/ / / Moral problems in Trifonov's story "Exchange"
In Trifonov's story, among other problems, the question of a moral nature is raised.
The mother of the protagonist Dmitriev was diagnosed with a malignant tumor. The man was very worried, even though the operation was successful and the woman's health improved.
However, his wife did not share his feelings. All the thoughts of the woman were occupied with the “housing issue”. She found a "decent" living space, and was preparing for a serious conversation with her husband.
During a conversation with Lena, Dmitriev did not support the idea of an exchange. He was outraged by the cold calculation of his wife and her heartlessness in this situation. He condemned his wife for her lack of sympathy for her mother. The man believed that such behavior would be tactless and would not bring anything good. Moreover, the women did not get along with each other for a long time. And because of this, the issue of cohabitation was not relevant. The couple did not come to an understanding that evening.
However, Lena's persistence nevertheless "broke" the man, and this was not the first time. Under her sensitive "guidance" he occupied a new position, which was previously intended for his friend. Workplace was much more promising than the one that Dmitriev occupied at that time. Therefore, Lena's father, Lukyanov, after talking with his daughter, made every effort to ensure that his son-in-law was in a new workplace.
Nothing could stop the Lukyanovs on the way to achieving their goal. They were distinguished by unscrupulousness and a certain composure. Therefore, the illness of the mother-in-law did not stop Lena, but rather pushed her to action. While the husband was immersed in caring for his mother, the woman was looking for options for exchanging living space.
To all Dmitriev's reproaches, the wife had a weighty argument - she is trying not only for herself, but first of all for him and their joint daughter Natasha. After these words, the man gave up. He seriously began to think about the fact that it would actually be good if they began to live with their mother and exchange housing.
With this thought, he prepared for the most important conversation with his sister and Ksenia Fedorovna herself. The man understood that women were unlikely to like this idea, despite the difficult situation.
Both Lena and her husband put their interests first. At the same time, Dmitriev finds an excuse for himself. But he sees his son through and through. She condemns him for the fact that his son "became a fool", and gradually lost his human qualities.
The exchange that the son and daughter-in-law insisted on was made. The Dmitriev family moved into a room with Xenia Feodorovna, and the woman even temporarily felt better. However, she was able to discern in her son those features that she despised in her daughter-in-law. For the woman, this was another shock. She realized that the exchange of housing was not made for the sake of her well-being and care, but only from the pragmatic considerations of the couple.
After the mother is gone, the son realizes that it is the long-awaited "exchange" that is the cause of her death. He and his wife made a cruel and, unfortunately, irreparable mistake, for which he will now have to pay alone.
The action takes place in Moscow. The mother of the protagonist, thirty-seven-year-old engineer Viktor Dmitriev, Ksenia Fedorovna, became seriously ill, she has cancer, but she herself believes that she has a peptic ulcer. After the operation, she is sent home. The outcome is clear, but she alone believes that things are on the mend. Immediately after her discharge from the hospital, Dmitriev's wife Lena, an English translator, decides to urgently move in with her mother-in-law so as not to lose a good room on Profsoyuznaya Street. We need an exchange, she even has one option in mind.
There was a time when Dmitriev's mother really wanted to live with him and with her granddaughter Natasha, but since then their relationship with Lena has become very tense and this was out of the question. Now Lena herself tells her husband about the need for an exchange. Dmitriev is indignant - at such a moment to offer this to his mother, who can guess what's wrong. Nevertheless, he gradually yields to his wife: after all, she is fussing about the family, about the future of Natasha's daughter. In addition, on reflection, Dmitriev begins to reassure himself: maybe not everything is so irrevocable with his mother’s illness, which means that the fact that they will come together will only be good for her, for her well-being - after all, her dream will come true. So Lena, Dmitriev concludes, is wise as a woman, and in vain he immediately attacked her.
Now he is also aimed at the exchange, although he claims that he personally does not need anything. In the service, due to his mother's illness, he refuses to travel. He needs money, since a lot has gone to the doctor, Dmitriev is puzzling over who to borrow from. But it seems that the day is going well for him: the money is offered with her usual sensitivity by the employee Tanya, his former mistress. A few years ago they were close, as a result, Tanya's marriage broke up, she was left alone with her son and continues to love Dmitriev, although she understands that this love is hopeless. In turn, Dmitriev thinks that Tanya would be his best wife than Lena. Tanya, at his request, brings Dmitriev together with a colleague with experience in exchange affairs, who does not say anything specific, but gives the broker's phone number. After work, Dmitriev and Tanya take a taxi and go to her house for money. Tanya is happy to be alone with Dmitriev, to help him in some way. Dmitriev is sincerely sorry for her, maybe he would have stayed with her longer, but he needs to hurry to his mother's dacha, in Pavlinovo.
