Introduction

“The truth is that, despite the most difficult trials, we prevailed.”

War is a terrible word. War... How much this word says. War - the suffering of mothers, hundreds of dead soldiers, hundreds of orphans and families without fathers, terrible memories of people. And we, who have not seen the war, are not laughing. The soldiers served honestly, without self-interest. They defended the fatherland, family and friends. The Nazis treated Russian people and soldiers cruelly.

The world must not forget the horrors of war, the separation, suffering and death of millions. This would be a crime against the fallen, a crime against the future, we must remember the war, the heroism and courage that passed along its roads. Fighting for peace is the responsibility of everyone living on Earth, therefore one of the most important topics modern literature is the theme of the feat Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War.

War as a tragedy of the people in the literature of the twentieth century. Many works have been written about her. The authors of books about the war explored the everyday life of war, accurately depicted battles, and they also spoke about courage. native land, about pricelessness human life, about how ordinary people with a conscience and a sense of duty to the Motherland sacrificed themselves.

This topic is complex, diverse, inexhaustible. The task of modern writers writing about war is enormous. They need to be shown the importance of struggle and victory, the origins of heroism Soviet people, their moral strength, ideological conviction, devotion to the Motherland; show the difficulties of the fight against fascism, convey to contemporaries the feelings and thoughts of the heroes of the war years, give a deep analysis in one of the most critical periods in the life of the country and their own lives.

Writers such as Vasil Bykov (“Sotnikov”) and Boris Vasiliev (“Not on the lists”) develop this topic in their own unique way.

Subject tragic fate Russian man in a totalitarian state appears in Russian literature of the 20th century already in the 1920s, when the very formation totalitarian state it was just beginning.

The writer does not spare the reader; in his stories appear scary details, which cannot be understood without heartache- cold and hunger, sometimes depriving a person of reason, purulent ulcers on the legs...

“War is a state contrary to human nature,” wrote L. Tolstoy, and we are forced to agree with this statement, because war brings fear, blood, and tears. War is also a test for a person.

Vasil Bykov. Ideological content novel “Sotnikov”, assessment of heroes

Vasil Bykov is a seventeen-year-old participant in the war, a writer, who in his works reflects on man, his behavior in war, the duty and honor that guide the hero of the story of the same name “Sotnikov”.

In Bykov's works there are few battle scenes or spectacular historical events, but he manages to convey with amazing depth the feelings of an ordinary soldier on big war. Using the example of the most strategically insignificant situations, the author gives answers to difficult questions war.

The problem of the moral choice of a hero in war is characteristic of all the works of V. Bykov. This problem is posed in almost all of his stories: “The Alpine Ballad”, “Obelisk”, “Sotnikov” and others. In Bykov's story "Sotnikov" the problem of genuine and imaginary heroism, which constitutes the essence of the plot conflict of the work, is emphasized and sharpened. The writer gives artistic research moral foundations of human behavior in their social and ideological conditioning.

Vasil Bykov builds plots only on dramatic moments of war of local, as they say, significance with the participation of ordinary soldiers. Step by step, analyzing the motives for the behavior of soldiers in extreme situations, the writer gets to the bottom of things psychological states and the experiences of their heroes. This quality of Bykov’s prose distinguishes him early works: “The Third Rocket”, “Trap”, “It Doesn’t Hurt the Dead” and others.

In each new story, the writer puts his heroes in even more difficult situations. The only thing that unites the heroes is that their actions cannot be assessed unambiguously. The plot of the story “Sotnikov” is psychologically twisted in such a way that critics were confused in assessing the behavior of Bykov’s heroes. And there are almost no events in the story. The critics had a lot to be confused about: main character-- traitor?! In my opinion, the author deliberately tries to blur the lines of the image of this character.

But in fact, the plot of the story is simple: two partisans Sotnikov and Rybak go to the village on a mission - to get a sheep to feed the detachment. Before this, the heroes almost did not know each other, although they managed to fight and even helped each other out in one battle. Sotnikov is not entirely healthy and could well have shied away from a generally trivial task, but he feels like he doesn’t belong among the partisans enough and therefore still volunteers to go. By this he seems to want to show his comrades in arms that he does not shy away from “dirty work.”

