In Heart of a Dog, the author ridiculed the proletariat in every possible way and, in my opinion, one of the most obvious and obvious interpretations is the inability of the proletariat to accept higher ideas. The various bright ideals of communism, new opportunities for ordinary people can be perceived as human existence in comparison with the “dog” existence of the oppressed worker. Only when he finds himself outside this oppressive framework, he cannot perceive anything, he demands control over himself.
In fact, Bulgakov probably wrote about human nature in general, and therefore the story is relevant today, and indeed almost always. A little chauvinistically, Mikhail Afanasyevich divides human beings into worthy and educated and unworthy, those who by their nature are still animals, dogs. Such analogies are used in many traditions, for example, in Hinduism, a person who is interested only in animal affairs and pleasures is called a chanchala or a pasha; even Orthodox elders wrote about different types of people, including those who are simply dogs in the form of a human body .
If you look at the present day, the situation has not changed much, and probably will not change. After all, when reasonable people think about why, animals reproduce. As the famous punk musician Igor Letov sang: “Dogs rule the world, dogs inhabit bodies, dogs howl in our brains, and only dogs will remain here.” A very accurate diagnosis of humanity as a process, a similar diagnosis is made by Preobrazhensky when he clearly states: “Klim, Klim Chugunkin,” meaning not even the negative impact of dog nature, but the essence of the drunkard Chugunkin, who eked out a dog’s life, in essence.
Of course, all these concepts with gradations of who is an animal and who is an aristocrat often carry destructive elements. For example, such a worldview can result in extremely unproductive forms, which can also be observed in India, noted above, although, in general, the caste system there is very reasonable.
Bulgakov was ironic not only about dog-people, he was also critical of representatives of the intelligentsia, if you look at it, that’s why the story is relevant, it explores human society in many ways and the relationships between its various representatives and layers.
Essay 2
In Bulgakov’s work “The Heart of a Dog” there are two main characters: Professor Preobrazhensky and Sharikov, an artificial man created by the professor and his assistant Dr. Bormenthal from the street dog Sharik. The professor’s very idea was brilliant: to humanize the dog by transplanting an important endocrine gland – the pituitary gland. The expectations from the operation were enormous: the new person had to be much better and more developed than everyone else. But something went wrong: although Sharikov’s heart remained a dog’s, his brain clearly worked like a proletarian. Apparently, the influence of the transplanted pituitary gland taken from the drunkard Klim Chugunkin had an effect.
Sharikov turned into a human very quickly: excess fur quickly came out, his tail fell off, and the beginnings of meaningful speech appeared. And at first, scientists were happy with everything: he began to smoke and eat herring, like a person. He allowed me to put on my trousers. But the positive emotions ended there. Having become humanized, Sharikov began to behave arrogantly and unceremoniously, believing that everyone around him owes him: they must feed him, since he must eat somewhere, they must register him, since he himself has no housing. The beggar Klim Chugunkin gained nothing during his short life and learned nothing. The only thing he could do was play the balalaika around the taverns. But he didn’t need anything more! Why bother if you can take everything away from the rich and divide it among the equally poor. This will be fair! All the skill of the drunken proletarian and his worldview are transferred to Sharikov. And he is trying to “divide everything,” especially since he has a lot of like-minded people - Shvonder and his company.
The action takes place after the revolution in the twenties of the last century. The “densification” of the rich and the division of their property begins: first, homeless people are moved into apartments, who begin to heat stoves with parquet floors and shit in toilets. This, unfortunately, was considered the norm for a long time and was recognized by the majority. After all, how many temples were simply polluted and destroyed. “Peace to the huts, war to the palaces.” This is the slogan of that time. And why everyone should destroy palaces and live in huts is difficult to say.