With this dacha, owned by the Red Partizan cooperative, Dmitriev has warm childhood memories. The house was built by his father, a railway engineer, who dreamed all his life of leaving this job to start composing. humorous stories. A good man, he was not lucky and died early. Dmitriev remembers him fragmentarily. He remembers better his grandfather, a lawyer, an old revolutionary who returned to Moscow after a long absence (apparently after the camps) and lived for some time in the country until they gave him a room. He did not understand anything modern life. He also gazed with curiosity at the Lukyanovs, the parents of Dmitriev's wife, who were then also visiting Pavlinovo in the summer. Once on a walk, my grandfather, referring to the Lukyanovs, said that there was no need to despise anyone. These words, clearly addressed to Dmitriev's mother, who often showed intolerance, and to himself, were well remembered by his grandson.
The Lukyanovs differed from the Dmitrievs in their adaptability to life, the ability to deftly arrange any business, whether it was repairing a summer house or placing a granddaughter in an elite English school. They are from the breed of "knowing how to live." What seemed insurmountable to the Dmitrievs, the Lukyanovs solved quickly and simply, only by the only way they knew. This was an enviable property, but such practicality aroused in the Dmitrievs, especially in his mother Ksenia Fedorovna, who was accustomed to selflessly helping others, women with firm moral principles, and sister Laura, an arrogant grin. For them, the Lukyanovs are philistines who care only about personal well-being and are devoid of high interests. In their family, even the word "lukyanitsya" appeared. They are characterized by a kind of spiritual flaw, manifested in tactlessness in relation to others. So, for example, Lena hung the portrait of Father Dmitriev from the middle room to the entrance - only because she needed a nail for wall clock. Or she took all the best cups of Laura and Xenia Fedorovna.
Dmitriev loves Lena and always defended her from the attacks of her sister and mother, but he also cursed with her because of them. He knows well the strength of Lena, “who gnawed at her desires like a bulldog. Such a pretty bulldog woman with short haircut straw-colored and always pleasantly tanned, slightly swarthy face. She did not let go until the desires - right in her teeth - did not turn into flesh. At one time, she pushed Dmitriev to defend his dissertation, but he did not master it, he could not, he refused, and Lena eventually left him alone.
Dmitriev feels that his relatives are condemning him, that they consider him to have been “disgusted”, and therefore cut off by a slice. This became especially noticeable after the story with a relative and former comrade Lyovka Bubrik. Bubrik returned to Moscow from Bashkiria, where he settled after graduation, and for a long time remained unemployed. He looked for a place at the Institute of Oil and Gas Equipment and really wanted to get a job there. At the request of Lena, who felt sorry for Lyovka and his wife, her father Ivan Vasilyevich was busy with this case. However, instead of Bubrik, Dmitriev ended up in this place, because it was better than his previous work. Everything was done again under the wise guidance of Lena, but, of course, with the consent of Dmitriev himself. There was a scandal. However, Lena, protecting her husband from his principled and highly moral relatives, took all the blame.
The conversation about the exchange, which Dmitriev, who arrived at the dacha, begins with his sister Laura, arouses amazement and sharp rejection in her, despite all Dmitriev's reasonable arguments. Laura is sure that her mother cannot be happy next to Lena, even if she tries very hard at first. They are too different people. Ksenia Fyodorovna, just on the eve of her son's arrival, was unwell, then she gets better, and Dmitriev, without delay, proceeds to a decisive conversation. Yes, says the mother, she used to want to live with him, but now she doesn't. The exchange took place, and long ago, she says, referring to Dmitriev's moral surrender.
Spending the night at the dacha, Dmitriev sees his old watercolor drawing on the wall. Once he was fond of painting, did not part with the album. But, having failed in the exam, with grief he rushed to another, the first institute he came across. After graduation, he did not look for romance, like others, he did not go anywhere, he remained in Moscow. Then Lena and her daughter were already there, and the wife said: where is he from them? He is late. His train has left.
