satirical image the heroes of the fairy tale by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals” “Fairy tales are one of the most striking creations of the great Russian satirist M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. The fairy tale genre helped the writer speak in an atmosphere of fierce government reaction about the most acute problems of the era, to show those aspects of reality to which the satirist was irreconcilable." The story of how one peasant fed two generals is one of Shchedrin's most vivid and memorable tales. In its center are two generals who find themselves on a desert island. Living in St. Petersburg, the generals did not know any difficulties.
They went to the service at the registry office, and this service formed only one skill for them - to wear out - "Please accept the assurance of my perfect respect and devotion. Nevertheless, the generals deserved a pension, and a personal cook, and everything that allowed their old age to be full and serene. Waking up one morning in the middle of the island, they experienced a real shock, because it turned out that without outside help these adult men could neither get their own food nor cook it. Creating images of generals, Saltykov-Shchedrin actively uses. A huge discovery for heroes becomes that "human food in its original form flies, swims and grows on trees. According to them, “rolls in the same form will be born as they are served in the morning with coffee. The generals’ inability to serve themselves awakens animal instincts: one bites off an order from another and immediately swallows it. The generals can only write reports and read the Moscow Gazette.
They cannot bring any other benefit to society. fantasy story helps the satirist to show the heroes of the tale in the most unattractive way. Heroes appear before the reader as stupid, helpless, miserable creatures. The only salvation for them is a simple man. Frightened to death by their position, the generals fall upon him with anger: “Sleep, couch potato! In their opinion, the peasant exists only to serve their general needs. condemns him for humility, for the ability to forget himself for the sake of satisfying the whims of the master.
Having narrated apples for the generals, the peasant takes one for himself, but sour. He is a great craftsman: “He can make fire and cook food, he knows how to survive on a desert island. This, of course, the author appreciates in his hero. Emphasizing his talents, Shchedrin uses hyperbole: it’s not a problem for a man to cook a handful of soup. , and not without reason the writer calls him "a man. However, all the efforts of the peasant are aimed at the good of the generals. He even covers the bottom of the boat for them with swan down, and Saltykov-Shchedrin cannot agree with such behavior of his. The peasant demonstrates ignorance, the habit of a slave position, lack of self-respect, servile devotion.
“And the peasant began to breed beans, how would he please his generals for the fact that they favored him, the parasite, and did not disdain his peasant labor,” the author writes. The generals are ungrateful: their savior receives a glass of vodka and a nickel of silver for everything But the saddest thing is that he does not demand more. The author says sarcastically about the general's remuneration: "However, they did not forget about the peasant ... In" The Tale of how one peasant fed two generals, Saltykov-Shchedrin showed not just the relationship of individual generals and a peasant - he described in an allegorical form the relationship between power and people in Russia. The satirist contrasted the ruling elite of society with the disenfranchised masses. Shchedrin's fairy tales are living picture Russian society torn by contradictions. Admire the skill of the satirist, with which he managed to approach the most complex, acute problems of his time and which he showed in miniature paintings.
Saltykov-Shchedrin, Composition
The story of how one man fed two generals was written by the famous Russian writer Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin in 1869. By this time, the satirist had already been sent into exile for freethinking, but even after returning from it, Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote works that were quite bold for that time. It was possible to publish the story in Russia with great difficulty, overcoming the prohibitions of censorship. Thanks to the efforts of I. S. Turgenev, the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin was already published in Paris in 1881 in French.
Despite the fact that in "The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals" there are fantasy elements, this work refers to literary direction realism. One of the favorite genres of Saltykov-Shchedrin was fairy tale, and the writer created amazing works where there is magic. But these are really unique stories: in them the author denounces the true essence of the landlords of his time, mocks their ineptitude, reveals the essence of such social phenomenon like bribery. Therefore, "Tales for children fair age» are considered realistic. If, before Saltykov-Shchedrin, writers turned to fairy tales in order to escape reality into fantasy world, then this grandiose satirist shows the world without embellishment. This gloomy reality is smoothed out only by the fabulous style of writing.
Composition the work "The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals" is very similar to the composition of the majority folk tales. It consists of three elements: fabulous beginning "We lived and were" foreshadowing the development of fantastic events; climax, that is, the meeting of the generals with the peasant; denouement, "happy" end in which the generals get a large amount money, and the peasant - a glass of vodka and a nickel of silver. The author, ironically, notes the injustice of life: the power that does not strike a finger is bathed in gold, while the common people who do all the work are left with nothing.
In a fairy tale, one can conditionally distinguish two storylines : before the appearance of the man and after. In the first line, Saltykov-Shchedrin reveals images of generals. We see that the characters are similar, but the author still endowed each of them with a special character: if the first general is simply stupid and lazy, then the second is also rude. This fact indicates the author's intention: to portray the generals as typical people, having power, but not faceless beings.
In the second storyline, the central place is occupied by the image of a peasant, as well as the relationship between him and the generals. The writer contrasts the efforts of the peasants with the laziness and helplessness of people who are higher in rank than him.
After analyzing the main storylines of the fairy tale, it can be argued that in "The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals" two opposite social strata are shown: the people and the authorities. In the relationship between these two camps lies the main problem works.
The second camp is represented by two generals who have served all their lives "in some sort of registry", "understood nothing" and they couldn't do anything. Saltykov-Shchedrin from the first lines of the work begins to ridicule the representatives of the authorities with their exorbitant pride and, at the same time, their extreme unsuitability. The image is created exclusively negative characters, selfish and lazy. The author specifically does not endow them with names in order to show the typicality of such intellectuals.