The two partisans react differently to the upcoming danger, and it seems to the reader that the strong and quick-witted Rybak is more prepared to commit a brave act than the frail and sick Sotnikov. But if Rybak, who all his life “managed to find some way out,” is internally ready to commit betrayal, then Sotnikov remains until his last breath true to duty man and citizen: “Well, it was necessary to collect in myself last strength to face death with dignity... Otherwise, what is life for then? It is too difficult for a person to be careless about its end.”

In the story, it is not representatives of the two who collide different worlds, but people of the same country. The heroes of the story - Sotnikov and Rybak - under normal conditions, perhaps, would not have shown their true nature. But during the war, Sotnikov passes through with honor. severe trials and accepts death without renouncing his convictions, and the Fisherman, in the face of death, changes his convictions, betrays his Motherland, saving his life, which after betrayal loses all value. He actually becomes an enemy. He leaves for another world, alien to us, where personal well-being is placed above all else, where fear for one’s life forces one to kill and betray. In the face of death, a person remains as he really is. Here the depth of his convictions and his civic fortitude are tested.

In Bykov’s work, everyone took their place among the victims. Everyone except Rybak completed their mortal journey to the end. The fisherman took the path of betrayal only in the name of saving his own life. The traitor investigator felt a thirst for continuation of life, a passionate desire to live, and, almost without hesitation, stunned Rybak point-blank: “Let’s save your life. You will serve great Germany.” The fisherman had not yet agreed to join the police, but he had already been spared torture. The fisherman did not want to die, and blurted out something to the investigator.

Sotnikov lost consciousness during the torture, but did not say anything. The policemen in the story are depicted as stupid and cruel, the investigator - cunning and cruel. Sotnikov came to terms with death. He would like to die in battle, but this has become impossible for him. The only thing that remained for him was to decide on his attitude towards the people who were nearby. Before the execution, Sotnikov demanded an investigator and declared: “I am a partisan, the rest have nothing to do with it.” The investigator ordered Rybak to be brought in, and he agreed to join the police. The fisherman tried to convince himself that he was not a traitor, that he would run away.

IN last minutes life Sotnikov suddenly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same thing that he demands from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the crowd surrounding the execution site. He did not want people to think badly of him, and was only angry with Rybak, who was performing his duties as the executioner. The fisherman apologizes: “Sorry, brother.” "Go to hell!" - follows the answer.

What happened to Fisherman? He did not overcome the fate of a man lost in war. He sincerely wanted to hang himself. But circumstances got in the way, and there was still a chance to survive. But how to survive? The police chief believed that he had “picked up another traitor.” It is unlikely that the chief of police saw what was going on in the soul of this man, confused, but shocked by the example of Sotnikov, who was crystal honest, fulfilling his duty as a man and citizen to the end. The boss saw Rybak's future in serving the occupiers. But the writer left him the possibility of a different path: continuing the fight against the enemy, possible recognition of his fall by his comrades, and ultimately, atonement.

The characters' personalities emerge slowly. The fisherman becomes unpleasant to us, arouses hatred, since he is capable of betrayal. Sotnikov reveals himself as a strong-willed, courageous nature. The writer is proud of Sotnikov, whose last feat was an attempt to take all the blame upon himself, removing it from the headman and Demchikha, who fell to the Nazis for helping partisan intelligence officers. Duty to the Motherland, to people, as the most important manifestation of one’s own self - this is what the author draws attention to. Consciousness of duty, human dignity, soldier's honor, love for people - such values ​​exist for Sotnikov. It is about people in trouble that he thinks. The hero sacrifices himself, knowing that life is the only real value. But Rybak simply had a thirst for life. And the main thing for him is to survive at any cost. Of course, a lot depends on the person, his principles and beliefs. Rybak has many virtues: he has a sense of camaraderie, he sympathizes with the sick Sotnikov, shares the remains of steamed rye with him, and behaves with dignity in battle. But how did it happen that he becomes a traitor and participates in the execution of his comrade? In my opinion, in Rybak’s mind there is no clear boundary between moral and immoral. Being in the ranks with everyone, he conscientiously bears all the hardships of partisan life, without deeply thinking about either life or death. Duty, honor - these categories do not disturb his soul. Faced face to face with inhumane circumstances, he finds himself spiritually weak person. If Sotnikov thought only about how to die with dignity, then Rybak is cunning, deceives himself and, as a result, surrenders to his enemies. He believes that in moments of danger everyone thinks only of themselves.