Sharikov, with his worldview, unexpectedly for the professor and Bormental, “goes uphill”: he even finds work “in his specialty” - clearing the city of stray animals and cats that he hates. They begin to send a car for him, he begins to wear a “leather jacket,” which was so fashionable then among executives. But that’s not so bad: he writes a slander against Professor and Doctor Bormental. And their calm world collapses: not only is the peace disturbed, but there is also a lot of physical inconvenience caused by Sharikov. But Sharikov brazenly explains everything that is happening: yes, he flooded the bathroom, but he wanted to teach the cat a lesson! And he taught me a lesson, no matter what. Everything is possible, everything is permitted. And nothing will happen for it.
The proverb says: Fear the wrath of a patient man. Both the patient Professor Preobrazhensky and the no less patient Bormental became angry with all the ensuing consequences: they turned the harmful Sharikov back into a dog. Moreover, the dog was kind and affectionate, according to the professor. This means that it’s not the dog’s heart that is to blame, but the genes of Klim Chugunkin, as they say now.
This is a fairy tale, and fairy tales always end well. Everyone got what they deserved. And the carriage turned back into a pumpkin, and the impudent Sharikov - into a kind dog, grateful, unlike Sharikov, for everything the professor had done to him.
In the USSR, this work of Bulgakov was kept silent for a long time, because it was not the proletarian Sharikov who aroused sympathy, as we would have liked, but the bourgeois Philip Philipovich - smart, intelligent and educated. And the revolutionary figures did not inspire confidence. And this fundamentally contradicted the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the correct course of the party, which our country followed for many years. Almost a hundred years have passed since the writing of “The Heart of a Dog,” but this masterpiece of Bulgakov has become no less, but more relevant and in demand: a plot with a touch of fantasy, wonderful language and the triumph of justice make this work one of the best works of world classics. As, indeed, all the other works of Bulgakov.
Aleko is the main character in Alexander Pushkin's poem "Gypsies". He is the image of a civilized man. The young man constantly criticizes life in the city.
The title of the article is largely rhetorical. Bulgakov wrote about the eternal problems of the Russian land, and not only Russian. But we will try to understand specifically the topic that determines the relevance of the story “The Heart of a Dog” and explain why it is not only eternal, but also topical.
Devastation in the same place where it was 100 years ago
The most famous saying (quote) from the work of M. A. Bulgakov: “Devastation is not in closets, but in heads” remains true today. The story was published in 1925, almost 100 years ago. Since then, absolutely nothing has changed. Yes, people began to talk on mobile phones, the message became faster. The world has become very small thanks to the Internet, but the Russian people themselves have changed little.
All this makes the relevance of the story “Heart of a Dog” undeniable.
No matter how bitter it is to admit, even now there are people who turn someone else’s entrance (and sometimes their own) into a public toilet, and there is no way to explain to them that this is not good, because their parents did not raise them well.
The general decline in education and culture (not only intellectual, but also everyday) also does not add optimism. Children sometimes grow up without understanding the basic rules of decency. But this is not too much to blame. Parents have no time to instill in them “good and bright”, they must earn money, and today’s main “nannies” are TV and the Internet. It is clear that nothing good can be expected here. This creates “ruin in the minds.” Another sad answer to a rhetorical question about the relevance of the story “The Heart of a Dog.”
The cult of the “Artist” as the main symptom of the disease of time
The generation brought up on MUZ-TV and MTV grew up with the belief that being an artist, dancer, musician is “cool”, and all other professions “suck”. The Soviet formula: “All professions are important, all professions are needed” has sunk into oblivion. In other words, a strange time has come when everyone only wants to have fun and entertain - “sing in chorus”, instead of working. People believe that the world is big enough, and, according to this logic, there will definitely be someone who will still work for the benefit of the common cause in a profession not related to creativity. In other words: “Someone, but not me.”
Isn’t this the state of affairs that F. F. Preobrazhensky spoke about? The reader still asks himself a question about the relevance of the story “Heart of a Dog”?
There is nothing wrong with giving “ordinary guys and girls” a chance to break into the creative Olympus. But for some reason it seems that real talent is a rare thing, and various kinds of reality shows seem to legitimize idleness, while raising a generation of individualists and egoists who do not care about the country, they are only interested in their personal well-being. It's one thing when people achieve success, but quite another when they simply disappear into the crowd. Of course, singing in restaurants after a TV show is not to unload the cars, but there’s not a penny’s sense in that.
