August 7, 2016 in the city of Borisoglebsk Voronezh region within the framework of the round table "Hero of our time in modern Russian literature". The organizer of the round table was MBUK BGO "Borisoglebsk Centralized library system”and the Council for Criticism of the Union of Writers of Russia. Moderator - Vyacheslav Lyuty.

The video recording of the round table was transcribed Olga Biryukova, methodologist MBUK BGO "Borisoglebsk Centralized Library System". Unfortunately, the recording was intermittent and not all opinions expressed during the almost three-hour conversation are present in the final text.

Vyacheslav LUTY, Literary critic, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Podyom magazine, Chairman of the Council for Criticism of the Writers' Union of Russia:

As the first report, I offer my speech, which is of a more general nature, and you will get acquainted with this or that specificity in the speeches of my colleagues.

Starting from the image presented to the Russian person by Lermontov, and turning our gaze to reality, first of all, we ask direct questions:

How do we define the time in which we live?
- who should be considered the hero of our time, what human qualities worthy of this generalizing characteristic?
- how does modern literature relate to reality, is the literary reflection of life adequate to it or does it present it with distortions?
- Does the psychological and moral contour of the hero of our time coincide in reality with the depiction of this image in literature?

Without taking into account these leading questions, the following reflections will be purely optional.

If we compare the social profile of today's society with the social map of the Soviet era or pre-revolutionary, several differences will immediately catch your eye. In the pre-Soviet period, the property stratification of the population was probably similar to the current one. In addition, psychologically, the most diverse types of people were commonplace, after 1917 very often unthinkable. Sexual and serfs, dirty whores and kept women, gentlemen with a brain swollen with fat and increased self-confidence, well-born upstarts, bandits, a self-sufficient and unceremonious bureaucratic layer. Of course, selfless people with honor and dignity in a long-standing class society were in sight, in whatever environment they acted, whether it was a teacher in rural school or a statesman in the capital. Above all this human conglomerate, like a dome uniting all, hovered public opinion. Sometimes his accents were false, but the necessity and influence of this social and moral institution was not questioned by anyone.

In the socialist era, cringing, which was a visible part of human relationships earlier, turned into a contemptuous characteristic. In an implicit form, this quality still existed, but visibly it is a thing of the past. Public opinion, albeit adjusted for ideological bonds, continued to exist. The social picture of the citizens of the Soviet state became largely homogeneous.

After the collapse Soviet Union all the most worst features of the old Russian past and the Western present, like a night killer, penetrated the territory of Russia and declared their master's rights. Today, the nouveau riche and the corrupt court, the viscous bureaucracy and contempt for the common man, civil hysterics and the real fear of the rich and the official have again become commonplace in our country.

So, keeping in mind these common features past and present, we must define the hero of our time. It is not at all necessary to continue the old content of the image: "the most remarkable human type, corresponding to its time." I think it is much more important now to make the designation “hero” the first in the proposed formula, that is, a person who resists the environment in which he happens to exist, who does not break his own principles, but for their sake comes into conflict with the dictates of a decaying era. And this will be correct in projection for future Russian decades.

Postmodern literature and media mass media turned inside out in their animal effort to deheroize our being. But every new day gradually informed us about a new hero who did not spare his own life for the sake of his homeland or neighbor. The very course of hours and days resisted this satanic desire to emasculate the roots of Russian history, humiliate the feat and bow to betrayal or indifference.

And gradually postmodernist hysterics - philosophers, literary critics and writers - moved into the shadows. The stinking spirit of huckstering and coldness of heart still pervades our relationships, but Russian literature is beginning to free itself from the characters imposed on it. As if taken from the stories of Saltykov-Shchedrin and imperiously transferred to a comfortable environment of their own kind, they extinguished the living breath of a truly Russian person, a sophisticated reader or an ingenuous hard worker.

Meanwhile, traditional images based on generic concepts of honor and dignity, conscience and mercy are firmly rooted in his mind. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to demand intellectualism from modern literature and reproach it with an uninventive depiction of common types. Having suffered in the postmodern desert, Russian people are drawn to warmth, to a specific hero, to a recognizable situation. Our literature is recovering its humanistic potential and ability to show life in recognizable forms. Nowadays, many of the most important realistic works have not yet taken their rightful place, the primacy in ratings and presentations is given to sometimes insignificant, hysterical things, and an incompetent author is artificially increased to the size of a literary seeker, and sometimes even a genius. Need to bring literary picture modern life to a weighty completeness, and only then outline the next steps in the development of Russian literature.

One can consider the smart, principled and honest journalist Ivan Bazanov from Pyotr Krasnov's novel Zapolye to be the hero of a turning point in the era. This tragic image remains in the memory for a long time, it is inextricably linked with the time in which its fate is revealed. The novel of defeat "Zapolye" is still waiting for the attention of critics, it is multidimensional and combines the truth of the city and the truth of the countryside.

The stories and stories of Natalya Molovtseva seem to be simple and unpretentious, but in every plot of the author we find moral stoicism and the hero's unwillingness to go against conscience and memory. The characters in Dmitry Voronin's prose are numerous and sketchy, but we suddenly see almost a crowd of heroes of the present time - including negative types. She makes noise, talks to herself, can start a fight, and sometimes - with their heads down, her people silently, quietly saying something to each other, go home.

IN modern poetry we are waiting for the Russian myth and the thirst for resistance to the cynical oligarchic way of life, more and more often in the verses of poets one can find a desire to join forces and repel evil incarnate. As a rule, such plots are conditional, almost fabulous, but the desire of the characters is indicated not only lyrically accurately and convincingly, but also adamantly morally. Vladimir Skif and Gennady Yomkin have similar stories based on rural material.

The significant poem by Svetlana Syrneva “Patriot” (“To stand near the black White House, // to lose both relatives and bury friends ...”) echoes the novel “Zapolye” in sorrowful drama. But both in prose and in verse, the heroes do not break themselves into the slippery stereotype of a bourgeois little man: the scale of their personality remains unchanged.

In the poetry of Diana Kahn, the theme of struggle is one of the main ones. In the coordinates of the myth and on purely modern material, her lyrical heroine is a rooted Russian person - with a thirst for the continuation of the tribal tradition, with a sense of the Orthodox structure of her own soul.

The task is to show real heroes in a literary work modern life that hold the walls of our home-state, despite the lies of propaganda and the thieves' tricks of an insignificant elite, is extremely important. Because the hope for tomorrow, the spiritually correct education of the new generation, in this case, will find a strong ally - modern Russian literature. And then public opinion of a different type will begin to build up again - in the absence of self-interest and vulgarity, permeated with sincerity and faith in justice.

Viktor Barakov,literary critic, prose writer, doctor philological sciences, Professor of the Vologda State University, member of the Council for Literary Criticism of the Writers' Union of Russia:

I want to illustrate the words of Vyacheslav Dmitrievich with specific examples from the literary life of the Vologda region.

The hero, not only in modern prose, but also in life, is an honest man, a seeker of truth, who is not yet tired of fighting for justice. Two all-Russian competition prose: the name of Vasily Ivanovich Belov "Everything is ahead" and the name of Vasily Makarovich Shukshin "Bright Souls". Here is the fifth collection in my hands here, I brought gifts from Vologda - the magazines "Vologda Lad", a selection of newspapers "Vologda Writer". We receive thousands of manuscripts not only from Russia, but also from abroad: Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, the United States, Canada. They are different in quality, but the plots, in most cases, are connected with one theme: an attempt to survive in the circumstances offered. People are banging their heads against the wall, trying to reach out to the authorities - exactly like in Alexander Yashin's old essay "Vologda Wedding": "Do the top people know what's going on here?" But then the collective farmers and Yashin, two years after the publication of the essay, were heard, the current ones do not even want to listen. After all, not a single referendum has been held in these twenty-odd years. And they come up to me in the districts, they say: “You tell me in Moscow that the government in the state is wrong.” And who will I tell?.. And if they turn to the authorities directly, as, for example, in Elena Rodchenkova’s story “The House of the Fool” (it was published in the Vologda Writer), then nothing good happens - look at the end of the story.