In the first camp, the author places only one hero: a nameless peasant who silently obeys all the orders of the generals. The writer endows him with fabulous abilities: either he makes a snare from his own hair, or he bakes provisions on a fire made from two pieces of wood. Saltykov-Shchedrin emphasizes that no matter how the generals scolded him, the peasant never said a word across. The author sadly draws a literary image hardworking people who is accustomed to unquestioningly obey powerful persons.
Why did Saltykov-Shchedrin choose fairy tale genre, although he puts in the work such difficult topics, How social inequality, abuse of power, life injustice? Thus, the writer circumvented the strict laws of censorship. If Saltykov-Shchedrin had tried to publish his thoughts as part of a journalistic article, he would have been immediately sent into re-exile. Thus, writing fairy tales, under which a terrifying reality is hidden, helped him allegorically express his attitude to the most important problems of that time, made him an innovator in the field of Russian realistic prose.
"The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals" is satirical tale, which raises the most important problems that have not lost their relevance in our time.
- "The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals", summary
Municipal educational institution
"Average comprehensive school №12
workers' settlement (urban settlement) Progress Amur region»
RESEARCH
"The language of the heroes of the work as a means of comprehending their character"
Nomination: First steps in science
Participants: Soklakova Alena Evgenievna, 10th grade
Ruban Daria Valerienva, 10th grade
Head: Petrochenko Olga Vladimirovna,
teacher of Russian language and literature,
Progress
2011
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3
Main part………………………………………………………………………………5
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….13
List of used literature ………………………………………………. 15
INTRODUCTION
The study of literature cannot be considered a process aimed only at obtaining specific knowledge, educating the soul and expanding the reader's horizons - this is, first of all, penetration into the depths and ascent to the heights of the language - "one of the greatest creations of mankind." According to L. Novikov, language is “the most important means of communication, a subtle and flexible tool through which human thought is formed and expressed.” The question of learning the language of art and literaturework involves, first of all, the definition of the principlewriter's selection speech means. This selection of motivesis motivated by those specific tasks that it solves badlylike literature special shape public consciousness.
A. Tolstoy, in his insistence on the complete individualization of the speech of the character in the work, spoke of the need for the writer to see the gesture of the character that accompanies his speech in order to correctly construct each of his phrases in accordance with what he feels and does at the moment. The speech of the hero connects him with the whole world around him and can be understood precisely in this connection as a phenomenon not only of language as such, but precisely as one or another side of his character on a broader plane. The completeness of the transfer of all colors and shades of living individual speech, reproducing the most diverse aspects of the human character, fixing the real life process of verbal communication, is the most essential feature of the language of fiction.
Just as the character of the work is not a simple copy from this or that person, but a generalization of the properties and qualities of people of a certain type, so his speech is a generalized, characteristic speech, a kind of quotation from the language of that area of life that the writer draws.
The study of the speech of the heroes of the work is one of the means of revealing the artistic content of the work. Artistic content works is found in the study of its poetic forms. The scientific novelty of the proposed work lies in the identification of new facets of the character of the characters, and the language of the characters of the work allows you to take a fresh look at their actions.
Observation of the language of the characters in terms of identifying their characters determines the relevance of this work.
The fact is that each work “teaches itself to read”, our task is to catch the “signals” that the work sends to the reader with its name, originality of style. The writer not only counts on a sympathetic reader, but educates him, leads him imperceptibly and unobtrusively, “prompting” what to look closely at, what to think about, what to compare with, what impression to return to. You just have to try to listen to the writer.
How to do it? Let's try to find the answer by referring to the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The methodology used in this work can be useful in the analysis of the work for both teachers and students.
Target: To trace how the study of the language of the heroes of the work helps to understand their character.
Tasks:
To get acquainted with the text of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons".
Study the speech of the characters in the story.
Analyze the relationship between language and characters.
Starting the analysis, it is necessary to accept the following idea as an axiom: reading is unraveling the secret, striving for understanding, familiarizing with the author's "I". Careful reading allows each participant in this process to make their own little “discoveries”.
Hypothesis work is the following statement: if the language of a person can be said about his intellect, his mind, his culture, then the character of a person, his mood, his attitude towards people is manifested in speech.
MAIN PART
In Turgenev's novel, each, even episodic, character speaks his own "special" language. At the same time, the speech of each character reveals his character with maximum completeness, so that even remarks snatched from the text allow us to draw the right conclusions about the speaker.
The speech of the heroes occupies almost the first place in the characterization of Turgenev's heroes. As if emphasizing this, Turgenev very often "on his own" characterizes the manner of speaking.
Especially expressive are Turgenev's statements about Pavel Petrovich's speech. “Pavel Petrovich,” the author writes, “when he got angry, he deliberately said: “eftim” and “efto”, although he knew very well that grammar does not allow such words. This quirk concealed the remainder of the legends of Alexander's time. The then aces, on rare occasions when they spoke mother tongue, used some-efto, others-ehto; we are, they say, native Russians, and at the same time we are nobles who are allowed to neglect the school rules.
This remark not only characterizes the speech of Pavel Petrovich, but also deepens our understanding of him as a person of a certain social group and a certain outlook.
Other statements of the writer about the speech of the characters are also expressive.
About Bazarov, he says: "This doctor's son was not only not shy, he even answered curtly and reluctantly, and there was something rude, almost impudent in the sound of his voice."
About Odintsova it is said that she "expressed herself in the correct Russian language." The remark is by no means accidental; many aristocratic women did not speak the “correct” Russian language.
Kukshina's characterization is satirically pointed. The “emancipated” lady “dropped her questions one after another with pampered casualness, without waiting for answers: spoiled children talk like that with their nannies.”