Sotnikov, despite the failures: captivity, escape, then captivity again, escape, and then the partisan detachment, did not become embittered, did not become indifferent to people, but retained loyalty, responsibility, and love. The author does not pay attention to how one day in battle Sotnikov saves the life of Rybak, how the sick Sotnikov still goes on a mission. Sotnikov could not refuse, since it contradicted his life principles. On the last night of his life, the hero remembers his youth. Lying to his father as a child became a lesson in pangs of conscience for him. Therefore, the hero judges himself strictly and answers to his conscience. He remained a man in the brutal conditions of war. This is Sotnikov’s feat. It seems to me that in tragic situations of war it is difficult to remain true to oneself and one’s moral principles. But it is precisely such people of duty and honor who fight evil, make life more beautiful, and they make us think: do we know how to live according to our conscience.

The situation changes after their arrest. The fisherman does not believe until the last minute that it is impossible to escape from this trap. He decides to stall for time, telling during interrogation only what the Germans already know about the partisan detachment. But Rybak is too simple for such challenging game with the enemy, and, without meaning to, he lets it slip, falling into a skillfully placed trap. From this moment his moral decline begins. He finally realized that he could only stay alive by betraying his comrades in arms. For Rybak, the process of transition to another psychological state passes quickly and without suffering, since he was already internally disposed to this. The fisherman, like any traitor, begins to live according to special psychological laws, excluding everything good and bright that was before this moment in human soul. At the end of the story, he becomes the executioner of his former comrade.

Sotnikov, unlike Rybak, immediately realized the hopelessness of the situation, but in the last minutes of his life he unexpectedly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same as from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the eyes of the people present at the execution. He did not want anyone to think badly of him, and was only angry with Rybak, who was performing his duties as the executioner. The fisherman apologized: “Sorry, brother.” Sotnikov threw only the phrase in his face: “Go to hell!”

What is the depth of the writer Bykov’s creativity? The fact is that he left the traitor Rybak the possibility of a different path even after such a serious crime. This is both a continuation of the fight against the enemy and a confessional confession of one’s betrayal. The writer left his hero the opportunity to repent, an opportunity that is more often given to a person by God, and not by man. The writer, in my opinion, assumed that this guilt could also be redeemed.

The work of V. Bykov is tragic in its sound, just as the war itself is tragic, taking tens of millions of human lives. But the writer talks about people who are strong in spirit, capable of rising above circumstances and death itself. And today, I believe, it is impossible to assess the events of the war, those terrible years, without taking into account the views on this topic of the writer Vasil Bykov.
The work is imbued with thoughts about life and death, about
human duty and humanism, which are incompatible with any manifestation of selfishness. In-depth psychological analysis every action and gesture of the characters, fleeting thoughts or remarks - the bottom of the most strengths the story "Sotnikov".

The Pope presented the writer V. Bykov with a special prize for the story “Sotnikov” catholic church. This fact speaks of what kind of moral universal principle is seen in this work. Sotnikov’s enormous moral strength lies in the fact that he was able to accept suffering for his people, managed to maintain faith, and not succumb to that base thought that Rybak succumbed to: “Anyway, now death has no meaning, it will not change anything.” This is not so - suffering for the people, for the faith always has meaning for humanity. The feat instills moral strength in other people and preserves faith in them. Another reason why the church prize was awarded to the author of “Sotnikov” lies in the fact that religion always preaches the Idea of ​​understanding and forgiveness. Indeed, it is easy to condemn Rybak, but in order to have every right To do this, you must at least be in the place of this person. Of course, Rybak is worthy of condemnation, but there are universal human principles that call for refraining from unconditional condemnation even for such serious crimes.

In the development of man, the fundamental principle should be the noble ideals of people who fought and gave their lives for the future of their people and their country.