We are talking about details, but let's see if the writers themselves managed to change their own destiny? There is no law on creative organizations, the meeting with Putin did not produce results, the writer, as he was powerless and impoverished, has remained so. Has anyone managed to get used to market economy, except for literary show business figures, like Marinina and grant-eaters? Nobody. They say the writers themselves are to blame? But then the teachers, doctors, university professors, scientists are also to blame - only the oligarchs are right. It is clear that our ideology is different, but there is one more circumstance that leads to sad reflections - this is personnel policy.

IN Soviet time The Vologda writers' organization thundered throughout the Union, and one of the reasons was the professionalism of the authorities. The first secretary of the regional committee, Drygin, knew modern literature perfectly, provided apartments for all Vologda writers without exception, and gave Viktor Astafyev, who arrived in Vologda in 1969, his new apartment, he himself stayed to live in the old one. Victor Korotaev enthusiastically told that he, a bachelor who had just joined the Writers' Union, was given the keys to a one-room apartment in the center of Vologda the next day. By the way, Nikolai Rubtsov was also given one-room apartment in the center of Vologda after joining the Union.

What happened after 1991? A total disgrace. Governor Podgornov, appointed by Yeltsin, turned out to be the first head of the region with a secondary education in history, after a while he stole and went to prison. The current governor, Kuvshinnikov, immediately closed the Regional Youth Library.

And so along the entire vertical: Putin calls Zakhar Prilepin Fedey and quotes lines that do not belong to Mikhail Lermontov, the first “Russian” mayor of Vologda Yakunichev, on our proposal to install a memorial plaque on the hotel building, where Sergei Yesenin stayed three times in 1916-17, made round eyes and asked: “And who is Yesenin?” The recent mayor of Vologda Shulepov (went on promotion) is notorious for the country for his reasoning: "When spring comes, nettles will appear, it will become easier." To the local branch of the Union of Russian Writers, which is 99% graphomaniacs (I will quote one of the stanzas of the Vologda graphomaniac: “I don’t need a hat or a fashionable dress, / If only I could dirty the paper”), he allocated a whole house and exempted them from rent for several years. And our Union, in which, for example, Olga Fokina works, the fee was raised. When I published a critical article about local graphomaniacs, I was accused ... of fascism.

At our Vologda University, we are not sitting idly by, we have prepared an excellent leader, historian, candidate of science Lukichev. The regional authorities instead took a loser. We have the most talented graduates. Despite the fact that students come to the first year, less and less prepared in schools, they grow very quickly. There are a lot of talented guys, girls - during the defense of diplomas, the representative of the department admired, gave everyone “five”, but did not hire anyone. Unfortunately, now it is not professionalism that is valued, but some other qualities.

Upstairs are still odious Chubais, Medvedev, Shuvalov, Dvorkovich, Nabiulina. If not Putin determines personnel policy, then who? People say: “We love our homeland, but the state ...” The state, mocking, for example, the Academy of Sciences (it is actually run by a boy from FASO), doctors, teachers (the salary, for example, of a young teacher at the Vologda University is half as much as than the cleaning lady in my apartment building). This state, which has not yet decided on its own what it needs, which separates itself from these problems, has become stagnant in its idea of ​​life, far from reality, it, of course, does not have a happy future. I would very much like to be wrong, but, unfortunately, sooner or later this policy will have to be changed. But how? This is no longer a question for me.

Svetlana ZAMLELOVA, prose writer, poet, publicist, member of the Council for Literary Criticism of the Writers' Union of Russia, Chief Editor network literary magazine "Kamerton", editor-in-chief of the literary historical magazine "Velikoross", columnist for the newspaper " Soviet Russia”, candidate philosophical sciences:

Modern literary criticism does not leave attempts to describe the "hero of our time", displayed in the works of today's writers. Many, like, for example, philologist Vera Rastorguyeva, believe that "with the modern prose writer's rejection of realistic writing, the image of the hero of the time as the embodiment of a certain historically established type of consciousness seems impossible." She, referring to the writer Olga Slavnikova, argues that in a rapidly changing world, it is really impossible to understand the image of the hero of time as “also a person, only for some reason immortal”, as “the existence of a secret network of “special agents” sent from literature into reality is really impossible.”

There is another point of view. For example, the critic Nikolai Krizhanovsky writes about the absence of a hero in modern Russian literature and assures that “ real hero of our time, like any other, for Russian literature - a person who is able to sacrifice himself for the sake of his neighbors, able to “lay down his soul for his friends” and ready to serve God, Russia, the family ... "According to the critic, the hero of our time in literature can be" professional soldier who saves conscripts from a live grenade, an entrepreneur who does not want to live only for enrichment and his own pleasures and recklessly went to fight in Novorossia, a family man who brings up national traditions their children, a schoolboy or student capable of a great and selfless deed, an elderly rural teacher who still keeps a cow and does not sell, but distributes milk to her poor neighbors, a priest who sells his apartment to complete the construction of the temple, and many other of our contemporaries.

In search of a “hero of our time,” Vera Rastorguyeva turns to the works of the so-called media writers, that is, writers actively published and widely cited by the press. Nikolai Krizhanovsky, in addition to the media, names several names from his entourage. Rastorgueva really describes the "hero of our time", found in modern works. Krizhanovsky assures that there are few real heroes left in modern literature, that “the process of deheroization of domestic literature is underway, and that, finally, “the tendency in modern literature to emasculate the positive hero is gradually being overcome today” by the efforts of some writers.

There is also a point of view according to which the blame for the disappearance of the heroic from modern literature is placed on postmodernism. The same critic Krizhanovsky believes that “the penetration of postmodernism into Russian literature leads to the disappearance of the hero in the original sense of the word.”

However, none of these points of view seems convincing, and for several reasons at once. First of all, it is necessary to point out the conceptual confusion: saying “hero of our time”, many researchers mean “heroic”, understood as selflessness, courage, selflessness, nobility, etc. But the concept of “hero of our time” sends us, of course, to M.Yu. Lermontov. In the preface to the novel, Lermontov deliberately stipulates that "the hero of our time" is "a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development." In the same place, in the preface, Lermontov ironically notes that the public tends to understand every word literally, and that he himself calls his contemporary, or rather, the most common type modern man. And if the image of Pechorin came out unattractive, then there is no author's fault.

In other words, "hero of our time" is not a synonym for "heroic" at all. So, since the time of Lermontov, it is customary to call an image that has absorbed the typical features of the era, reflecting the spirit of the times, which should not necessarily be associated with heroism, nobility and selflessness. Therefore, studies of the "hero of our time" and "heroic" should go along two lines. different directions. Replacing one concept with another not only clarifies nothing, but only multiplies confusion.

Misunderstandings of the creative process contribute to the same confusion, with critics guilelessly claiming the need for more descriptions of engineers, doctors, and teachers. Let's try, for example, to present a modern work of art written in the spirit and truth of the early Middle Ages. It is clear that at best, it will be comical, and at worst, it is a pity, because a modern person professes other truths, moves in a different spirit. It is possible to portray the “hero of our time”, that is, according to Lermontov, a modern person who is met too often, guided by the spirit and truth of his time. But in this case, engineers, teachers, and doctors are not necessarily "positively wonderful people."

Each era creates its own picture of the world, its own culture, its own art. The expression “now they don’t write like that” is appropriate precisely in those cases when an artist tries to create in the spirit of a time alien to him. And this is not about conjuncture, but about the artist's ability to feel his time and convey these feelings in images. Even working on a historical work, sensitive and talented artist will make it understandable for contemporaries, while not vulgarizing or simplifying anything. This means that the artist will be able to convey the spirit of a time alien to him in images understandable to his contemporaries.