Also interesting is a cursory description of the speech of the valet Peter (in the epilogue), who "froze with stupidity" and "pronounces all E as Yu: tyupyur, obuspyuchyun."
However, let us dwell in more detail on the language of Evgeny Bazarov.
The speech of Bazarov, the future medical scientist and revolutionary, is simple, clear, usually concise, exceptionally rich in vocabulary, in a variety of syntactic forms. This is the speech of a person who stands at the height of his contemporary culture - a speech in which we will meet and scientific terms(beetle ditiscus marinatus), and the names of scientists (Liebig, Rademacher, Peluz), and the words of the language public figure(doctrinalism, parliamentarianism), but above all, this is the speech of a Russian person, a democrat who loves and appreciates the Russian language and has an excellent command of it.
Bazarov’s attraction to the people is especially noticeable, because his speech is full of sayings and proverbs, replete with idioms, phraseological turns, characteristic of Russian vernacular (the lip is not a fool; his song is sung; what a hunt; to sing Lazarus; you will shake the old days; the devil pulled me; no, these are pipes, I have seen the views; what a binding, you think, etc.); such colloquial words how we wave, chat, tea, wandered around, stuffed, plopped, plop, etc., with aphorisms, sometimes somewhat altered: “I burned myself in my own milk, but blows someone else's water”; "... was everywhere, and the sieve, and in the sieve"; "murder will out"; “grandmother said in two more”; “From a penny candle… Moscow burned down”; “It is not for the gods to burn pots”; "It's good where we are not"; "Poverty is not a vice".
At the same time, Bazarov resolutely rebels against the foreign words that clogged the language of the Russian noble intelligentsia in his time. He does not use them at all in his speech. The exceptions are Latin words that are natural in the speech of a scientist and a physician (utile dulci, pater familias, Latin name swimming beetle), but not at all clogging Bazarov's speech.
The strong, sharp mind of Bazarov is reflected in his "own" Bazarov aphorisms, expressive and well-aimed. For example: "A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet"; “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it”; “I decided to mow everything - go ahead and kick yourself”; " Real man the one ... who must be obeyed or hated ”; " old joke death, and to each anew.
IN literary language included some phrases of Bazarov, which in form cannot be attributed to aphorisms, but which are very expressive. The words of Bazarov are used: "Oh, my friend, Arkady Nikolaevich! .. I ask you about one thing: do not speak beautifully." Bazarov's meaningful phrases are very expressive, such as "I want to mess with people"; “... Your brother, nobleman, cannot go further than noble humility or noble boiling”; "... but we (that is, nihilists, revolutionaries) want to fight."
Surprisingly marks, expressive, and sometimes figurative epithets, brief diverse assessments given by Bazarov to the people with whom he communicates. In these assessments lies the Bazarov attitude to the character, and those features of him that anyone recognizes. Here are some examples: an archaic phenomenon (about Pavel Petrovich); good fellow, good fellow, ladybug(about Nikolai Petrovich); a woman with a brain, well, she has seen the views, grated kalach (about Odintsova); it's fresh, and untouched, and shy, and silent, and whatever you want (about Katya, Odintsova's sister); soft liberal gentleman; chick (about Arcadia).
The comparisons found in Bazarov’s remarks are interesting, indicating a great ability to figurative thinking, observation, sharp and bold mind and breadth of outlook. Odintsova, he says: “Flying fish can stay in the air for a while, but soon they should plop into the water, let me flop into my element.”
Bazarov very aptly characterized the measured, somewhat solemn regularity of life in Odintsova’s house: “like rolling on rails,” he assured ... ”
He characterizes his mood to Arkady in the following way: “Ever since I have been here, I have felt nasty, as if I had read Gogol’s letters to the governor of Kaluga.” After an explanation with Pavel Petrovich, which led to a duel, Bazarov exclaims: “Damn it! How beautiful and how stupid! What a comedy we broke off! Learned dogs are so hind legs are dancing."
Expressive and figurative, but at the same time clear, clear, simple speech Bazarov never turns into " beautiful words»; it is no coincidence that he reproaches Arkady for saying "beautifully." As proverbs and sayings, as well as comparisons in the speech of the "nihilist" always pursue the main goal: to make more clearly, more convincingly the thought that he seeks to express. To Pavel Petrovich’s question: “Don’t you chat like everyone else?” - Bazarov replies: "Than others, but this sin is not sinful." And this is profoundly true. A fighter, a revolutionary, Bazarov must already be fluent in words because in his future activities he will have to convince, prove the correctness of his point of view, and refute the arguments of his ideological enemies.
Bazarov knows how to do all this. In disputes with Pavel Petrovich, he was sometimes careless, did not develop a coherent logical system of evidence, replacing it with a number of sarcastic, contemptuous remarks about the enemy. He sometimes seemed to brush aside his adversary, whom he above all despises. This does not mean at all that Yevgeny Bazarov does not know how to argue in a businesslike manner, strictly logically developing his thought. This is evidenced by his sharp remarks in a dispute with Odintsova, showing his ability to clearly, accurately, directly, reasonably object to the arguments of the interlocutor.
We are referring to the dispute between Bazarov and Odintsova, which began with Bazarov's phrase: "I considered the views of Saxon Switzerland in your album, and you noticed to me that this cannot occupy me."
But Bazarov not only argues. Turgenev puts him in various positions, reduces him to diverse people, forces, in accordance with this, to speak out on the most diverse occasions and express the most diverse feelings. The richness, variety of intonations of Bazarov's speech is completely exceptional and reflects the breadth and depth of the speaker and the complexity of his character.
