The urgency of the story "The Heart of a Dog." Is M. Bulgakov contemporary?

The question of 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 urgency of the story "The Dog's Heart," and explain why this work is not only eternal, but also topical.

Ruin in the same place where it was 100 years ago

The most famous saying (quotation) from the composition of MA Bulgakov: "Razruha not in the closets, but in the minds" remains fair for today. The story was published in 1925, almost 100 years ago. Since then, nothing has changed at all. Yes, people started talking on mobile phones, the message became faster. The world became very small thanks to the Internet, but the Russian person himself has changed little.

All this makes the urgency of the story "The Dog Heart" unquestionable.

No matter how bitter it is to admit, but now there are people who turn someone else's entrance (and sometimes their own) into a public toilet, and explain to them that this is not good, there is no possibility, because their parents did not bring up well.

The general decline in education and culture (not only intellectual, but also domestic) also does not add optimism. Children grow up sometimes without understanding the basic rules of decency. But the younger generation is not to blame for it. Parents once to instill in them "good and bright," they must earn money, and the main today's "nannies" are TV and the Internet. It is clear that you can not expect anything good here. This creates "devastation in the minds". Another sad answer to the rhetorical question about the urgency of the story "The Dog's Heart".

Cult "Artist" as the main symptom of the disease of time

The generation brought up on "MUZ-TV" and MTV grew up with the conviction that being an artist, dancer, musician - "it's cool", and all other professions - "it sucks." The Soviet formula: "All professions are important, all professions are needed" - has sunk into oblivion. In other words, there has come a strange time, when everyone wants only to entertain and entertain - "sing in chorus", instead of working. People believe that the world is large enough, and, according to this logic, there will necessarily be someone who will still work for the common good in a profession not related to creativity. In other words: "Someone, but not me."

F. F. Preobrazhensky spoke about this state of affairs? The reader still asks himself the question about the urgency of the story "The Dog's Heart"?

There is nothing wrong with giving a chance to "ordinary guys and girls" to break through to the creative Olympus. But for some reason, it seems that real talent is a rare thing, and various kinds of reality shows legitimize idleness, educating a generation of individualists and egoists who do not care about the country, they are only interested in personal wealth. It's one thing when people achieve success, and quite another, when they simply dissolve in the general mass. Of course, singing after the show on TV for restaurants - not the cars unload, but there is no point in it for a penny.

About this, one way or another spoke F.F. Preobrazhensky: a Russian person suffers from the fact that in his social reality (and accordingly, in life) does not make sense, but he is too lazy to equip her independently, it is easier for him to urinate in the front and Steal galoshes (or search for oneself all your life). Since then, unfortunately, little has changed, it also removes the question of the relevance of the story "Dog Heart" in our time.

In place of "ball" and "shvonder" came "consumer"

And it is not yet clear what kind of phenomenon is worse. Of course, the "consumer" is more cultured, smarter, but it makes the world tremble for other reasons than the "shvonder" and "ball". As a rule, the "consumer" is not educated, but he has all his opinions: about high art, high fashion, good literature. It controls the flow of money and any other flows. In a world where much is subject to rating, the "consumer" manages everything, because he is the incarnate majority. Bulgakov guessed in his work a general type, which in the 20 th century flooded Europe, and in 21-m reached and to Russia. Is it worth asking yourself, what is the urgency of the story "Dog Heart" in our days?

In 1930, José Ortega y Gasset's cult book, The Rise of the Masses, was published. In it, he examined in detail the phenomenon of a "mass man". Among other things, he wrote in his essay: "The mass person (the 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 became the master of life. The whole of modern civilization is built for its needs.

Is the person angry or kind? Bulgakov's opinion

Bulgakov is rather pessimistic about the nature of man. Not in vain, he contrasted in his story "good" animal and "evil" man. There was a good dog, he became a bad person. Surprising is not the transformation of Sharik to Sharikov, but the fact that Philip Philipovich, knowing about the devastation, still decided on a bold experiment.

"Russian Frankenstein" not only failed to justify the hopes of the creator, but let the Soviet reality into reality with all its abomination into the quiet and comfortable life of the professor. For Bulgakov in it there was no charm and no pluses - one dirt.

And if the result of the Bulgakov experiment is stacked in one lapidary formulation, then it will be: "A good dog is better than a bad person." As it seems, many modern people will subscribe to this idea , which plays into the hands of the composition of the Russian classic when answering the question about the relevance of Bulgakov's story "The Heart of a Dog."

Finally, I want to say only one thing, imitating I. Volgin: "Read and reread the classics, revealing more and more new meanings in it."