Art changes with the era, so antique art different from the medieval, and modern Russian - from the Soviet. In the works of culture, a person always reflects himself and his era, a creative act does not exist in isolation from culture, and culture does not exist in isolation from the era. That is why the researcher of the work is able to identify the features and originality of the human type of a particular era. Based on this, it is logical to assume that if modern art does not offer heroic images, then the heroic is not characteristic, or rather, not typical of our era. And the point here is not the rejection of realistic writing.

It's easier, of course, to blame writers who don't want to describe characters. But it will be appropriate to do this only if the writers, fulfilling the order, deliberately deheroize literature. If we are talking about a direct creative act, then it would be much more correct to explore the era through works, and not try to turn literature into a program “On Request”.

In addition, in order to obtain more or less objective results, it is necessary to study the work of not only media authors. The point is that modern domestic literature very reminiscent of an iceberg with a relatively small visible part and completely unpredictable invisible size. The visible or media part is usually the literature of the projects. Such literature does not have to be good or bad in terms of the quality of the text. It just has to be, consisting of printed books and authors whose names, thanks to frequent and repeated mention in all kinds of media, gradually become brands. So even without reading the works, people know very well: this is a fashionable, famous writer. There is such a thing as "pop taste", that is, the preference is not good, but successful, what is replicated, broadcast and discussed. The modern literature of projects is designed specifically for the “pop taste”, while the goals of its existence are very different - from commercial to political. The author of a series of articles on the modern literary process, the writer Yuri Miloslavsky, analyzing the features of contemporary art, notes that, among other things, “the professional art industry, by its very nature, could not operate successfully in the conditions of variability, unpredictability and arbitrariness of individual creative achievements, the actual struggle of creative groups, etc.” That is why "gradually achieved complete and absolute man-made (<…>ersatz, imitation) of artistic and/or literary success. In other words, the same media literature or literature of projects is an artificially created space, characterized by Yuri Miloslavsky as "artificial cultural context", where "the best, highest quality will be announced in this moment what the art industry, on someone's orders, strategic or tactical calculations, and according to its own calculations formed on the basis of these calculations, produced, acquired and appointed for subsequent implementation. Today, anything can be assigned to these “best”. Everything". In addition, Yuri Miloslavsky refers to the data of a survey conducted from 2008 to 2013. Internet project "Megapinion". The survey participants, and they turned out to be over twenty thousand people, were asked the question “Which of these writers have you read?” and a list of nine hundred writers' names. It turned out that the percentage of media writers who actually read the works ranges from about 1 to 14. The Russian reader, it turns out, still prefers classics or entertaining (mainly detective) fiction.

Perhaps the main consumers of media literature are researchers who undertake, for example, to find out what he is - "a hero of our time." But this kind of research concerns only writers and critics, not touching the ordinary reader. After all, if the reader is familiar with modern literature, mainly at the level of names and newspaper praises, then the influence of such literature on him will be very insignificant. At the same time, studies based on media literature seem to be incomplete and meaningless, since media literature, as was said, is only the tip of the iceberg and it is not possible to judge the block as a whole by it. Building a study of literature solely on its public component is like studying the opinion of the citizens of a country by polling pop stars.

The understanding of the “hero of our time” can be approached not only through the study of works of literature, but also from the theoretical side. Let's ask ourselves a simple question: what kind of person is more common in our time than others - a disinterested daredevil, a restless intellectual or a gambling consumer? Of course, you can meet anyone, and each of us has wonderful friends and loving relatives. And yet, who is more typical of our time: Governor Khoroshavin, analyst Rodchenkov, some "promoted" artist with dubious merit, or, in the words of critic Krizhanovsky, "a priest selling his apartment to complete the construction of the temple"? We repeat: you can definitely meet anyone, especially in the Russian expanses, but in order to understand who the “hero of our time” is, it is important to identify the typical, to find an exponent of the spirit of the times.

Would it not be correct to assume that a typical representative of our era is a person who prefers the material to the ideal, the mundane to the sublime, the perishable to the eternal, earthly treasures to all other treasures? And if this assumption is correct, then the “hero of our time” can safely be called Judas. His image becomes clear through the choice he made. Therefore, it is important to understand not why and why he betrayed, but what exactly he chose. Through his betrayal, Judas refused Christ and what Christ offered. The amount of thirty pieces of silver was so small that Judas could hardly be tempted by it. But he was faced with a choice: a symbolic amount, meaning the rejection of the Teacher, or the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, just the same material against the ideal, mundane against the sublime, downhill against the mountain. Judas turned out to be the prototype of a “consumer society”, for which, just like for Judas, it is impossible, while remaining oneself, to remain faithful to high ideals.

There is really little heroic in modern literature. But this is precisely because the heroic has ceased to be typical. Alas, not in every era more often than others there are defenders of the Motherland, space explorers and honest workers. There are epochs when consumers of goods scurry around, turning from ideals to comfort.

Meanwhile, the heroic is necessary. At least as an example to follow, a reason for pride, a model for education. But what heroes in the country of optimistic patriotism! Unless those who, in the absence of money, lasted the longest. Or those who gave more kicks to English drunkards, yelling louder than others "Russia, forward!" The authorities have no one to offer as heroes, and the society has no one to nominate. There remain individual cases of heroism shown by ordinary citizens, but not becoming typical from this. The critic Krizhanovsky writes about these cases, including, among other things, simply decent people among the heroes.

And yet, in the hero of our time, that is, in the contemporary we meet more often than others, there is nothing heroic. But, as M.Yu. Lermontov, God save us trying to correct human vices. After all, humanity is just clay in the hands of history. And who knows what features it will take in the next decade.

Vyacheslav LUTY:
Here is such a text - in many respects, it seems, bullying, forcing to object, disagree, make some amendments and somewhat change the picture within which the definition of “hero of our time” and, in general, “feat” is formed.

On this occasion, it is worth exchanging views, since what Barakov and I said does not coincide in everything with the position of Svetlana Zamlelova.

I think we should not understand literature as a kind of workshop. Let's say that a locksmith and a salesman have their own workshop signs. It seems that the writer is also a part of a certain professional corporation, which has its own guild features. Imagine that we entered the workshop, looked at what tools are there, what materials are needed, how the work is going, and so on. In my opinion, this is an external and very limited understanding of the writing activity. Literature, which does not separate itself from the people, must enter into a dialogue with them and designate some building and some non-building things. These two substances are mutually nourished: artistic, aesthetic ideas and spiritual insights - people from literature; and, on the contrary, literature is from the people - by fidelity, the truth of what is happening.

Archpriest Gennady RYAZANTSEV-SEDOGIN,prose writer, poet, member of the Writers' Union of Russia, archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church, rector of the Church of Michael the Archangel (Lipetsk city):

The tradition of Russian literature lies in the fact that Russian classic writers did not promise to curtail the framework of literature. And everything that is said about the guild life of a writer simply did not exist for them. They went beyond the bounds of literature to the people. Tolstoy, for example, wanted to write a book that could change lives, influence people in such a way that they inner life has changed. Therefore, he wrote 93 bricks, which all the time wanted to change, change, change a person. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky and his magazine "Grazhdanin" - after all, the writer was in it both as a prophet, and as a comforter, and as an old man, because they already turned to him as a priest or psychotherapist for help. And remember, when he wrote a work called "The Sentence" and also published it in his journal, he may have already written a response to society, because the "Sentence" depicts a person who commits suicide and does not find meaning In this life. And later, when he published the answer, everyone was outraged: so many suicides happened. “You, Fyodor Mikhailovich, with your ultimate logic and depth portray a person who does not find support in life.” Then Dostoevsky was already writing "Memoirs of P.", where he replied that the only meaning of life is faith in the immortality of the human soul. And our life is preparation for future life. That's how they thought, these writers. And not like modern authors who proclaim who knows what.