Almost all of Vasil Bykov’s works tell about the Great Patriotic War. This is largely due to the fact that the writer himself went through it from beginning to end. He views the events of the war primarily from a moral and philosophical point of view. Describing the behavior of people in inhumane conditions, Bykov makes us think about the origins of the inner strength that is inherent in the best of his heroes. In the story “Sotnikov,” the writer convincingly shows that this power practically does not depend on a person’s physical capabilities and belongs entirely to the realm of the spirit.

In the images of the main characters of the work, it seems to me, the traits of two opposing personality types are embodied. Finding themselves in a situation of moral choice, such people behave differently: some commit betrayal in exchange for their miserable life; others show fortitude and courage, preferring to die with a clear conscience. Thus, in Vasil Bykov’s story, two partisans are contrasted - Rybak and Sotnikov.

At first, Rybak seems to us to be a completely sincere person: he helps his sick comrade, shares his last grain with him, and does not get angry because of an unexpected burden. In his own way, Rybak is kind. He was never able to kill the headman, although he believed that it was necessary to do so.

Fear for his life first manifests itself in Rybak during a chase organized by the police: at first he wanted to leave Sotnikov, justifying himself by saying that he still couldn’t get out. “But what will he say in the forest? “It seems to me that it was this question that forced Rybak to return to his comrade. At that moment, it was still important to him what others would think of him.

When they were discovered in Demchikha’s attic, Rybak “wanted Sotnikov to be the first to rise.” But he had no strength, he continued to lie. And Rybak stood up first.

During interrogation, fearful of torture, Rybak answered the truth, that is, he betrayed the detachment. When he was offered to serve Germany, “he suddenly clearly felt freedom.” Rybak not only agreed to join the police, but also helped to hang Sotnikov in order to confirm to his enemies his willingness to serve them. He thought only about freedom, hoped that he would escape, but after the execution he realized “that the escape was over, that with this liquidation he was tied more securely than with a belt chain. And although they were left alive, in some respects they were also liquidated.”

Thinking about everything that happened, Rybak “couldn’t really understand how it happened and who was to blame for it... I really didn’t want to find myself to blame.” He justified himself by saying that he was fighting for his life, that “it was Sotnikov who was more to blame for his misfortune than others... he no longer cares about everything in the noose on the arch, but what does it feel like for him, alive!..”. The fisherman does not notice that his feverish attempts to whitewash himself are cowardly and illogical. At the end of the work, the author will say that what happened to this hero is “the insidious fate of a man lost in war.”

Sotnikov’s path appears differently. From the very beginning we recognize in him a proud and stubborn person. He went on the mission because “others refused.” The inopportunely occurring cold seemed like a trifle to Sotnikov, although from the further narration it becomes clear that he was seriously ill. However, Sotnikov refused the food and medicine offered to him by the headman’s wife, because “he did not wish this aunt well and ... could not agree to her sympathy and help.” Remembering how the same simple woman had once betrayed him to the police, he was suspicious of the kindness shown to him in the headman’s house.

Feeling the approach of the policemen, Sotnikov thought that “... while he was alive, he would not let them near him.” This man was not afraid of death, he was only “afraid of becoming a burden to others.” And he was also “afraid that he might lose consciousness, and then the worst thing that he feared most in this war would happen.” Sotnikov decided not to surrender alive. He “attributed the fact that Rybak returned... to ordinary soldier mutual assistance,” but “he would not have had anything against Rybak’s help if it had been addressed to someone else.” He himself never wanted any support; it was “contrary to his whole being.”

During the interrogation, Sotnikov first of all tried to save Demchikha, who suffered because of him and Rybak, and before the execution he unsuccessfully tried to take all the blame on himself. He spent the last efforts of his life to meet death “with the dignity of a soldier.”

Sotnikov was a man who, under no circumstances, made a deal with his conscience, and he passed away with the consciousness that he had not stained his soul in any way. Before the last hero tried to help people who, as he believed, were in trouble because of him.

So, we have two completely opposite characters. To better reveal them, the author often uses the characters’ internal monologues, through which, for example, Rybak’s hesitations at the moment of persecution and Sotnikov’s thoughts as he goes to execution are conveyed.