F. F. Preobrazhensky spoke about this one way or another: a Russian person suffers from the fact that there is no meaning in his social reality (and, accordingly, in life), but he is too lazy to arrange it on his own, it is easier for him to urinate in the front doors and steal galoshes (or spend your whole life searching for yourself). Since then, unfortunately, little has changed, which removes the question of the relevance of the story “The Heart of a Dog” in our time.
The “ball” and “shvonders” have been replaced by the “consumer”
And it is not yet clear which phenomenon is more terrible. Of course, the “consumer” is more cultured and smarter, but he makes the world tremble for other reasons than the “Shvonders” and “Sharikovs”. As a rule, the “consumer” is undereducated, but he has his own opinion on everything: about high art, high fashion, good literature. He controls the flow of cash and any other flows. In a world where many things are subject to ratings, the “consumer” controls everything because he is the embodiment of the majority. Bulgakov guessed in his work a general type that in the 20th century flooded Europe, and in the 21st reached Russia. Is it worth asking yourself what is the relevance of the story “Heart of a Dog” today?
In 1930, José Ortega y Gasset’s cult book “Rise of the Masses” was published. In it, he examined in detail the phenomenon of the “mass man.” Among other things, he wrote in his essay: “The mass person (consumer) feels and considers himself the master of life.” But the thing is that this is not an illusion of the consumer’s consciousness, he really has become the master of life. The entire modern civilization is built to suit his needs.
Is the person evil or good? Bulgakov's opinion
M.A. Bulgakov takes a rather pessimistic view of human nature. It is not for nothing that in his story he contrasted a “good” animal and an “evil” person. Was a good dog, became a bad man. What is surprising is not the transformation of Sharik into Sharikov, but the fact that Philip Philipovich, knowing about the devastation, nevertheless decided on a bold experiment.
“Russian Frankenstein” not only did not live up to the creator’s hopes, but also brought Soviet reality with all its abomination into the professor’s quiet and comfortable life. For Bulgakov, there was no charm and no advantages in her - just dirt.
And if the result of Bulgakov’s experiment is put into one lapidary formulation, then it will be like this: “A good dog is better than a bad person.” It seems that many will subscribe to this idea, which plays into the hands of the work of the Russian classic when answering the question of what is the relevance of Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.”
Finally, I would like to say only one thing, imitating I. Volgin: “Read and re-read the classics, revealing more and more new meanings in them.”
M. Bulgakov did not see the story “The Heart of a Dog,” written in 1925, published, since it was confiscated from the author along with his diaries by OGPU officers during a search. “Heart of a Dog” is the writer’s latest satirical story.
Everything that was called the construction of socialism was perceived by the writer Bulgakov as an experiment. The author of the story is skeptical about attempts to create a new, perfect society using revolutionary, that is, not excluding violence, methods and methods of educating a new person. For him, this was interference in the natural course of things, the consequences of which could be disastrous, including for the “experimenters” themselves. This is exactly what the author warns readers about with his work.
The story is based on a risky experiment. When Professor Preobrazhensky, in the course of his scientific experiments, unexpectedly for himself, gets a human out of a dog and then tries to raise this creature, he has reason to expect success. After all, he is a major scientist, a man of high culture and high moral rules. But he fails. Why? Partly because life itself intervenes in the process of Sharikov’s upbringing. First of all, in the person of the house committee Shvonder, who strives to immediately turn this child of the experiment into a conscious builder of socialism. He is “stuffed” with slogans. Engels gives me to read. This is for yesterday's Sharik. What about heredity?..
The makings of a homeless, always hungry and humiliated dog combined with the makings of a criminal and an alcoholic. This is how Sharikov turned out - a creature by nature aggressive, arrogant and cruel. There was only one thing he lacked: the famous revolutionary slogan: “He who was nothing will become everything.”