Andrey TIMOFEEV,prose writer, critic, poet, member of the Council for Criticism of the Writers' Union of Russia:

I will return to literature. My report is more guild, but perhaps it will also be of interest.
In the Council for Criticism, I mainly deal with young authors, relatively speaking, under the age of 35. And I am especially pleased to see that in last years Literature includes a whole generation of promising and talented prose writers. To begin with, I will name the most striking ones, it seems to me that it will be interesting for you to learn about them. This is the Irkutsk prose writer Andrei Antipin, who is now much written about in connection with his rich thick, maybe even somewhat redundant language. But Antipin is not just a language. In his most mature story to date, "Uncle", published in the magazine "Our Contemporary" in 2014, he manages to see the tragedy of the people in the personal tragedy of a simple peasant from the village, to create an image of a truly powerful generalizing force. This is the St. Petersburg prose writer Dmitry Filippov, in whose work the truly Russian, as it were, struggles with the influence of Prilepin-Shargunov's "new realism", and when the first one wins, it turns out, for example, the poignant story "Three Days of Osorgin", published in the magazine "Neva" in volume same 2014. This is also a prose writer from the Moscow region Yuri Lunin, who has been published in recent years in the MolOKO online magazine, whose stories and novels are full of psychologism, tracking the smallest movements of the soul of their characters - a very valuable and rare quality in our time. These are other prose writers: thirty-year-olds - Alexei Ryaskin, who published in particular in Podyom, Anton Lukin, Elena Tulusheva, Evgenia Dekina, Anastasia Chernova, Oleg Sochalin - and those who are a little over twenty - Alena Belousenko, Ivan Makov and others.

But despite the fact that in this generation there are talented and already mature prose writers, despite the fact that one can talk a lot and fruitfully about them, in the full sense of the word, none of these prose writers is engaged in the creation of a hero. So when I got to know the topic of the upcoming roundtable and started thinking about it in relation to this young generation, I was just amazed. But Russian literature is, probably, first of all, a gallery of “heroes of their time” filled with vitality, who began to live in the memory of people almost more tangibly than their real contemporaries: Onegin, Pechorin, Bazarov, Judas Golovlev, the Karamazov brothers and others.

Needless to say, this situation is not new. A little over thirty years ago, in 1984, Vadim Kozhinov wrote the article "The Need for a Hero", in which he also notes that there are many talented young prose writers around who, nevertheless, do not strive to create a full-fledged hero. And, perhaps, that is why the generation that Kozhinov then called “new” in his article did not fully declare itself as a phenomenon, and only individual authors progressed, for example, Nikolai Doroshenko developed at that time. Maybe the modern young generation, without finding their hero, will not be able to make a real statement about themselves. But let's not guess.

It is interesting and instructive for today's young authors and for us to see how the classics of Russian literature found their hero. Vadim Kozhinov's article "Necessity of a Hero" devoted to this topic analyzes an illustrative example from Turgenev's memoirs. “... At the base of the figure, Bazarov,” writes Turgenev, “one person of a young provincial doctor that struck me lay down.” It “embodied ... that barely born ... beginning, which later received the name of nihilism. The impression... was... not entirely clear; at first, I myself could not give myself a good account of it ... "But after a period of doubt," I again set to work - plot gradually took shape: during the winter I wrote the first chapters ... "Every detail of this story is meaningful, Kozhinov notes:" It is like an instantaneous insight - but it crystallizes the experience of a lifetime. And yet, for a long time, the writer doubts. And then, which is very important, the writer is taken for the plot, because "only in a specific artistic action, a hero can become. For no ethical reflections and experiences reveal the moral essence of the hero: it is found only in a decisive, changing state of affairs. deed." That is, if literary character throughout the novel he sits at the table, thinks a lot and does nothing significant, then this is not a real hero. It’s not enough to talk about the murder of an old money-lender, you need to kill; it is not enough to repent, one must go to Siberia, and so on. Often modern authors do not understand this at all.

But this, in my opinion, is not all - it’s not enough to see the hero, express him, you need to look at him as if from above, give him a certain moral assessment (although, of course, not in the form of ready-made maxims). If this is not done, one can end up in a situation in which the generation immediately preceding the modern young found themselves, those who are now 35-40 years old, the generation of the so-called "new realism". They just happened to have a “hero of the time”, they were unanimously announced - Sankya, a hero novel of the same name Prilepin, a sincere young guy, a member of the National Bolshevik Party, ready to die and kill for his beliefs.

And indeed, it seems that Prilepin was able to catch in his hero character traits time - young pressure, political maximalism, extreme rejection of other people's opinions, combined with a strong and passionate love for the Motherland. Sanya Prilepin, these furious boys, can be easily found, say, in the writing environment, for example, on the Free Press website. One can empathize with their slogans, but at the same time one cannot but see: their truth is one-sided and youthfully maximalistic. So, the type is captured correctly, there are such people and they are, perhaps, characteristic of our time, especially for the younger generation. But is Sanka a full-fledged artistic hero? No. No, because the author, in fact, did not see the hero, but only expressed himself, who turned out to be this characteristic hero. He could not rise above him, look at him with a wise adult look.

This is clearly seen in comparison, for example, with the same Turgenev. Was the author of Fathers and Sons a nihilist? Certainly not. He was not only able to show Bazarov, but also experienced him - for example, with true love, in a collision with which his hero suffered a crushing defeat. Moreover, having led Bazarov to death, Turgenev ended the novel with a scene in the cemetery with the words that “no matter how passionate, sinful, rebellious heart hides in the grave, the flowers growing on it look serenely at us with their innocent eyes” and do not they speak of the eternal tranquility of "indifferent" nature, but of "infinite life." Turgenev rose above his hero, comprehended his experience, and finally even confronted him with eternity. Prilepin, of course, does not pretend to be like that, to express himself is the maximum that he is capable of. And therefore, his Sanka cannot be called a full-fledged hero of a work of art.

So, summing up, we repeat - the need to find a hero is categorically important for the modern young generation. You can find a hero only by carefully peering into the world around, and the true development of the hero is possible only in action - that is why the plot of a work of art is so important. And yet - it is not enough to discover the hero, it is also necessary to comprehend him, to rise above him. This is all a kind of call to young authors, in a sense, a guide to action. I will be glad if this call is heard.

And the last. Russian literature knows not only the "characteristic" heroes of its time, but also those "eternal" types that can be called moral ideals. This is Tatyana Larina (remember Dostoevsky's Pushkin speech), and Natasha Rostova, and their closest descendant - Polya Vikhrova from Leonid Leonov's Russian Forest. Oddly enough, they are all women. But there are also men - Alyosha Karamazov, in a sense - Pavka Korchagin, Belovsky Ivan Afrikanych and others. These are those who embodied the moral health of the Russian people, who could be an example for their compatriots. Such heroes are vital to our time.

But maybe it's time to take a step forward? Now, when the recent collapse of the country not only turned into a deep tragedy for the Russian people, but also released a powerful religious layer, we can say that modern literature also has a super-task. This is to express the Christian worldview, to understand and show the hero, in whose soul Christian ideal. I dare not hope so. And at the same time I will end my report with this lofty and desperate hope.

Vyacheslav LUTY:
In Andrey's speech, the idea was voiced that Prilepin and those who are close to him, in their heroes, first of all, expressed themselves. To some extent, this speaks of the infantilism of their writing talent. After all, “Sankya” is not the first work that Prilepin wrote, before there were “Pathologies”, and before that he composed poetry. It is generally accepted that the debut story or novel is prepared by the whole life of a young author. The second thing is to some extent “borderline”, and from the third it becomes clear: the author writes something about himself, scraping out the remnants of characteristics and faces from the old chest; or he stood next to life, perhaps he entered it as an invisible person and contemplates what is happening, with an imperious hand selecting everything necessary for the formation artistic plot. And we see that Prilepin is not growing up. Andrew has a very good observation.