When characterizing the characters, Bykov also uses episodes from their childhood. We learn that Sotnikov, as a child, swore an oath to himself never to lie. I think that in the formation of this personality big role played by the father. It was he who brought up honesty, straightforwardness and perseverance in his son.

The story by Vasil Bykov tells about events that took place more than sixty years ago. However, for us, readers of the 21st century, it is interesting not only from a historical point of view. After all, problems of honesty, conscience, justice and humanism also face our generation. What should I do? What should we be? How to preserve the human in you? Book by Vasil Bykov"Sotnikov" helps us answer these questions simple questions.

Sotnikov... We can talk about him for a long time. About his maximalism. And about his conscientiousness. About the responsibility of his choice. About the courage and height of the spiritual foundations of this man. And about his silence, which is worth more than others loud words. About not giving in to circumstances. About the power inherent in him. About the fact that only he himself is given the opportunity to test himself. About his experience, real and very sincere, a feeling of terrible despair, naked melancholy and complete loneliness- a feeling that V. Bykov’s hero had to experience and overcome in the hours of life allotted to him by fate.

He can probably be placed in the ranks of those maximalist heroes, the Stoics, who in Soviet classics begins with Pavka Korchagin, and in the world one - with Gadfly. The thoughts and feelings of this person are the history and content of his actions; It is precisely on all this that the logic of the intensity of the narrative in Sotnikov is based. Without intensity there is no clarity, without clarity there is no image. It’s almost like with faith: no matter how deep it is, it is never complete unless it is constantly supported or, in any case, not allowed to be destroyed.

If a person turns out to be a creature doomed to rely solely on his own strengths—and this is exactly what happened with Sotnikov—then the only and highest value becomes life itself, which must be given a full, complete form.

Maintaining discipline in the face of death requires strict control over the imagination before it has yet unwinded and become absolute. This also requires a person’s complete concentration on each action, as if this only action constituted this moment all life. Sotnikov in his actions from the very beginning provides an example of such concentration, although his maximalism, conscious and very consistent, thanks to which he will be able to rise above his own fate in the end, gains full strength when the hero has to resort to motives that are more visual than just verbal expression method. They result in a huge moral victory, which makes one think that a person’s character is only to a certain extent his destiny.

But if Sotnikov discovers his true nature - and, as it turned out, in highest degree moral - a face in those moments when the victory of necessity over freedom forces each of the partisans to make a choice, then he equally seriously considers the other side of the problem facing him - the uniqueness of human life. Yes, he reflects, “man’s physical abilities are limited in their capabilities, but who will determine the capabilities of his spirit?”

The reader seems to be fascinated by this question: which of the possible tragedies will be resolved by the next piling up of one misfortune on top of another from episode to episode? But that's not all. Among other things, the questions that Sotnikov asks even before he knew all this in unity - the pricelessness of the departing life and the triumph of spiritual liberation - when he put all of himself, his heart into the test he was given and did everything he could - clearly demonstrate the purpose of this and other favorite heroes of V. Bykov: they rather protect true values rather than destroying fake ones. And the author accurately chooses final scenes, when his mysterious character, in the depths of which the incessant work of the soul takes place, symbolizes fortitude and responds to all attempts by enemies to intimidate him with silence, realizing that you cannot show your weakness to your enemies, just like the feelings that you have for them.

Giving the reader the opportunity to become familiar with the past of his hero, to get used to his front-line fate, the author thereby provides evidence that Sotnikov’s actions continue to reflect his former essence. A sudden attack by the Nazis, Sotnikov’s courageous behavior in battle, the destruction of the battery, captivity, escape, then a partisan detachment. And everywhere and always he strives to give his all. This maximalist always goes to the end.

It is he who truly feels sorry for Demchikha. He, not the Fisherman. Bykov emphasizes this every time - with detail, with a spare but expressive gesture, with the movement of the hero’s eyes. And his conscience is visible everywhere. With Sotnikov, it sometimes borders on naivety, like that time when, hungry, he flatly refused to eat at the old elder’s. But it is conscience that unites all principles in this person and leaves a clear imprint on his actions.