Shvonder armed Sharikov with an ideological phrase, that is, he is his ideologist, his “spiritual shepherd.” The paradox is that, by helping a creature with a “dog’s heart” to establish itself, he is also digging a hole for himself. By setting Sharikov against the professor, Shvonder does not understand that someone else could easily set Sharikov against Shvonder himself. A person with the heart of a dog just needs to point at anyone, say that he is an enemy, and Sharikov will humiliate him and destroy him. How reminiscent this is of Soviet times and especially the thirties... And even today this happens.
The ending of the story with the professor's experiment is almost idyllic. Preobrazhensky returns Sharikov to his original state, and since then everyone has been busy with their own business: the professor with science, Sharik with the dog’s service to the professor.
People like Sharikov are proud of their low origins and “average” education, because this distinguishes them from those who are high in spirit and mind, and therefore, in their opinion, should be trampled into the dirt. This is the only way Sharikov will rise above them. You involuntarily ask yourself the question: how many of them were there and how many of them are among us now? Thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands? Outwardly, the Sharikovs are no different from people, but they are always among us.
This is, for example, a people's judge who, in the interests of his career and the fulfillment of a plan to solve crimes, condemns an innocent person. This could be a doctor who turns away from a patient, or an official for whom bribes have become the order of the day. This is a well-known deputy who, at the first opportunity to grab a tasty morsel, takes off his mask, and, showing his true essence, is ready to betray his voters. Everything that is highest and sacred turns into its opposite, because an animal always lives in such people.
The Sharikovs, with their truly canine vitality, do not look at anything, they will go everywhere over the heads of others. The heart of a dog in alliance with the human mind is the main threat of our time. That is why this story, written at the beginning of the century, remains relevant today and serves as a warning to future generations.
Everything that M. Bulgakov wrote about passed through his heart. The writer was especially concerned about the violent transformations taking place in society. This theme is revealed in two satirical stories by Bulgakov: “Fatal Eggs” and “Heart of a Dog.”
The story “Dog”
Heart” is distinguished by the originality of its idea. The revolution that took place in Russia was not the result of natural socio-economic and spiritual development, but an irresponsible and premature experiment. A revolution can be compared to an operation on a living organism.
The story is based on a great experiment. The hero of the story, Professor Philip Filippovich Preobrazhensky, decided to improve nature itself: to create a new person, to transplant part of the human brain into a dog.
And so the professor accomplishes the main task of his life - a unique experimental operation: he transplants a human into the dog Sharik
Pituitary gland from a man who died a few hours before the operation. This man is Klim Petrovich Chugunkin, twenty-eight years old, convicted three times. “Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns, short in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated (alcohol). Cause of death: stabbed in the heart in a pub.” As a result of a most complex operation, an ugly, primitive creature appeared - a non-human, who completely inherited the “proletarian” essence of his “ancestor”. The first word he uttered was “bourgeois.” And then - swearing: “don’t push!”, “Scoundrel”, “...get off the bandwagon.” He was a disgusting “man of short stature and unattractive appearance. The hair on his head grew coarse... His forehead was striking in its small height. A thick head brush began almost directly above the black threads of the eyebrows.”
The monstrous homunculus, a man with a canine disposition, the “basis” of which was the lumpen-proletarian Klim Chugunkin, feels like the master of life, he is arrogant, swaggering, and aggressive. The conflict between Professor Preobrazhensky, his assistant Doctor Bormental and the humanoid lumpen is absolutely inevitable. The life of the professor and the inhabitants of his apartment becomes a living hell. “The man at the door looked at the professor with dull eyes and smoked a cigarette, sprinkling ashes on his shirtfront...”; “Don’t throw cigarette butts on the floor - I ask you for the hundredth time. So that I never hear a single curse word again. Don't spit in the apartment! Stop all conversations with Zina. She complains that you are stalking her in the dark. Look!” – the professor is indignant. “For some reason, dad, you’re painfully oppressing me,” he (Sharikov) suddenly said tearfully... Why aren’t you letting me live?”