Reply from the audience:
Let's not go over to early stories Prilepina…

Vyacheslav LUTY:
I read his stories, which were posted by the author himself on the website of the Civic Literary Forum, and felt some bewilderment: what is all this written for? One thing was a tracing paper of the plot last story Shukshin "Slander". Vasily Makarovich's nanny in the hospital did not let visitors visit the lyrical hero. Here, the janitor blocked the entrance to the back, where the newspaper's office was located, to Prilepin himself and his partner in political struggle, Garry Kasparov, who is coquettishly designated as "the world champion in one board game." Such a small “bonaparte” can be found anywhere: in a minibus, in a shop, in an institution. I could not understand why I need such a transcription for the second or third time? How can you take it seriously? And I closed the topic called "Prilepin's stories" for myself. After all, when we start reading this or that writer, we give him a kind of credit of trust and see how he justifies him. I then took back a similar credit of trust to the author and did not investigate further. Quite a few articles have been written on this subject: the brilliant work of Gennady Starostenko, Svetlana Zamlelova has thoughts about Prilepin. This is enough for me not to delve into the essence of the revision that has already happened inside me.

Irina POLUEKTOVA,PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Philological Disciplines and Methods of Teaching them, Borisoglebsk Branch of the Voronezh State University»:
But Prilepin is different in the Abode, Vyacheslav Dmitrievich ...

Andrey TIMOFEEV:
First of all, note that the plot of the novel "The Abode" is an absolutely adventurous story. Whatever happens to the hero, he always survives, and this does not add credibility to the work. The most important thing is that Prilepin's interest as an author in the novel "The Abode" is exclusively in the political and social plane. He doesn't work at all moral issues. He tries to remain politically correct, and on the other hand, he strives to give in a morally correct way (if political correctness is remade) the image of the bishop and the scene of communion. And in the scene with the sacrament, he gives completely hilarious things about what each of them repented of. For example, one is that he was with an animal. This is completely unacceptable. It can be seen that the author is not at all interested in the spiritual and moral dimension of what is happening.

Reply from the audience:
Here they relied very seriously on high literary examples, starting with Turgenev. The fact is that now a magnificent stream has appeared in literature - the literature of "runaways-captives". And not only… Someone died and woke up in someone else's body. And so they begin to play tricks, to correct the world. Here, after all, a whole line has already taken shape Plus Russian fantasy, science fiction. This is an overlooked thing that is not discussed here. They just feel their reader very precisely: what hurts him, what he wants.

Vyacheslav LUTY:
With regard to the current science fiction, I can express my dissatisfaction, which may well be subjective: I didn’t plunge headlong into this issue on purpose. But several times I compared today's science fiction stories with my own idea of ​​science fiction, which developed in Soviet times. In those years, Soviet science fiction was part of a great literature. In the old issues of the magazine "Seeker" there are many works of this kind. There, the development of human characters, and the facial expressions of the characters, and the situationality are very well resolved, the worldly side is captured. Today's science fiction is the successor of the former only in terms of ideas and designs. As in the fluoroscopy room, the skeleton rattles with bones, moves, and the outlines of the body are not visible.

Reply from the audience:
And Marina and Sergey Dyachenko?

Vyacheslav LUTY:
I'm not ready to talk by names. To do this, you need to immerse yourself in the material. I do not at all deny the possible merits of a corpus of such works. But in order to introduce the fantastic literature that you are talking about into the field of consideration of problematic literature, literature of the traditional high artistic and reader's demand. I need some serious motivation.
Let's return to our reports.

Zhanna JARMIN,writer, member of the International Union of Writers :

It seems to me that the theme "A Hero of Our Time" is interesting and relevant, although we usually associate it with Lermontov's Pechorin from a half-forgotten school curriculum. What is a hero? This is a brave person who has committed a brave act or feat in the name of a common goal.

In literature, the hero is main character works.

The concept of a “hero of our time” is of a different type. This is, first of all, a person with a bright personality, morally oriented, free, independent, creative and active. The specific manifestations of these qualities of the hero depend on time. As a teacher of mathematics, the model of the development of society in the form of a sinusoid is close to me. If the curve goes up - this is a period of solidarity when people unite to win. Recall the "hero of his time" Pavel Korchagin. This is not an image of a primitive person, but one who seeks the truth-truth, all of the properties listed above apply to him. These are the people who determined the moral vector in the development and creation of a new type of state. Is it possible to call, say, Grigory Melekhov from M. Sholokhov's brilliant novel The Quiet Flows the Don a "hero of his time"?

What is life, what is death, what is eternal, what is infinite, how to be quite good - the “heroes of their time” thought about this, who, in unity with their people, solved the main task of their time. I'm talking about Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov.

Let's remember the Great Patriotic War. This unprecedented period of solidarity for the sake of victory ("We need one victory, one for all, we will not stand up for the price") brought to life new "heroes of our time." We all remember such names as Kozhedub, Maresyev, Matrosov, Talallikhin, who studied in Borisoglebsk, and many others. About 12,000 citizens received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. But the "heroes of our time" are living people with their strengths and weaknesses. Were the heroes of that time such personalities as Zhukov and Stalin?

When the period of solidarity passes and the sinusoid goes down, this is the process of individualization. At this time, a person begins to think more often about eternal questions: why, in fact, do I live, what to do and in the name of what, to be or not to be civil active person, or "my hut is on the edge, I don't know anything." The heroes of this time are Hamlets, we have Onegin, Pechorin and others. They are rejected by their society, oppose it, so, sort of, " extra people". But even in these times, those whose moral vector is aimed at a positive wave also show heroism in the usual sense of the word, but not so massively. These are, first of all, people of heroic professions: firefighters, representatives law enforcement, military.

For example, in my story "The Cockerel on a Stick", published in the collection "Atlanta" for the 70th anniversary of the Victory, the post-war 50s are described in Odessa. The nameless hero of this story lost his leg in battles, his wife and daughter died. A lone invalid, he could do nothing but sell sugar cockerels on a stick to us, post-war children. However, his influence on us turned out to be so strong that we remembered him for the rest of our lives, and even many years later I wrote a story about him. Can he be called a "hero of that time"? Judge for yourself. With your permission, I will read this short story.

COCK ON A STICK

In life, you know, there is always a place for achievement, and joy, and work, and grief - everything. At the same time, to each his own. So for us, the post-war Odessa children, the days specially got the property of being saturated with important, exciting, interesting and joyful events. The boys fought with wooden pistols, machine guns, they took someone prisoner (the enemy was appointed strictly in turn), someone was saved. The girls were reincarnated as nurses, doctors, shop assistants and, of course, naughty daughters and strict mothers. Sometimes we played hide-and-seek, hopscotch, or something else with the boys. However, all games immediately stopped when we heard the ringing of a certain bell. If it was a garbage man's call, they raced for the trash cans. If the kerosene worker called, we ran home for canisters to buy kerosene for the stove. We all knew our responsibilities at home.
Another circumstance always stopped our games. It's "Cocks on a stick!" Hearing these words, we came to indescribable delight and started shouting: “Roosters on a stick! Roosters on a stick! Children in the next street, hearing this, also began to scream. The sound wave swept through the entire children's population of the area. Everyone rushed to get five or, if they were lucky, ten kopecks in order to buy a small or large cockerel on a stick. These were red or yellow lollipops made from melted sugar in the shape of a cockerel, stars or pistols with wooden stick from below so that the sweetness does not stick to your hands. Always the same person selling them. One-legged, on crutches, military uniform, with a medal and an order on his chest, he walked long distances, carrying an aluminum can with cockerels. Clenching our nickels in our fists, we waited impatiently for him in our street. He had outstanding appearance: tanned, fit, with an army bearing - an athlete crippled by the war. We used to run towards him, holding out our nickels, and he would ask us:
- What do you want?
- Red cockerel.
Boys usually asked for a gun. And he handed us what we asked for. Sometimes he said:
- Cockerels are over, only yellow stars remain.
Then we took stars and licked them with pleasure too.
One day he asked me my name. I answered by taking the lollipop out of my mouth and looked up. He suddenly closed his eyes tightly, and I saw that he was crying.
- Why are you crying? I asked.
- You remind me of my daughter.
- Where is she? At home?
She died during the war. Along with her mom. By my wife. And now I have roosters on sticks and you.