In the world of war in which he exists, Sotnikov has learned to look openly and take what is due to him honestly; In battle, he did not hide behind someone’s back with the air of a boy who should be pitied. In the partisan detachment, where he found himself by the will of fate, it was no longer enough for him to act like everyone else; it became necessary to do better every hour. That is why, being sick, he went with the Fisherman on a mission. And that’s why, when the partisans came across the police, he, without hesitation, entered into a shootout with them.

V. Bykov explains Sotnikov’s behavior, striving to explore the world of this man’s soul, and often in vivid and strong images. Throughout the story about him, the hero shows independence of spirit and a responsible attitude to what is happening. Yes, he experiences moments of weakness and hesitation, although for reasons other than Rybak. And this just enriches his own truth, makes it completely conscious. The main thing is that he hates the role of observer; in order to live, he must participate. Death is not something tragic for this man, who has dealt with it so many times—on the front line, in captivity. And in the end, at the cost of his own life, he strives to lead others out of the circle of death.

Everything that V. Bykov tells about his hero is all tuned to an excitedly sounding wave of love for this man, whom tragedy brought closer to a deeper understanding of life. Without straightening Sotnikov's character in any way, the writer found colors that were surprisingly true to his image in the picture of memories of his father. This is when the beaten and completely exhausted Sotnikov, sitting in a dark basement with Demchikha, Rybak, headman Peter and thirteen-year-old Basya, “suddenly realized that their last night in the world was expiring.” It’s his, Sotnikov’s, last night. It was then that he prepared for death, finally reconciling with it. True, he did not yet know that it was not a bullet that was waiting for him, but a police rope.

All his feelings, the ability to experience and comprehend, even just hearing, and most of all his memory, became extremely sharpened. Memory is one of the evidence of Sotnikov’s inner strength, his ability to suffer and experience this suffering. Then he found invaluable support. She appeared before him in the form of a father - a man infinite wisdom and patience, moreover, having the advantage of an experienced observer observing the course of his son’s battle with his enemies. It is precisely the courage and patience of this man, a cavalry commander, a disabled person civil war and a watchmaker who “taught him truth and responsibility to other people” V. Bykov's hero, absorbed in his battle with the police, covered in dirt and blood, owes it to the fact that he resisted the feeling of hopelessness that accompanied his efforts to bring his plan to life. He didn't give up because his father didn't allow him to give up. At that moment, the former painter Sotnikov could hardly have done more for his son than what he did. Sotnikov heard his father’s voice, and immediately the pain and suffering subsided, and a clear consciousness of what he must do came.

Father is like the beginning of yourself. Therefore, according to all the laws of life, everyone must have a father. Dead or alive. The main thing is that this is a real father. This is exactly how Sotnikov had him.

Sotnikov’s confession, which he decided on, is not only an attempt to save others - Demchikha, headman Peter, Rybak; in his effort - and it is worth a lot for the hero V. Bykov, because he must break the silence and enter into a conversation with the enemy - he appeals not just to feeling, but also to his reason. He already knew that death must have its own meaning and then it illuminates the whole life, which for Sotnikov was about to end. That is why he boldly decides on a risky attempt to turn his defeat into victory, taking full responsibility upon himself. For what else could one say to the enemies when everything was done and, he understood this, it could not be done differently. All that remains is to give them your life - a truly powerful ending.

Vasil Bykov in his work “Sotnikov” raises the problem moral choice, responsibility and spiritual maturity. This book is on the list of one hundred books recommended for schoolchildren to read by the Ministry of Education. The main characters of “Sotniki” are partisans going on a mission, their images are in sharp contrast. An exemplary soldier, a loyal comrade, a dexterous and resourceful Fisherman at the end of Bykov’s story becomes a traitor in exchange for his life. Sotnikov, weak and sickly, in the face of death turns out to be firmer and spiritually stronger than his comrade. His characterization is typical, but life position– an example for others!

Characteristics of the heroes of “Sotnikov”

Main characters

Minor characters

In the story “Sotnikov,” the heroes make a choice that determines their future. The author is harsh and adamant in his portrayal of a person at war; there is no definite position in the story - to force the reader to think and choose - the main objective masters of words. The name of Vasil Bykov in literature is pain, however, the life of an entire generation, which he reflected in his work.

Work test

The work is based on real-life events occurring during the Great Patriotic War, therefore, in terms of genre orientation, it belongs to the style of philosophical realism.