Bazarov's speech changes markedly depending on who he is talking to. The style of speech, vocabulary, its syntactic structure, the predominance of certain intonations to a greater or lesser extent reflect Bazarov's attitude to the speaker. An excellent example of a dialogue between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, with the utmost clarity reflecting the attitude of a raznochintsy democrat to his undeserving ideological enemy, can be a conversation between Bazarov and Kirsanov, the elder, before the duel.
The remarks of the opponents are directly opposite in nature and reflect two completely opposite world relations.
Pavel Petrovich, who decided to "fight seriously", speaks very seriously. His speech is saturated with verbal formulas, which a secular person is accustomed to use not to clarify and clarify thoughts, but to give speech "pleasant in society" a decent form.
Bazarov, on the contrary, emphasizes his frivolous attitude to a duel, theoretically denied by him. He says either simply and directly what he thinks, or contemptuously - ironically lowers the "high" tone of the opponent's speech.
In conversations with Nikolai Petrovich, condescendingly respectful intonations prevail in Bazarov, with Arkady his speech is often didactic in nature, in conversations with his father, condescendingly good-natured intonations sound, often breaking through feigned dryness and coldness.
The rudeness of Bazarov's speech is usually emphasized, often reaching cynicism. Meanwhile, Bazarov sometimes puts a lot into his remarks, sincere feeling and expresses it without superfluous words, simply, strongly. No long tirades can express Bazarov's great, sincere love for his parents in such a way as his short, simple answer to Arkady's question if he loves them: "I love you, Arkady."
The words of the mortally ill Bazarov addressed to his father are imbued with love and tenderness. To the words of Vasily Ivanovich, full of boundless love and sorrow: “Eugene! ... my son, my dear, dear son!” - Bazarov replies: “What, my father?”
Getting acquainted with the image of Bazarov, giving him a description, one can be mistaken, arguing that Bazarov “does not recognize nature as an object of admiration”, that he “denies nature”, based on the well-known Bazarov aphorism. Meanwhile, reading carefully into some of Bazarov's remarks, we come to the conclusion that he loves nature and only denies the aesthetic, abstract contemplation of it.
“The arbor has taken over well ... because acacia and lilac are good guys, they don’t require care.” This is Bazarov speaking to Arkady.
“I, as I drove up here, rejoiced at your birch grove, gloriously stretched out.” This is what he says to his father.
In the above statements by Bazarov, the words “good guys”, attributed to acacia and lilac, “gloriously stretched out”, referring to a grove, directly say that Bazarov loves nature the way people of agricultural labor love it, and admires it, but does not pour out his feelings in "beautiful" words.
The speech of Bazarov's ideological opponent, Pavel Petrovich, is primarily the speech of an aristocratic gentleman. Angloman Kirsanov idealizes the English conservative aristocracy, but his speech is interspersed with French words and expressions, since it was French that was adopted in secular society. Pavel Kirsanov resorts to French most often when he does not find the exact words in his language to express his thoughts in Russian.
The secularism of Pavel Petrovich is also indicated by the verbal formulas common in his speech, adopted in “society” to emphasize respect (at least outwardly and covering contempt and hatred) for the interlocutor: I dare say; I consider it my duty to announce to you; for this, gracious sir, I can only thank you; you deign to find my habits ridiculous; you deign to joke; sensitively obliged to you ... Pavel Kirsanov uses such expressions mainly in conversation and in disputes with Bazarov; this is natural, because the latter is the only stranger with whom the master communicates in the novel.
Being an aristocrat, Pavel Petrovich characterizes himself as "a man of liberal and loving progress." He is not averse to emphasizing this in conversation, which is reflected in the use of terms, turns, peculiar to the language the then progressive and conservative noble intelligentsia: “Personality, dear sir, is the main thing, ... because everything is built on it”; "logic of history", "materialism", "civilization". Pavel Petrovich’s favorite word is “principe” (principle), which he pronounces in French, but sometimes he is not averse to using colloquial speech, words and expressions of “low style”: “It is very necessary trudge for fifty miles of jelly to eat", " the hell with him!», « pull that stupid strap», « in the bag", "How many, I mean, is he months old? Pavel Petrovich’s penchant for rounded, slender and beautiful spectacular phrases (“No, the Russian people are not what you imagine them to be. They sacredly honor traditions, they are patriarchal, they cannot live without faith ...”), does not interfere with him in the heat of a dispute indulge in rudeness towards Bazarov and his like-minded people, calling them blockheads.
Let's briefly dwell on characteristic features the speeches of other characters in the novel.
The speech of Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov reflects the features of a gentle liberal gentleman. Uncertainty, caution, fuzziness, sometimes verbosity - qualities, decisively opposite qualities Bazarov, in the highest degree characteristic of the speech of Nikolai Petrovich. For example: " Well? Maybe Bazarov is right; but me I confess, one thing hurts: I was hoping exactly now get close and friendly with Arkady, and coming out that I was left behind ... ". The highlighted words in his speech do not carry semantic load, they only slow down speech, reflecting the uncertainty inherent in the speaker.
Speaking out, Nikolai Petrovich “marks time”, needlessly repeating the same word: “This is from the Latin nihil, nothing, as far as I can tell; therefore, this word means a person who ... who does not recognize anything? "I'm sorry that your stay in my house got such...such an end."
The speech that Nikolai Petrovich delivers at a farewell dinner in honor of Pavel Petrovich is characteristic: “You are leaving us ... you are leaving us, dear brother,” he began, “of course, not for long; but still I cannot help expressing to you that I… that we… how I… how we…”. Here the "trampling" of Nikolai Petrovich is explained by excitement, but in essence the features of his usual speech are strengthened here.