Why is the theme of “a hero of our time” important for us, writing people? Probably because with our works we influence other people. What do our literary heroes serve? Do they have a moral vector, are they role models as heroes of our time, do they ruthlessly open the sores of society, calling for the fight against vices?

I remember one old story. Two sinners are burning in hell, they are suffering. After some time, God pardoned one. The second began to complain, why was the first released? He was a drunkard, a thief, and I - intelligent person, writer. To which they answered: the thief sincerely repented of sin, his family prayed for him, but you did not, your writings will poison fragile minds for a long time, so there is no forgiveness for you.

So we need to think about what we write and why.

Take, for example, such a related art as cinema. Why are American films so popular and captivated the world's film distribution? Entertaining plots, excellent cinematography, talented actors? Not only. These are works of mass culture designed for a consumer with a low aesthetic and intellectual level. These works lower people to the level of a primitive man in the street. The illusion is created that the "heroes of our time" are only fictional supermen, which conveniently leads away from the problems of real life.

Living in England for 16 years, I've seen enough American films to nausea, and it seems to me that any Russian film deeper and more interesting than American consumer goods. However, I have already seen several of our American-styled films, such as Seeking a Husband for My Wife. If not for our famous actors, could well pass for a Western craft.

A few days ago, the 7th Odessa Film Festival ended. I have seen three feature films. All of them are topical and relevant and left a positive impression. Particularly liked english movie"I, Daniel Blake" winner at Cannes this year. Director - Ken Loach, screenwriter Paul Laverty. I think Daniel Blake is the "hero of our times" in England, just like the makers of this film. I think it's just a social bomb. The English, like many other peoples, are told that they were lucky to be born in this country. The film unobtrusively debunks this illusion. Daniel Blake is a simple worker, a widower, always telling the truth and helping other people. He had a heart attack and was unable to social support because of the soulless bureaucratic state machine. Desperate, in huge letters he wrote his protest on the wall of the institution, where he, the patient, was denied help, like thousands of other people. A crowd of passers-by gathered to support Blake. The police arrested him, but then released him with a warning. During a futile search financial assistance he met and later helped, as best he could, to settle down a young woman who could not feed two children. Daniel dreamed that she, unlike him, could learn and become financially independent. To his desperation, he accidentally discovered that an acquaintance of his had to turn into prostitution so that her children would not starve. Cornered, Blake dies of a second heart attack. I think it's a very brave film and I wonder how it will be received in England. As the producer of this film told us, we were their first real audience in Odessa.

To summarize my message, I’ll say that when the characters of our works are morally oriented, looking for personalities who awaken the best in people or ruthlessly reveal the shortcomings of society, calling for the fight against vices, then it will be possible to say about them that they are “heroes of our time”. But what are they? Such as during the period of solidarization or individualization? It seems to me that now we are closer to the period of individualization. But maybe the “heroes of the next era” are already maturing? After all, the sinusoid is infinite.

Vyacheslav LUTY:
Summing up the discussion, let me read out a resolution that reflects the main idea of ​​our conversation today.

RESOLUTION OF THE ROUND TABLE
"A Hero of Our Time in Contemporary Russian Literature"

The round table of writers, poets and philologists on the topic "The Hero of Our Time in Modern Russian Literature" revealed a wide panorama of opinions of the creative literary community in the field of interaction between modern Russian literature and modern Russian life. The need for a positive, actually heroic principle in our literature is a requirement of the present day. This is how you can transform the current Russian society, which has many vices and shortcomings, to tomorrow's Russia, when the words Motherland and the state will not be antagonists.

Classical Russian literature has always been a reflection of the surrounding life, a concentrated story about the problems facing Russian society in turning points stories.
Thanks to the works of A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin", M. Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time", N. V. Gogol's "Dead Souls", M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin "Lord Golovlev" and the works of other talented writers, we can see a truthful, vivid portrait of their contemporaries, trace the evolution of the development of Russian society. From the passive and disillusioned in everything idler Eugene Onegin to Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin, who is trying in vain to find his place in life, to the adventurer and money-grubber Chichikov and the completely degraded Judas Golovlev, who has lost his human appearance, the Russians guide us 19th writers century. They reflected on the time, the ways of development of their contemporary society, tried by artistic means to convey a collective portrait of a generation, to emphasize its individuality, characteristic difference from the previous ones, thereby creating a chronicle of time, and on the whole, a true and figurative picture of the death of the noble class, which once brought progress to Russia, was obtained. , culture, and subsequently became the main obstacle in its movement forward. Reading the works of art of the 19th century, you observe not only the events that played leading role in certain periods of time, but you learn about the people who in one way or another made our history.
The movement of time cannot be stopped, it flows inexorably, changing us, ideas about life, ideals. The change of formations does not happen by itself, without the participation and struggle of a person, but it also changes people, since every time has “its own heroes”, reflecting moral principles and the goals they aspire to. It is very interesting to trace this "evolution" in artistic works of XIX century. To see what the hero “lost” or “found” as a result of this progressive movement. If we turn to a specific conversation about a character who, as if in a drop of water, reflected an entire generation, then I would like to dwell on Eugene Onegin, who stands almost at the origins of the formation of Russian bourgeois society. And what is the portrait like? Not very attractive, although outwardly the hero is beautiful.
Like windy Venus
When, wearing a man's outfit,
The goddess is going to the masquerade.
His inner world is poor. He read a lot, "everything to no avail", "was gloomy."
Who lived and thought, he cannot
Don't despise people in your heart...
Departure to the village does not console Yevgeny, as he had hoped. Boredom everywhere equally accompanies idleness. Onegin mechanically does good to the peasants, but does not think about them.
Alone, among his possessions,
So that only time to spend,
First conceived our Eugene
Establish a new order.
In his wilderness, the desert sage,
Yarem he is an old corvée
I replaced the quitrent with a light one;
And the slave blessed fate.
The habit of not bothering with anything makes Eugene Onegin lonely, and then completely unhappy. He refuses the love of Tatyana Larina, explaining his act in this way:
“But I am not made for bliss;
My soul is alien to him;
In vain are your perfections:
I don't deserve them at all."
But Onegin is also not capable of sincere friendship. Having killed a friend in a duel, he leaves to wander, suffering from the long life to which he is doomed.
Onegin with a look of regret
Looks at the smoky jets
And he thinks, clouded with sadness:
Why am I not wounded by a bullet in the chest?
Why am I not a frail old man,

I am young, my life is strong;
What should I expect? sorrow, sorrow!
And the end of the novel follows quite logically, when, having met Tatyana in the world, Onegin fell in love with her sincerely and deeply, but hopelessly: she is married and will never respond to Eugene's feelings.
I love you (why lie?).
But I am given to another;
I will be faithful to him forever.
Onegin did not see his fate, laziness of mind or spiritual callousness prevented him from understanding Tatyana at the first meeting, he pushed away pure and sincere love, now he pays with a lack of happiness, a joyless course of years.
The image of Eugene Onegin, created by the genius of Pushkin, began a gallery of "superfluous people" in Russian literature XIX century, worthy of continued by other writers.