The main characters of the story are two comrades, Sotnikov and Rybak, fighting in a partisan detachment, and in accordance with storyline find themselves captured by the German invaders.

The compositional structure of the work consists of two parts, in which the action of the story is divided into the events preceding the captivity of the heroes, and the immediate presence in captivity, where the characters are faced with the need to make the most terrible choice in their lives.

The contrast between the characters of the story in the images of Sotnikov and Rybak is the basis of the composition of the work, expressed in their internal monologues, dialogues, memories from past life, in the narrative content of the characters revealing different moral worldviews.

The storyline of the story, according to the author's plan, has rapid development, while the writer puts his characters in circumstances that complicate their lives in a progressive order ( war time, the onset of disease, a feeling of constant hunger, being injured, fascist captivity), with the aim of creating a situation in which it is necessary to make the only right life decision, either in the form of betrayal or death.

The fisherman is presented in the story as a man with a pronounced instinct of self-preservation, characterized by moral immaturity and a thirst for life, forcing him to break down from enemy violence and make his choice in favor of betraying his own homeland. At the same time, the writer in certain circumstances emphasizes positive traits of this hero in the form of his helping a wounded comrade, showing kindness and care, but, finding himself in the face of death, becoming cowardly and cowardly.

Sotnikov is characterized by the writer as the complete opposite of his comrade, a man who managed to withstand incredible bullying and torture with honor and dignity, and remained a true patriot of his homeland. A hero placed in an inhuman situation, being deeply moral person, makes his own life choice in favor fatal outcome, steadfastly and self-possessingly accepting his own death.

To reveal the characters' characters, the writer subtly and accurately uses complex psychological sketches, which are distinguished by their versatility, versatility and truthfulness, allowing one to perceive the narrative in the smallest details, without placing emphasis on author's attitude to the actions of the characters in the story.

Episodes from the heroes' childhood, presented in the form of their memories, make it possible to emphasize the influence of raising children on the formation of their future personal qualities.

The story touches on pressing problems of human society in the form of justice, conscience, humanism, and honor.

Analysis 2

It is known that many of the writer Bykov’s works were about the Great Patriotic War. And this is completely natural, since the writer himself was a participant in the war. Such a phenomenon as war is considered by Vasily Bykov primarily from a moral standpoint. The writer describes to us the lives of people in poor conditions, calls on the reader to think about the origins of the inner strength that characterizes the best of his characters. In the work "Sotnikov" Bykov wants to show us that inner strength does not depend on the physical abilities of the individual, it is completely related to the realm of the spirit.

The main characters of the story embody the traits of two opposing types of people. If such people find themselves in front of an important moral choice, then they will behave differently: someone will betray and continue to drag out a miserable existence; someone will turn out to be a courageous and persistent person and will prefer to die with peace of mind. In the work "Sotnikov" two people are contrasted - Sotnikov and Rybak.

Initially, Rybak appears to the reader as a completely kind person: he helps a sick friend, gives him the last grain, and does not show anger about the unexpected burden. The fisherman is kind in his own way. He never decided to kill the headman, although he thought that this definitely had to be done.

For the first time fear for own life Rybak wakes up when the police are chasing him: initially he wanted to betray Sotnikov, inventing excuses for himself that he still couldn’t escape.

When the interrogation was arranged, Rybak got scared and betrayed his squad. When he is offered to switch to the German side, he agrees. And in confirmation of his readiness to serve Germany, Rybak helps to hang Sotnikov. The fisherman thinks about his own liberation, deep in his soul he hopes to escape, but after the execution he clearly understands that nothing will work out.

Reflecting on everything that happened, Rybak cannot understand how it happened and who is to blame for everything. He doesn't want to admit his own guilt. He stoops to justifying that he fought for his life, and Sotnikov himself is to blame for everything. He is not aware of the fact that his stupid attempts to justify himself are extremely illogical and bad. Bykov himself at the end of the work tells the reader that everything that happened to Rybak was the treacherous fate of a man lost in the war. The book raises problems of justice and humanism, it answers such difficult questions as how to preserve the human in oneself, what kind of person one should be, etc.