The speech of Bazarov the father is exceptionally characteristic. The language of Vasily Ivanovich reflects the features of a simple, sincere, talkative, enthusiastic person. Especially vividly in his speech is expressed the desire to show his learning, his progressive views. Names are not uncommon in his speech. prominent people, especially scientists, mythological names. Foreign words are also frequent in his speech. Latin words and he uses proverbs more often than his son. Characteristic for Vasily Ivanovich is the use of distorted French words and expressions - the result of his communication with people of the noble circle. He tries to speak German as well, but stops trying when he finds that he can't do it. Vasily Ivanovich willingly uses and foreign words, which entered the Russian language, for example, by medical terms: "etherization", "icter", "palliatives". All this points not only to the desire to “show education”, but also to some awareness of science and his sincere love for it.
Usually the speech of Bazarov the father is somewhat pompous, florid, unnecessarily complicated; sometimes in it we see old formulas of politeness, but in contrast to similar formulas in the speech of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, they are a consequence of sincere desire be nice to people who are nice to him. For example, "... and you, gentlemen, let me ask you to the office of a retired veteran"; “And now, I hope, Arina Vlasyevna, that, having sated my maternal heart, you will take care of feeding your dear guests, because, you know, the nightingale does not feed fables. The nature is emotional, enthusiastic, the old man Bazarov is inclined to resort to hyperbole when expressing his feelings: Arkady turned out to be "the great of this world"; turning to Arkady and his son, he exclaims: “How much strength, youth of the most flowering, abilities, talent!”
"Fathers and Sons" belongs to those works that have enriched our literary language with aphorisms, winged words. First of all, the title of the novel became such winged words. The word "nihilist" has also become a winged word. His popularity abroad turned out to be even greater than in Turgenev's homeland.
CONCLUSION
Thus, during the study, we came to the conclusion that scrutiny the speech of the heroes of the work helps us to better understand their character.
It turns out that Bazarov has a complex character - a raznochint-democrat, a man of broad, sharp and deep mind, with a broad outlook, independent in judgment, direct, sometimes sharp to the point of rudeness, an enemy of chatter and unnecessary prettiness, who knows how to hate and despise and love deeply, deeply .
Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a refined Anglomanian aristocrat who does not have any creativity, everything he has is feigned, fake, although he is smart, honest, educated, handsome, he has a delicate elegant taste, firm convictions but at the same time his horizons are limited. Contemptuously, he looks down on everyone. At heart, he is a conservative, an ardent defender of the old foundations, he is cut off from real life, did not know her, did not have a real idea about the motherland, about the interests of the Russian people. He observed life from the outside, from the height of that eternal aristocratic morality, which he considered unshakable.
In contrast to him, his brother Nikolai Petrovich, according to Bazarov’s apt description, “a nice fellow, kind fellow, ladybug”, is unsure, cautious, gentle, always balanced, emotional to the point of sentimentality, loving and subtly feeling poetry, music, the beauty of nature. A “coward” by nature, he was afraid of new trends, although he understood that it was becoming impossible to live in the old way. That is why, as soon as Arkady arrived home, he asked him to become an assistant, to get closer to him, "to get to know each other well." He was afraid of his brother and did not talk to him about anything. In his son, he saw a "dove", a native by blood and character of a person.
And Bazarov Sr. is a very kind, hospitable host, an original person, a provincial philosopher, he tries to prove his education, is progressive, likes to talk a lot, strives to speak beautifully, solemnly, but it turns out funny. This is a man of work, deeds, at the same time he loved to dream, talk about the greats of this world.
Whether the writer in his novel conveys a friendly conversation or a dispute between ideological enemies, whether he describes the atmosphere of a room or an early morning, whether he talks about the grief of parents losing their beloved son, whether he turns into a satirist, he always remains a great artist of words, able to find words to express his thoughts. the only, irreplaceable word, the only, best phrase.
It is by studying the language of the heroes of the work that you can improve your language, your speech, cultivate the ability to speak not only beautifully and correctly, but also intelligibly, convincingly, so that the listener understands that he is respected and reckoned with his opinion, develop linguistic and aesthetic flair, bit by bit to absorb the real Russian literary language, which should be the pride of the nation.
Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov - at all times people read their works, more than one generation grew up on them, and today they constitute a true literary heritage our country.
LIST OF USED LITERATURE:
Bobylev B.G. "Experience philological analysis» РЯШ № 2, 1991
Kachurin M.G. "Organization research activities students." Moscow "Enlightenment" 1988
Litvinov V.V. "Learning the Language of Artistic Works at School". Moscow. Uchpedgiz 1988
Petrov S.M. Trofimov I.T. "Creativity of I.S. Turgenev", Moscow Enlightenment 1981
Popova E.V. " Piece of art as an aesthetic value”, Literature at School No. 4, 1998.
Turgeneva I.S. "Fathers and Sons".
Steinsaltz A. « Simple words". 1993
I hope no one else has any doubts about how important his goal is for the hero (some of the heroes are ready to kill for their own).
Now let's talk about character. As I said before, cinema is a movement. The hero is the one who moves, the goal is what makes him move. And character is what sets the speed and trajectory of movement.
In the last session, I asked you to try to name a character whose character has changed over the course of the film.
Anakin Skywalker, Kisa Vorobyaninov, Raskolnikov, Andrea from The Devil Wears Prada, Tyler Durden, Plushkin, Monte Cristo, D'Artagnan and many, many others were named.