Let's answer the question: "Who are the heroes?" Beginning with early years our lives, we listen to stories about brave warriors, people who accomplished a feat, about those who saved human lives dogs and other animals. In our view, a hero is a brave, selfless person who is ready to help at any moment. They admire him, they praise him, they talk about him ... That's who the heroes are, according to many. Ordinary people far from them. But is it?

Heroes are ordinary people

In fact, the heroes are essentially ordinary people. The only thing that distinguishes them from the rest is that the hero always has a goal to live for the sake of others. Such people never do anything for themselves. They see the essence human being, suffering, the problems of our kind, it hurts them to look at unemployment, poverty, disease, war and famine. That's who they are. Heroes are people living among us, under certain conditions and the desire to get closer to them, everyone can.

Distinctive features of heroes

The hero of glory is not looking for. She finds it herself. He simply lives as he considers right, his conscience is unshakable and pure. Heroes are not always accepted and recognized. They always have a lot of envious people who strive to destroy or frame them. However, they endure all troubles with a smile, without losing faith in the best for all of us. So, we answered the question: "Who are the heroes?" However, the topic can be explored in more detail. There are different types of heroes. We invite you to get to know them better.

Heroes of our time

As you know, each era is characterized by its heroes. Who are the heroes of time, and what is "our time" in general? Goethe once said through Faust that the spirit of the times is "the spirit of professors and their concepts." Perhaps there really is no time with its spirit, but only us with our dreams and ideals, ideas, fashion, opinions and other "cultural baggage", fickle and changeable. We, wandering from the past to the future for someone...

The heroes of our time can be both specific individuals and collective images that have appeared thanks to literature, cinema or folklore. For example, Pechorin was such a hero. This is the image created by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, a person with a strong personality opposing the dullness of society.

Origin of the word "hero"

The very word "hero" comes from Ancient Greece. In translation, it means "guardian", "protector", etymologically connected with the patron goddess of vows and marriage. A similar concept in Latin means "to keep the whole."

As a rule, he is the son of an immortal father and a mortal mother. A typical example is Hercules. He was born on earth and after numerous trials returned to his immortal father, finally overcoming his earthly, mortal nature. With his deeds, Hercules showed the way to humanity.

That's who the real hero is. Its distinguishing feature is a huge physical strength. In Russian culture, physical strength has also always been held in high esteem. Every person living in Russia knows who they are. Even a child can tell what qualities the Russian heroes possessed.

Various meanings that are invested today in the concept of "hero"

We use the word "hero" today in a variety of senses, which are sometimes very far from the original. There are, for example, heroes of war and labor, theatrical, bookish, cinematographic, lyrical and tragic. The concept has changed, but is not outdated. Still, something else lives in us, forcing the soul to look for landmarks in this world. In such as if in focus, everything valuable and the best is collected, which we ourselves strive for. Therefore, speaking about what heroes we have today, we can also judge about us, about the values ​​that are dear and important to us.

Literary hero

What is a hero in literature? This person is multifaceted and complex. It has two forms - internal and external.

The appearance is created by the following components:

1. Portrait. This figure, face, body features that distinguish the hero from the rest (for example, Karenin's ears or Quasimodo's hump).
2. Clothing, which may also reflect the traits of a particular character.
3. Speech. Her features, no less than her appearance, characterize the hero.
4. Age, which determines the potential for certain actions.
5. A profession that shows the degree of socialization, the position in society of a particular hero.
6. Life story. This is information about the parents, the country in which he lives, which give historical concreteness to the hero.
7. The components of the interior are as follows:

• Ethical beliefs and worldview, endowing with value orientations, bringing meaning to the existence of the hero.
• Attachments and thoughts that outline his diverse spiritual life.
• Faith (or lack of it), which determines the attitude towards the church and God, presence in the spiritual field.
• Actions and statements denoting the results of the interaction of the spirit and soul of a certain hero. He can not only love, reason, but also analyze his activities, realize own emotions in other words, reflect. Artistic reflection allows the author of a literary work to reveal the self-esteem of the hero as a person, to characterize his attitude towards himself.

You can talk about who the heroes are for quite a long time. However, we will limit ourselves to the above. These, in our opinion, are the most important points to remember.

Lesson - dispute.

Theme "The Hero of Our Time in Modern Literature"

municipal budgetary educational institution lyceum No. 3.,

Location: Class

Lesson Objectives:

To form in students an idea of ​​the image of a real person modern society;

deepen the concept literary hero”, to help comprehend the images, note the characteristic features;

Develop the ability to analyze, conclusively express their thoughts;

Develop reader tastes and horizons .

Visibility and equipment: book exhibition, computer

Advanced homework: read the works: A. Tolstoy "Russian character", Vl. Titov “To spite all deaths”, P. L. Proskurin “I will repay, Lord”

We argue with fate until the last breath

In those dramas that the era sets.

N Rylenkov.

During the classes:

I.Organizing time

(The music “Evening bells” sounds. The student reads P. Proskurin’s poem “Prayer”)

Pyotr Proskurin's poem "Prayer" was sounded. It pierces the soul and heart, forcing us to think about life, its meaning and the purpose of a person in it.

Having studied the works of A. S. Griboedov, A. S. Pushkin and M. Yu. Lermontov, we learned that their heroes, people of the 20-30s of the 19th century (Chatsky, Onegin, Pechorin), turned out to be “superfluous” people in their society because reality itself has deprived them of their purpose in life, the meaning of rational existence. And we can only sympathize with them, that their remarkable abilities, mind were left without use.

What is the appearance of a modern hero of the 20s of the 21st century, and who can we call a hero? We will talk about this in today's lesson. I took lines from a poem by N Rylenkov as an epigraph to him (the epigraph is read out)

How do you understand the lines of the poet?

What dramas in question?

II.Recording the number, topic of the lesson, epigraph in a notebook

- The key word is hero. Let's clarify the lexical meaning of the word "hero". (A hero is called a courageous person who is capable of a feat or who has accomplished it, a person who has not only accomplished, but also knows how to resist circumstances that are admired)

How does the dictionary interpret this word? IN explanatory dictionary S. I. Ozhegova is the following definition:

1. A person who performs feats, unusual in his courage, valor, selflessness. Heroes of the Great Patriotic War

2. Main actor literary work. G. tragedy. G. novel.

(Children write in a notebook)

We will keep in mind both meanings of this word.

Remember and name the names of the hero of different eras.

Each era gives birth to its hero. Our history is rich in their names: Peter the Great and Mikhailo Lomonosov, Griboyedov and Pushkin, Bunin and Chaliapin, Yuri Gagarin and Korolyov - it's impossible to list them all, loud and quiet names. And how many invisible heroes, about whom our artists write words, while themselves being an example to follow, a high example of true patriotism and humanism. But today we will remember and talk about literary heroes.

III. Literature review(book exhibition)

Heroes of the 20th century. What are they?

The period of the Great Patriotic War presented us with a whole gallery of literary heroes:

Andrey Sokolov at M. Sholokhov, Sashka Kondratiev K. Vorobieva, Lieutenant Kuznetsov and General Bessonov at Bondarev, Yegor Dremov at A. Tolstoy.

Remember his story "Russian character"?

Let's take a look at this piece.

Conversation on:

How does Yegor Dremov appear before us in the story "Russian Character"?

What moments in the work most clearly reveal the character of the hero? Read the text, comment.

What impression did the character and the story as a whole make on you?

Monuments are erected to such heroes, songs are composed about such heroes.

(The song “Alyosha” sounds Music: Eduard Kolmanovsky, Lyrics: K. Vanshenkin, Performed by: Dmitry Gnatyuk).