In the morning Dmitriev leaves, leaving Laura money. Two days later, the mother calls and says that she agrees to come. When he finally gets along with the exchange, Xenia Fedorovna becomes even better. However, soon the disease worsens again. After the death of his mother, Dmitriev suffers from a hypertensive crisis. He immediately passed, turned gray, aged. And the Dmitrievskaya dacha in Pavlinovo was later demolished, like others, and the Burevestnik stadium and a hotel for athletes were built there.
Lesson 7 Moral issues
stories by Yu.V. Trifonov "Exchange"
Lesson Objectives: give the concept of "urban" prose, short review its central themes; analysis of Trifonov's story "Exchange".
Methodical methods: lecture; analytical conversation.
During the classes
I. Teacher's word
In the late 60s - 70s, a powerful layer of literature was defined, which began to be called "urban", "intellectual" and even "philosophical" prose. These names are also conditional, especially because they contain a certain opposition to "village" prose, which, it turns out, is devoid of intellectuality and philosophy. But if "village" prose was looking for support in moral traditions, basics folk life, explored the consequences of a person’s break with the earth, with a rural “mode”, then “urban” prose is associated with the educational tradition, sources of opposition to catastrophic processes in social life it seeks in the subjective sphere, in the internal resources of the person himself, the native city dweller. If in “village” prose the inhabitants of the village and the city are opposed (and this is a traditional opposition for Russian history and culture), and this often constitutes a conflict of works, then urban prose is primarily interested in an urban person with a fairly high educational and cultural level in his problems, a person more connected with "bookish" culture - true or mass culture, than with folklore. The conflict is not associated with the opposition village - city, nature - culture, but is transferred to the sphere of reflection, to the sphere of feelings and problems of a person associated with his existence in modern world.
Whether a person as a person is able to resist circumstances, change them, or the person himself gradually, imperceptibly and irreversibly changes under their influence - these questions are raised in the works of Yuri Trifonov, Yuri Dombrovsky, Daniil Granin, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Grigory Gorin and others. Writers often act not only and not so much as storytellers, but as researchers, experimenters, reflecting, doubting, analyzing. "Urban" prose explores the world through the prism of culture, philosophy, religion. Time, history is interpreted as the development, movement of ideas, individual consciousnesses, each of which is significant and unique.
What are the roots of such an approach to man, to personality in Russian literature?
(In many ways, this is a continuation of the traditions of Dostoevsky, who explored the life of ideas, the life of a person is not the limit of possibilities, and raised the question of “the boundaries of man.”)
What do you know about Yu. V. Trifonov?
(One of the most prominent authors of "urban" prose is Yuri Valentinovich Trifonov (1925-1981). In Soviet time he was not an outspoken dissident, but was a "stranger" to Soviet literature. Critics reproached him for writing “not about the fact”, that his works are completely gloomy, that he is completely immersed in everyday life. Trifonov wrote about himself: “I write about death (“Exchange”) - they tell me that I write about life, I write about love (“Another Farewell” - they say that it is also about life; I write about the breakup of a family (“Preliminary results ”- again I hear about life; I write about a person’s struggle with mortal grief (“Another life” - they again talk about life.)
Why do you think the writer was reproached for being immersed in everyday life? Is it true?
What is the role of "everyday life" in the story "Exchange"?
(The very title of the story "Exchange", first of all, reveals the everyday, everyday situation of the hero - the situation of exchanging an apartment. Indeed, the life of urban families, their everyday problems occupy a significant place in the story. But this is only the first, superficial layer of the story. Life - the conditions for the existence of heroes. The seeming routine, familiarity, generality of this way of life is deceptive. In fact, the test of everyday life is no less difficult and dangerous than the tests that fall on a person in acute, critical situations. It is dangerous that a person changes under the influence of everyday life gradually, imperceptibly for himself, everyday life provokes a person without internal support, a core for actions that the person himself is then horrified by.)
What are the main events of the plot
What is the nature of the composition of the story?
(The composition gradually reveals the process of the hero’s moral betrayal. The sister and mother believed “that he had quietly betrayed them”, “he had gone sloppy”. The hero is gradually dressed for one compromise after another, as if by force, due to circumstances, retreats from his conscience: in relation to work, to a beloved woman, to a friend, to his family, and, finally, to his mother. At the same time, Victor "was tormented, amazed, racked his brains, but then he got used to it. He got used to it because he saw that everyone had the same thing, and everyone is accustomed to. And he calmed down on the truth that there is nothing in life more wise and valuable than peace, and it must be protected with all your might. " Habit, calmness are the reasons for readiness to compromise.)