Let's take Raskolnikov as an example. Indeed, at the beginning of the book (film, series, story) he is a poor student who suffers terribly from the thought - whether he is a trembling creature or has a right. In the finale, he is a convict who is convinced that yes, he is a trembling creature and repents of his delusions in the arms of Sonya Marmeladova. To put it bluntly, there are two differences. But has his character changed?
In general, what is character?
Here is the definition from Wikipedia:
Character (Greek character - distinguishing feature) - the structure of persistent, relatively constant mental properties that determine the characteristics of the relationship and behavior of the individual.
I ask you to pay attention to the words of persistent, relatively constant. What are these properties? Let's try to define them without digging too deep into psychology:
1) Energy level (strong - weak)
2) Temperament (speed of reactions, excitability)
3) Introvert-extrovert (behavior in society)
4) Habits (stereotypes of behavior)
The hero already has all these properties as soon as he is born (I mean the light of a movie projector) and all of them remain with him when he leaves for the ZTM.
Raskolnikov was weak. Got stronger? No. I was melancholic. Became sanguine? No. Was an introvert. Became an extrovert? No. Gained or lost any habits? No. Which one came, which one left.
Character is the main thing that distinguishes one hero from another. The viewer recognizes and remembers the hero by his character, and not by his appearance.
If you know the character of your hero, it will be easy for you to build a plot - you just need to erect obstacles between the hero and his goal and see how he, in accordance with the characteristics of his character, will overcome them.
If the character does something that is not in his nature, the viewer will feel that he is being deceived. Or a hero, or an author. If the hero deceives, it is the sacred duty of the author to expose him. Otherwise, the viewer will no longer believe the author. And you need to expose quickly, clearly, rudely and visibly (but not stupidly).
In general, cinema is a crude art. Much more crude than prose, which allows you to devote dozens of pages, for example, to describing the thoughts of the hero. In the depiction of heroes, the rudeness of cinema is manifested as nowhere else.
Why do fans often protest against film adaptations, even successful ones? Because the cinema necessarily simplifies and coarsens the characters, sometimes making each of them the bearer of only one, the most striking feature. And some heroes are thrown out altogether, like Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Ring.
Sometimes this simplification kills the movie, as in the case of Johnny Mnemonic, when a great novel turned into a mediocre action movie.
More often, on the contrary, simplification makes it possible to create cinema, such as, for example, Pudovkin's Mother.
And the history of the creation of Dr. House? Dr. Lisa Sanders wrote a New York Times column for many years describing diagnosing a patient like investigating a crime. The columns were published as a separate book, and television people bought the rights to create a series based on this book. And for two years they did not know what to do with these rights. Until they finally came up with the hero we all know.
Would you watch a series about diagnosing patients if it didn’t have this hero with his unbearable, but such a bright character? Attention, this was a rhetorical question, not homework!
It is believed that there are two approaches to depicting the character of the hero: Molierovsky and Shakespeare.
Each character of Molière has one dominant feature - Harpagon is stingy, Scapin is a rogue, Tartuffe is a hypocrite and so on. This approach is suitable for genre films. For example, if you are writing an action film, your hero should not, having caught the enemy in the crosshairs, suddenly begin to doubt, like Hamlet.
Shakespeare's heroes are multidimensional: Hamlet is both ambitious and modest and resolute and prone to doubt. Shylock is both stingy and smart and loving to children. Falstaff is both voluptuous and lazy and brave and cowardly.
Isn't that why most of Molière's plays have long since left the stage, but Shakespeare continues to be staged? The reader and viewer of Shakespeare not only follows the development of history, but he also embarks on an exciting journey deep into the character of the hero, gradually learning more and more of his features.
What should be the character of the hero to make this journey really exciting?
BRIGHT. It is foolish to expect great feats and unexpected deeds from an empty place.
DEFINITE. We must understand what the hero wants and why he wants it.
TRUE. Just do not copy the features of people you know. Life is not a screenwriter, it does not need to care about believability. And the screenwriter needs it.
WHOLE. The hero does only what he can do. For example, at one time in American cinema, action heroes did not kill anyone. Even during the last duel with the most evil villain the villain used to stumble and fall on his own knife.
DIFFICULT. Internal contradiction gives the hero volume (remember Hamlet - probably the most controversial and most popular hero in the world). In order to become a hero, he must overcome this contradiction. Just don't overuse it. If the character's function is to give the hero cartridges, he must silently (or with the words here are the cartridges) give the hero cartridges and immediately fall with a bullet through his head.
The complexity of a character is directly proportional to the importance of the role the character plays in the story.
Even an action movie cannot be built on the fact that a one-cell hero is the strongest and shoots without a miss. He needs to come up with some kind of ficus on the windowsill, love for John Wayne films and friendship with a little girl.
Conversely, if you go too deep into the characters and stories of characters that play a small role, it will turn out funny. This effect was very well ridiculed in one of the Austin Powers episodes, when they showed in detail how the wife and son of one of Dr. Evil's henchmen learn about the death of this very henchman at the hands of the protagonist.
Some scripting primers say that in order for a character to be three-dimensional, the screenwriter must describe in detail his appearance, character and social status.
When I read in the "bible" (terms of reference) of a new project detailed biography hero for ten pages, it makes me at least wary. And if at the same time I see that the hero has an uninteresting and unconvincing character, I immediately refuse the project, because I understand that such a technical task does not portend anything but fruitless torment.
In fact, it is not appearance or social status that makes a hero three-dimensional - what difference does it make to a screenwriter whether his heroine is blonde or brunette if he is not the screenwriter of Legally Blonde? In many films, it does not matter to us what kind of trade the hero earns a living. But the character of the hero is the foundation stone of any good script.
The task of the screenwriter is to make this stone precious.
