that this work was intended as political satire, the purpose of which was to expose the vices of post-revolutionary society and question the very idea of intervention in the natural course of history.

The plot of the story is based on an experiment conducted by Professor Filipp Filippovich Preobrazhensky on the yard dog Sharik. The scientist was looking for a way to rejuvenate the body, and for this he transplanted the internal organs of the recently deceased drunkard and rowdy Klim Chugunkin into the dog.

This experiment was a success, and from an ordinary mongrel Sharik turned into a man who proclaimed himself Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov. This character is collectively and personifies a typical representative of the proletariat and the bearer of the values of this social class.

After the revolution, such people received an unexpectedly large number of rights, which, according to Bulgakov, led to the discovery of their true essence. Selfishness, encroachment on other people's property, a complete lack of moral principles and absolute illiteracy - this is what is commonly understood as the phenomenon of Sharikovism.

How does Sharikov behave? He drinks, swears, is rowdy and does not respect authority. However, this does not prevent him from quickly picking up Bolshevik ideas about social equality: “But what about: one settled in seven rooms... and the other wanders around, looking for food in trash bins.”

The story “Heart of a Dog” by M. A. Bulgakov was written in 1925. By this time, the consequences of the October Revolution - a social experiment on a nationwide scale - had already become completely clear. It is from this point of view that the results of Professor Preobrazhensky’s experiment – Sharikov and “Sharikovism” – are considered in the story.

By origin, Sharikov, on the one hand, is a stray dog, on the other hand, a dissolute drunkard, and combines many of their traits. Sharikov’s main feeling is hatred of everyone who offended him.

It is characteristic that this feeling somehow immediately turns out to be close to the class hatred of the proletariat for the bourgeoisie (Sharikov reads the correspondence of Engels with Kautsky), the hatred of the poor for the rich (distribution of living space by the house committee), the hatred of the uneducated for the intelligentsia. It turns out that the entire new world is built on hatred of the old. But it doesn’t take much to hate. Sharikov, whose first word was the name of the store where he was scalded with boiling water, very quickly learns to drink vodka, be rude to the servants, and turns his ignorance into a weapon against education. He even has a spiritual mentor - the chairman of the house committee, Shvonder.

Shvonder needs Sharikov, because Shvonder inside is exactly the same as Sharikov. He has the same hatred and fear of power, the same stupidity. After all, it is he who contributes to Sharikov’s promotion - he becomes authorized to exterminate stray dogs and cats. Well, it’s clear that cats are a relic of the past. But why dogs? And here the moral basis of “Sharikovism” manifests itself - ingratitude and the destruction of one’s own kind in order to prove one’s difference from them, to assert oneself. The desire to rise at the expense of others, and not at the cost of one’s own efforts, is characteristic of representatives of the so-called new world. Shvonder, who inspires Sharikov to perform feats (for example, to conquer Preobrazhensky’s apartment), simply does not yet understand that he himself will be the next victim.

When Sharikov was a dog, one could feel sympathy for him. Completely undeserved hardships and injustices accompanied his life. Maybe they give Sharikov and others like him the right to take revenge? Maybe they are fighting for justice? But the fact of the matter is that Sharikov and the Sharikovs think only about themselves. Justice in their understanding is to use the benefits that others previously enjoyed. There is no question at all about creating something for others. Professor Preobrazhensky speaks about this: “Devastation is in our heads.” People have stopped doing business, and are busy fighting, snatching a piece. Why, after the revolution, do you need to walk on carpets in galoshes and steal hats from front doors? People themselves create destruction and “Sharikovism”. This is the social basis of “Sharikovism”: slaves who came to power, but completely retained the slave psychology. On the one hand, this is obedience and servility towards superiors, on the other hand, servile cruelty towards people dependent on them or people like them.

(4 ratings, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Essays on topics:

Shvonder is one of the heroes of M. A. Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog”; representative of the proletariat, chairman of the house committee. The author describes the hero with undisguised...
The action of Bulgakov's story "Heart of a Dog" takes place in Moscow. Winter 1924/25. IN big house lives on Prechistenka and hosts...
Our world is structured in such a way that any concept is perceived only in opposition to another concept. So good can be until the end...
When studying a school literature course, we deal with one or another a work of art. In order to understand it and...