How Trifonov expands the scope of the narrative, moves from description privacy to generalizations?
(The word invented by Victor's sister, Laura, - "to be lukewarm" - is already a generalization that very accurately conveys the essence of changes in a person. These changes concern not only one hero. On the way to the dacha, remembering the past of his family, Dmitriev delays the meeting with his mother, delays the unpleasant and a treacherous conversation about the exchange. It seems to him that he must "think about something important, the last. "Everything has changed on the other side. Everything has been 'looked.' Every year something changed in detail, but when fourteen years passed, it turned out that everything went wrong - completely and hopelessly. The second time the word was already given without quotes, as an established concept. The hero thinks about these changes in much the same way as he thought about his family life: maybe it's not so bad? And if this happens to everything, even to the shore, to the river and to the grass, then maybe this is natural and it should be so? No one but the hero himself can answer these questions. And it’s more convenient for him to answer: yes, it should be so - and calm down.)
What is the difference between the Dmitriev and Lukyanov family clans?
(Unlike the two life positions, two systems of values, spiritual and domestic, is the conflict of the story. The main bearer of the Dmitrievs' values is his grandfather, Fedor Nikolaevich. He is an old lawyer, with a revolutionary past: "he sat in a fortress, exiled, fled abroad, worked in Switzerland, in Belgium, was acquainted with Vera Zasulich." Dmitriev recalls that "the old man was a stranger to any Lukian-likeness, he simply did not understand many things." He could not understand how to "know how to live", like Dmitriev's father-in-law, Lukyanov, therefore, in the eyes of the Lukyanov clan, Fedor Nikolaevich is a monster who does not understand anything in modern life.)
What is the meaning of the title of the story?
(Life changes only outwardly, people remain the same. Let us recall what he says about this Bulgakov Woland: "only the housing problem spoiled them." " Housing problem"becomes a test for the hero Trifonov, a test that he cannot stand and breaks down. Grandfather says: “Ksenia and I expected that something different would come out of you. Nothing terrible happened, of course. You are not a bad person. But not amazing either."
“Lukyanization” destroys the hero not only morally, but also physically: after the exchange and the death of his mother, Dmitriev had a hypertensive crisis, and he lay at home in strict bed rest for three weeks. The hero becomes different: the thing is not an old man, but already elderly, with limp cheeks, an uncle.
The terminally ill mother says to Dmitriev: “You have already exchanged, Vitya. The exchange took place... It was a very long time ago. And it always happens, every day, so don't be surprised, Vitya. And don't get angry. It's just so imperceptible…”
At the end of the story is a list legal documents required for exchange. Their dry, businesslike, official language emphasizes the tragedy of what happened. Phrases about a favorable decision regarding the exchange and about the death of Xenia Feodorovna stand side by side. The exchange of values took place.)
Homework (by groups):
Present the work of young poets of the 60s: A. Voznesensky, R. Rozhdestvensky, E. Yevtushenko, B. Akhmadulina.
Material for the lesson-seminar on the story "Exchange"
1. Yuri Trifonov recalled how in the 60s the story “ Eternal themes"Because the editor of the journal (A. T. Tvardovsky)" was deeply convinced that eternal topics are the lot of some other literature - perhaps also necessary, but in some way irresponsible and, as it were, lower in rank, than the literature he edited."
What does "eternal themes" mean in literature?
Are there "eternal themes" in the story "Exchange"? What are they?
Are the themes of the "Exchange" "inferior in rank" compared to the heroic-patriotic themes?
2. “The hero of Trifonov is, like the writer himself, an urban, intelligent man who survived the Stalin era with difficulty, and even tragically. If he himself did not sit, was not in the Gulag, so almost by accident he put someone there, if he is alive, then he does not know whether to rejoice at this circumstance or be upset. At the same time, all these people, more or less, are sincerely inclined to analyze both their past and present, and for this very reason they hardly fit, if not do not fit at all, into the reality surrounding them, into such insincere Soviet society" ( S. Zalygin).
Is the characteristic given by S. Zalygin suitable for the heroes of the story "Exchange"?
Do the heroes have a pronounced attitude towards the Gulag?
Which of the characters in the story is most prone to "analysis" of both their past and their present? What are the implications of this analysis?