The 2nd half of the 20th century gave birth to its heroes. They appear before us in the works of Vl. Titov and Vl. Tendryakova, Val. Rasputin and V. Astafiev, G. Troepolsky and P. L. Proskurin, who pose the most pressing problems for the reader: what is the meaning of life, how should one live and what should a person be like?

Conversation on:

- What works have you read? Tell us about their heroes. ("To spite all deaths" by Vladislav Titov).

Read expressively the lines from the work that characterize Sergei, Tatyana.

What is your attitude towards the hero?

New times, new people. And this was reflected in literature, especially vividly in the story of Pyotr Proskurin "I will repay, Lord." I would like to elaborate on it.

(The student gives a short reference about the writer).

Conversation on:

What a story?

What are your impressions? Reviews?

Mini dispute.

Who do you think is right in his approach to life, the businessman Nikitin or the old writer?

Why do you think the writer ended the story on such a tragic note?

Could the end be different?

On which side are your sympathies? What kind of life do you consider worthy for a modern reader?

VI. Summarizing

- How do you see the modern hero? What character traits should a hero of our time have without fail, in your opinion?

On the board, a diagram is drawn based on the statements of the students:

Smart ← Hero → Active

Educated???

In the scheme, we reflected our ideas about the hero of our time.

Do you think the hero of our time needs friendship?

Does the hero of our time have a promising future in our country? (Difficulty at all times, there are no easy times)

- Do you agree with the words of N. Rylenkov, taken as an epigraph to the lesson?

VII. Homework

Write an essay-review of the read work

Literature

1. Tolstoy A. N. T53 Novels and stories. M., "Khudozh. Lit.", 1977, 509 p.

2. Titov V. A. T45 To spite all deaths ... Feather grass - steppe grass. - L .: Lenizdat,

1980. - 400 s, portr. - (Library "Man of labor").

Hero of the time ... What is he like? Russian classic writers of the nineteenth century often reflected on this question. A.S. Griboedov, A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy in his works painted images of heroes who embodied the characteristic features of the people of the era.

Such characters, as a rule, are extraordinary and bright personalities, have extraordinary abilities and a developed mind, thanks to which they stand out among those around them, who in most cases do not understand and do not accept them. In the works of classical writers, it is these characters that attract me. I always wanted to penetrate deeper into the secrets of their characters, to understand why people who could be useful to their contemporaries turned out to be unnecessary to society.

The novels "Eugene Onegin" and "A Hero of Our Time" are considered the pinnacles of Russian classics. To these works different stages life appeal to readers of different generations. The problem of the hero of his time, touched upon in both books, is also of interest to thinking people of the twenty-first century. There is a huge reassessment of values, our ideals are changing. And we continue to look for answers to "eternal" questions from classical writers.

Onegin is a typical nobleman of the twenties of the nineteenth century. The upbringing and education of the Pushkin hero were rather superficial. However, he still received the minimum knowledge necessary to shine in the world: he spoke French, knew how to dance a mazurka and “bowed at ease” ... Onegin led the usual way of life for the nobles of that time: he went to balls, went to the theater, attended social events. The enjoyment of life and success among women at first attracted the protagonist of the novel.

But Yevgeny is smart, and therefore, over time, an idle and empty life simply bored him - “the Russian melancholy took possession of him.” He does not find meaning in any activity. Tatyana's love does not save from obsessive boredom. Onegin rejects the feelings of a girl in love with him: he is "not created for bliss." Indifference to life, inner emptiness turned out to be very strong. Subsequently, the punishment for this will be loneliness.

In Pushkin's hero there is, despite all his shortcomings, "the soul of direct nobility." It is no coincidence that he is so sincerely and tenderly attached to the young Lensky. However, Onegin himself destroys his friend, shooting him in a duel. And, regrettably, the cause of Lensky's senseless death is Onegin's "spleen".

V.G. Belinsky notes that a certain part of the readers misinterpreted the image of Onegin, seeing in him only an ordinary secular dandy, a "cold egoist." According to the critic, Onegin is “an unwilling egoist”, and society has made him that way. He belongs to a generation that does not know where to apply their sometimes remarkable strength. I almost completely share Belinsky's opinion. However, I believe that only society should not be blamed for Onegin's misfortunes. It is hardly possible to remove responsibility from the Pushkin hero himself. He does not set himself any life goals, because he does not want to work in the name of their achievement.

M.Yu. Lermontov is a writer of "a completely different era", although they are separated from Pushkin by no more than a decade. Pechorin became the "hero" of time - or rather, timelessness - of the 30s. On the one hand, this is a skeptic disappointed in life, who lives solely “out of curiosity”, but on the other hand, he subconsciously craves life, activity. In Pechorin, rationality and feelings, mind and heart, oppose. “I weigh, analyze my own passions and actions,” says Lermontov’s hero, “with strict curiosity, but without participation.”

Before the duel, scrolling through his own life in memory, Pechorin reflects on what he lived for and for what purpose he was born. "Ah, that's right, she<эта цель>existed,” he writes in his journal, “and, it’s true, I had a high appointment…”. Pechorin did not find his "high appointment". He spends his energy on actions that are unworthy and sometimes meaningless: he destroys the lives of the unfortunate " honest smugglers”, kidnaps the Circassian Bela, falls in love with Mary and then abandons her, kills Grushnitsky ... This is the fateful and terrible contradiction: “the immense forces of the soul” - and petty deeds; he dreams of "loving the whole world" - and brings only evil.

Belinsky saw in the image of Pechorin the embodiment of the spirit of the times and appreciated Lermontov's hero quite highly. “Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil, but the earth dried up from the heat of fiery life…” wrote the critic. Belinsky also pointed out the differences between Onegin and Pechorin, which are "much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora."

So, we have two heroes, two representatives of their difficult time. V.G. Belinsky did not put an "equal" sign between them, but he did not see a huge gap between them either. Their images really have a lot in common, ranging from character traits to life situations in which they were destined to fall. However, the conflict between the individual and society in "A Hero of Our Time" is sharper than in "Eugene Onegin": Pechorin "chases life" without getting anything from it, and Onegin just "goes with the flow."

"Eugene Onegin" and "Hero of Our Time" can be considered, without exaggeration, the brightest artistic documents of the era. Their main characters, by their existence, prove the futility of trying to live in society and at the same time be free from it.

So, in a kind of expression public problems, the bearer of new ideas and trends in Russian life becomes main character literary works- the hero of the time, he is, as a rule, the “extra person” of his era. Russian literature of the 19th century presented a whole gallery of people of this type. The predecessor of Onegin and Pechorin can be called Griboedov's Chatsky. The traditions of Pushkin and Lermontov in depicting the “hero of time” were continued in the works of A.I. Herzen (“Who is to blame?”), I.S. Turgenev ("Rudin", "Fathers and Sons"), I.A. Goncharova ("Oblomov"). Chichikov, a character in Gogol's poem Dead Souls, can also be called a "hero" of the new, capitalist era. We find the features of the heroes of time in the characters of L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace" by Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov.

The writers of the 20th century also addressed the problem of the hero of time. One of clear examples- the image of the "extra person" Levushka Odoevtsev from the novel by A. Bitov " Pushkin House". At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, works appeared that again turned to the theme of the new generation, and therefore to the image of the hero of the time. In 1998, V. Makanin's novel "Underground, or a Hero of Our Time" was published. In 2006, S. Minaev's book "Duhless: A Tale of a Fake Man" aroused great interest among readers. Already in the very titles of the works one can feel both the desire of the writers to show the heroes of the time, and the roll call with the traditions of Pushkin and Lermontov.

This means that even now there are people like Onegin and Pechorin. These are modern “superfluous people” who, at first glance, have all the qualities necessary for success in life, and at the same time are in conflict with society.

Each era gives rise to a new hero, and the task of a real writer is to discern such a character and truly portray him in a work of art. This, in my opinion, is the main reason that writers have been turning to the theme of the hero of time for two centuries now.