However, the fact that the character of the hero remains unchanged does not mean at all that the hero himself does not change. But what does he change?
Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman, Kisa was an employee of the registry office, became a murderer, D'Artagnan was a poor Gascon, became a field marshal.
All these heroes changed fate.
And that's just about it, oh, we'll talk next time.
The sharper the satire, the higher the ideal of the writer.
M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin
Purpose: to characterize the author's ideal of the satirist M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin by analyzing the system of images of the “Tale ...”.
Lesson objectives.
Educational (knowledge system):
learning new things:
- comprehension ideological content works by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals”;
- formation of ideas about the author's position, the author's ideal;
- ways of expressing the attitude of the author to the depicted (humor, irony, satire, grotesque);
repetition of what has been learned:
- literary tale and its difference from folklore,
- ways to create artistic image character (name, place of service, rank, speech, education, portrait, artistic space, relationships, attitude towards another character, author's attitude).
Educational(skill system):
formation of new skills:
- to argue the attitude towards the characters of the work (generals, peasant) of the author, reader;
- to characterize the author's ideal of a satirist writer;
development of previously acquired skills:
- characterization of heroes and events based on independent search literary facts and author's judgment;
- appropriate and sufficient citation artistic text;
- expressive reading fragments of an epic work;
- development of oral monologue speech skills.
Educational(system of value orientations):
- the formation of students' value ideas about the world and man from the standpoint of the author's ideal;
- mastery of students vocabulary that expresses their attitude to moral values.
Equipment: a portrait of the writer, children's drawings of characters, "Dictionary of the Humanities", cards with tasks for students.
During the classes
I. Checking homework.
What signs of a fairy tale as a genre do you know?
What is the difference between a literary fairy tale and a folk tale?
Suggested answer: In a literary fairy tale, the author - specific person, the fairy-tale style is combined with the clerical and a comic effect is created, hyperbole and grotesque are used in order to show that there is no ideal and positive hero, satire, evil irony is used.
Define humor, irony, satire and give examples from your own reading experience.
Suggested answer: Humor - cheerful, kind laughter . Irony is a hidden mockery. Satire - angry, angry laughter.
Which artistic features images of situations and characters in satirical tale can you name?
Suggested answer: Allegory, irony, sarcasm, hyperbole, grotesque.
What are some ways you know how to create a character's image?
Suggested answer: Ways of creating an image - portrait, landscape, actions of the hero, his activities, relationships with other characters, the hero's speech, the author's attitude to the character, my attitude.
II. Message about the topic and purpose of the lesson.
Dear Guys! Today we will continue work on “The Tale of How One Man Feeded Two Generals” by M. Saltykov-Shchedrin. We have to characterize the author's ideal: the attitude of the writer to the world and man through the analysis of characters. Let's carefully observe the characters and try to understand the author's intention. Today, two groups of students will work: the first group will have to characterize the generals, the second - the peasant. The children of each group received cards in envelopes with a task that they would have to complete on their own. The groups will present their findings in the form of a full oral response. Each of your performances should not exceed 2 minutes. 5 minutes are allotted for independent work. You must listen attentively to the comrades who are speaking so as not to repeat what has already been said.
III. Characteristics of the generals.
Card number 1. Character names.
What are the names of the generals?
Suggested answer: Generals do not have names, thus the author emphasizes the typicality of their images, the absence of individual qualities.
Card number 2. Location of the characters.
Where did the generals serve? Read the required passage.
Look up the meaning of the word “registration” in the dictionary.
How does the narrator feel about such “registries”?
Expected answer: “The generals served all their lives in some kind of registry ...” The word “registration” in the dictionary means ... The author does not accidentally use the definition “some” with the word registry in order to generalize such institutions, emphasize typicality, refers to similar establishments ironically.
Card number 3. Chin of characters.
Why is it not indicated why the heroes received the rank of general?
Where and by whom else did one of the generals serve? name an artistic device)
Supposed answer: The author does not say why the generals received the rank, the personal qualities of the heroes are also not indicated, only the rank is indicated. But we understand that a rank is not given for inactivity, which means that it was received by the generals under someone's patronage, since they themselves could not deserve such a high rank. One of the generals was a calligraphy teacher at the school of military cantonists, i.e. in a school for soldiers' children, which should indicate the low intellectual level of the hero, the other "was smarter." And where has it been seen that the general was engaged in such activities ?! Thus, the author satirically portrays the generals.
Card number 4. Character speech.
What expressions do generals use in speech? Read the snippets.
What is the peculiarity of their pronunciation of words?
How does the speech characterize the characters?
Expected answer: “Accept the assurance of my perfect respect and devotion” - clericalism, the generals use an official business style in speech, which characterizes their limitations, the habit of using “s” at the end of words is an expression of respect.
Card number 5. character education.
What is the education level of the generals? Explain your conclusion.
What reader's impressions about the generals arise from the analysis of the author's device?
Supposed answer: The generals do not know the sides of the horizon, for them “rolls will be born in the same form as they are served with coffee in the morning” - this hyperbole helps to convey the worthlessness, lack of education of the generals. The author portrays them satirically .
Card number 6. Character portrait.
What is the feature appearance generals?
Which subject details in the description of the generals, the author highlights and why?
How do you feel about generals based on an analysis of their appearance?
Suggested answer: “Fed, white and cheerful,” says the narrator, “but no faces—thus, a generalization is used. The generals are “in nightgowns, and they have orders hanging around their necks”, the order is perceived as part of the body, the grotesque is used. The portrait is satirical, evokes a feeling of dislike for the characters.
Card number 7. Artistic space.
What is remarkable about the island on which the generals fall?