3. “Life for Trifonov is not a threat to morality, but the sphere of its manifestation. Leading his heroes through the test of everyday life, the test of everyday life, he reveals the not always perceptible connection between everyday everyday life and the high, ideal, exposes layer by layer the whole multi-component nature of a person, the whole complexity of influences. environment» (A. G. Bocharov, G. A. Belaya).
How is life depicted in the story "Exchange"?
Does Trifonov lead his heroes "through the ordeal of everyday life, the ordeal of everyday life"? How is this test present in the story?
What in "Exchange" represents the high, the ideal? Is there a connection between the everyday life depicted in the story and the high, ideal?
4. Literary critics A. G. Bocharov and G. A. Belaya write about Trifonov: “He looks at people, at their everyday life not haughtily, not from the heavenly distances of abstraction, but with understanding and sympathy. But at the same time, humanistically demanding, he does not forgive those “trifles” that usually disappear with a generalized enthusiastic look at a person.
Is there really no generalized enthusiastic attitude in Trifonov's view of the heroes of the story? What "little things" in the behavior and characters of the characters does the writer describe? What is his attitude to these "little things"?
5. Literary critic V. G. Vozdvizhensky writes about the story “The Exchange”: “Convincingly, visibly, with the full measure of the author’s condemnation, the writer traces how ordinary “micro-concessions”, “micro-agreements”, “micro-offences”, gradually accumulating, can ultimately lead to to the loss of the truly human in man, for nothing arises suddenly, on empty place».
What kind of "micro-concessions", "micro-agreements", "micro-misdemeanors" of his character does the writer depict? How is the “full measure of condemnation” of these “microdeeds” manifested?
What is the meaning of adding the part "micro" to the words "concession", "agreement", "misconduct"? Is it possible to use them to characterize the behavior of the hero of the story without her?
Identify the main stages in creating a picture of the loss of "truly human in a person" in the story "Exchange".
6. "Yu. Trifonov, one might say, is chasing not a positive hero, but a positive ideal and, accordingly, denounces not so much obviously “negative characters”, but rather the qualities of a person’s soul that prevent the complete victory of the human” (V. T. Vozdvizhensky).
Try to divide the heroes of the "Exchange" into positive and negative. Did you succeed?
How does the moment of conviction manifest itself? negative characters in the author's story?
7. S. Zalygin notes: “Yes, Trifonov was a classic writer of everyday life ... I don’t know another such meticulous urban writer. There were already enough village writers at that time, but urban ... he was then the only one like that.
What does "everyday writing" mean in literature? What is characteristic of such literature?
Why does the story "Exchange" not go beyond pure "everyday writing"?
Is the definition of "urban" in relation to Yuri Trifonov only an indication of the location of his work, or something more?
8. Yu. Trifonov said: “Well, what is life? Dry cleaners, hairdressers... Yes, it's called everyday life. But family life is also everyday life ... And the birth of a person, and the death of old people, and illnesses, and weddings are also everyday life. And the relationship of friends at work, love, quarrels, jealousy, envy - all this is also life. But that's what life is all about!"
Is life really presented in the story “Exchange” exactly as Trifonov himself writes about it?
How are “love, quarrels, jealousy, envy”, etc., presented and what role do they play in the story?
For the sake of what is life depicted in the story "Exchange"?
9. Critic S. Kostyrko believes that in the case of Yuri Trifonov "we are faced with the development of an image that is directly opposite to the conditions of censorship." The critic recalls the “characteristic” for the writer beginning of the story “Exchange” and notes: “The writer begins, as it were, with a private social and everyday fact and builds, develops his image in such a way that eternal themes for art clearly appear through the specifics ... In other words, from limitedness of a concrete fact, phenomenon - to the boundlessness of its meanings, to the freedom of its artistic comprehension.
What is the beginning of the story "The Exchange"? Why in this beginning we are talking about a private social fact?
Do the “eternal themes for art” appear through the image placed in the center of the narrative? What "eternal" themes does the writer associate with "exchange"?
What is the “boundlessness of meanings” of the fact of exchange manifested in?
10. American writer John Updike wrote in 1978 about Yury Trifonov's Moscow Tales: typical hero Trifonova considers herself a failure, and the surrounding society does not dissuade her from this. This communist society makes itself felt through the bonds of rules and interdependence, allowing for maneuverability within certain limited limits, and has an effect of “chest tightness” and “unbearable anxious itching” ... Trifonov’s heroes and heroines draw courage not from officially proclaimed hope, but from bestial vitality person."