Sharikov is becoming more impudent every day. In addition, he finds an ally - the house manager Shvonder, who raises Sharikov as a dog and recommends him for public service.
Lumpen Sharikov instinctively “smelled” the main credo of the new masters of life, all the Sharikovs: plunder, steal, take away everything created, as well as the main principle of the created so-called socialist society: universal equalization, called equality. What this led to is well known. Sharikov, supported by Shvonder, is becoming more and more relaxed and openly hooligans.
The finest hour for Poligraf Poligrafovich was his “service” in the department of cleaning the city from stray animals.
So, Bulgakov’s Sharik made a dizzying leap: from stray dogs to orderlies to cleanse the city of stray dogs and cats.
Sharikov is alien to conscience, shame, and morality. He lacks human qualities, except meanness, hatred, malice. He brazenly lays claim to Preobrazhensky’s living space and “writes” a denunciation against the professor.
On the pages of the story, the surgeon-sorcerer manages to return the dog to its canine form. The professor understood: nature does not tolerate violence against itself.
Bulgakov in the story “Heart of a Dog” not only laughed at all aspects of the new life, when the one “who was nobody” became “everyone,” but also showed what could happen as a result of such a metamorphosis. The writer warns us all about this, says that it is impossible to forcibly change a person’s way of thinking, the moral foundations of society. It can be destroyed, but it cannot be created overnight. This is a long evolutionary process.
Essays on topics:
- Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is an unusually truthful and sensitive artist. It seems to me that he saw far ahead, anticipating all the misfortunes of the state, which...
- In the story “Heart of a Dog,” M. A. Bulgakov raises a number of pressing moral issues that have troubled Russian writers at all times: the theme of crime...
>Essays on the work Heart of a Dog
Relevance of the story
The story “Heart of a Dog” was written in 1925 and was the last satirical story for the writer. During this period, socialism was just emerging and M. A. Bulgakov in his story touched upon the problems that arose in society. He saw this period as an experiment, during which the old ideals on which tsarist Russia had long been based were destroyed, and a new revolutionary-minded society was created with such elements as Sharikov, Shvonder. They did not like the intelligentsia and tried in every possible way to fight them through incitement, denunciations and even violence. They showed disrespect for any material and spiritual values in their desire to build a fair, communist society.
The story “The Heart of a Dog” is also based on an experiment during which Professor Preobrazhensky, an outstanding surgeon and luminary of medicine, turns a dog into a human. Despite the fact that the formerly homeless dog Sharik begins to look like a person in appearance, he behaves like a creature with the makings of an eternally hungry, humiliated dog and alcoholic, criminal Klim Chugunkin, whose organs were transplanted to him. No matter how hard the professor tried to re-educate the new citizen, nothing worked. Then the new chairman of the house committee, Comrade Shvonder, manages to influence him. He gives Sharik, now Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov, to read Engels, “stuffs him” with ideas about building socialism, and also insists that the professor register a new tenant.
Shvonder acts as a sort of ideologist and spiritual mentor to the impudent Sharikov. People like them are not ashamed of their low origins and lack of education, but on the contrary believe that gentlemen with high intelligence and spirit should be humiliated and trampled into the dirt. Only in this way could Sharikov and Shvonder rise to the top, which is often the case these days. However, at the end of the story, the professor performs another operation to return Sharik to his dog nature. The experiment was successful. Society got rid of the annoying Sharikov, and a kind-hearted dog reappeared in Preobrazhensky’s apartment.
In his story, M. A. Bulgakov focused on the fact that there can be as many Sharikovs in society as desired. Outwardly, they are no different from the others, but inside they have a “dog” heart. Without hesitation, they will go over the heads of others for the sake of their own goals, betray loved ones, write a denunciation, frame them, etc. There are always plenty of such people. The story was, is and will be relevant, because the main threat to society in any era is the heart of a dog in alliance with the human mind.