Supposed answer: The author moves the action to a desert island so that the generals can show themselves, prove themselves in actions, it’s not for nothing that there is a lot of food, water on the island - it is idealized, it is a paradise, but paradise, first of all, for the stomach, the island is fantastic, abundance, reigning here is conveyed with the help of hyperbole. The generals are inactive, white-handed, they could not prove themselves.
Card number 8. Character behavior.
What actions do the generals perform on the island? For what purpose?
How does the behavior of the generals characterize them?
Suggested answer: The generals are trying to climb a tree - but... alas! Inaction, helplessness, the habit that others do everything for them, the author denounces their vulgarity, neboktoptelstvo, the meaninglessness of such an existence.
Card number 9. Character relationships.
What is the relationship of the generals at the beginning of the tale?
How is their relationship changing and why?
Please provide a relevant quote.
What associations, analogies do you have when analyzing the behavior of generals (what do they look like at the moment of attacking each other)? (name the artistic technique used)
Suggested Answer: As soon as the generals feel very hungry, their deference vanishes. Officials lose their human appearance and, like predators, pounce on each other. “Suddenly, both generals looked at each other: an ominous fire shone in their eyes, their teeth chattered, a dull growl flew out of their chests. They began to slowly crawl towards each other and in the blink of an eye went berserk. Shreds flew, there was a screech and groan; the general, who was a teacher of calligraphy, bit off an order from his comrade and immediately swallowed it.” The frenzy of the generals is conveyed by the author with the help of the grotesque.
Card number 10. The attitude of the generals towards the peasant.
How did the generals react to their find, man?
Find quotes and explain their meaning.
What thought came to the generals at the sight of various provisions?
Find a quote and explain the attitude of the generals towards the peasant.
Why do the generals tie the peasant?
How did the generals “thank” the peasant?
Express your attitude to the generals.
Suggested answer: “A man got up: he sees that the generals are strict. I wanted to give them a shot, but they just froze, clinging to him. The peasant is the salvation of the generals, he is the one whom they can dispose of as their own property, he is their salvation. But as soon as, thanks to the diligence and skill of the peasant, various provisions appeared, instead of gratitude, the generals scornfully say: “Shouldn’t you give the parasite a piece?” The word "parasite" expresses irony here: who is the true parasite? But the main “gratitude” is ahead: the generals tie the peasant so that he does not run away. There is cruelty, rudeness, violence of generals over those who obey them.
What kind of image appears before us in the face of the generals?
IV. Characteristics of a man.
Card number 1. Character `s name.
What is the man's name?
What are your reader's thoughts on this?
Card number 2. Character portrait.
What does a man look like?
Why is he called in the work "the biggest man"?
Why is a man introduced into the system of images?
What properties are endowed with a man in fairy tales?
Suggested answer: The author calls his character "the biggest man" because this is the person who can do everything, is capable of any work, strong, powerful, dexterous (this is how a man is always presented in Russian folk tales). The peasant was introduced into the system of images not by chance: he is opposed to inactive and useless generals.
Card number 3. Character behavior.
What can a man do?
How does he do the job he takes on?
Do you like all the actions of a man?
Explain the reasons for your relationship with the man.
Suggested answer: The man knows how to do everything, he does the work quickly and conscientiously. The author admires his dexterity, diligence, hyperbole helps to convey the ingenuity, invention of the people.
Card number 4. The relation of the peasant to the generals.
How does a man feel about generals?
Why does a man obey the generals? Please provide a relevant quote.
What did the “man” do to help the generals out of trouble and bring them home?
What qualities of character did he show?
Suggested answer: A man resignedly obeys the generals. Chin turns out to be enough to push the man around. “The generals looked at these peasant efforts, and their hearts played merrily. They have already forgotten that yesterday they almost died of hunger, and they thought: “This is how good it is to be generals - you won’t get lost anywhere!” A man builds a ship, showing resourcefulness and ingenuity.
Card number 5. Character speech
How does a man's speech characterize him?
Suggested answer: The peasant's speech reflects the age-old habit of the Russian people - to meekly please the master.
V. Generalization.
For which characters does Saltykov-Shchedrin use humor, irony, and for whom does he use satire? Why?
How does the man in the fairy tale of Saltykov-Shchedrin differ from the folklore character?
What in the behavior of a man causes admiration, and what - condemnation of the author?
What is the meaning of the finale of “The Tale…”?
VI. Summing up the results of the analytical conversation.
The generalization of the teacher: “The Tale ...” is built on allegory, ridicules the vices of the contemporary author of society, denounces the stupidity and unsuitability for life of generals, humility, slavish humility of a man who can do everything. These are the questions state significance, the well-being of Russia depends on the attitude towards these vices of state power.
Why did Saltykov-Shchedrin deliberately use the word “story” in the title of the tale?
Teacher generalization: Using fairy tales, fiction and hyperbole, the writer creates an unusual situation that captivates us readers. But he skillfully intertwines fantasy and reality in order to study the essence of the relationship between those in power and the people, the immorality of the authorities and the servility of the peasant. Thus, through the reflection of vices, the pain of the satirist for the quick-witted, hard-working Russian people is manifested.
Let's turn to the epigraph of our lesson. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote: “The sharper the satire, the higher the ideal of the writer.” How do you understand his words?
Teacher generalization : Saltykov-Shchedrin believed that satire should not destroy, but create, and the writer should explore life more fully in order to understand how to arrange it better.
Which moral values says the satirist Saltykov-Shchedrin?
VII. Homework.
Write an essay describing one of the heroes (group 1 - characterization of a man, group 2 - characterization of generals).