What is the reason for the representation of some of the characters in the story about themselves as losers?
What is the society that surrounds the heroes of the story "The Exchange"? Does this society of heroes bind "by bonds of rules and interdependence"? How is it shown in the story?
How does the “bestial vitality of man” manifest itself in the characters of the story “The Exchange”?
11. Literary critic N. Kolesnikova (USA) noted that “Trifonov looks at his heroes from the inside rather than from the outside ... refuses to pass an open sentence on them, but simply portrays the heroes as they are, leaving the reader to draw conclusions ... Dignity Trifonov's stories in that they show the complexity of human nature, without dividing people into good or bad, altruists or egoists, smart or stupid.
How is Y. Trifonov's portrayal of the heroes "rather from the inside than from the outside" manifested in the text?
Is it fair to say that the writer refuses to pronounce open judgment on his characters? Do the characters in The Exchange do anything worthy of being judged?
Does The Exchange really show the "complexity" of human nature without dividing people into "good or bad"?
12. Literary critic A. I. Ovcharenko writes about one category of heroes of Yuri Trifonov: “... they are assertive, tenacious, resourceful, unceremonious in the means of achieving the goal. And merciless. Talent, conscience, honor, principles - everything, both their own and someone else's, will be given by them for good luck, most often turning into material and spiritual comfort.
Are there among the heroes of "The Exchange" those that the critic writes about? What is their role in the story?
Which of the heroes of Yuri Trifonov's story is most interested in "material and spiritual comfort"? What is the idea of the heroes of the story about this and that comfort?
13. Yuri Trifonov stated: “I do not agree with those critics who wrote that the author’s position is not visible in the “Moscow” stories ... Author's assessment can be expressed through the plot, dialogues, intonations. One important circumstance must be kept in mind. It is hardly necessary to explain to readers that selfishness, greed, hypocrisy are bad qualities.
How is the attitude of the writer to the characters and phenomena expressed in the story "The Exchange" "through the plot, dialogues, intonations"?
How are the explanations that “selfishness, greed, hypocrisy are bad qualities” manifested in the “Exchange”?
14. Critic L. Denis wrote about the stories of Yuri Trifonov: “The language is free, unconstrained, the author tries to reproduce oral speech, without hesitation, uses argotism where necessary. But everything is not limited to this. We can say that in this writer there is something from Dostoevsky: the extreme internal complexity of the characters, the difficulty with which they try to understand themselves, make decisions. Thus, we come across extremely long paragraphs, self-twisting phrases; the difficulty of being is partly transmitted through the external difficulty of writing.
What is the role of oral speech in the story?
Are there often "extremely long paragraphs" in "self-twisting phrases" in Trifonov's works? What does the critic's phrase mean that the difficulty of being of the characters in the story is "transmitted through the external difficulty of writing"?
In Yuri Trifonov's story "The Exchange", two families of Dmitrievs and Lukyanovs are depicted, who became related due to the marriage of two representatives of their young generation - Victor and Lena. To a certain extent, these two families are directly opposed to each other. The author does not show their direct confrontation, which is expressed indirectly through numerous comparisons, frictions and conflicts in the relations of these families. Thus, the Dmitriev family differs from the Lukyanovs in its long-standing roots and the presence of several generations in this family name. It is tradition that ensures the continuity of moral values and ethical principles that have developed in this family. The moral stability of the members of the Dmitriev family is due to the transfer of these values from generation to generation.
However, these values are gradually leaving him and being replaced by others that are opposite to them. Therefore, the image of Fyodor Nikolaevich's grandfather, who appears in the story as a kind of ancient "monster", is extremely important for us, since many fateful events fell to his lot. historical events. But at the same time it remains real. historical figure, which makes it possible to trace the process of loss by the Dmitriev family of those qualities, life principles that distinguished their house from others. Grandfather embodies the most best qualities the houses of the Dmitrievs, which once distinguished all representatives of this kind - intelligence, tact, good breeding, adherence to principles.
Ksenia Fedorovna, the daughter of Fyodor Nikolaevich, is completely different from her father. She is characterized by excessive pride, feigned intelligence, rejection of his life principles (for example, this is manifested in the scene of a dispute with her father about contempt). It appears such a trait as "prudence", that is, the desire to look better than what it really is. Despite the fact that Ksenia Fedorovna strives to play the role of an ideal mother, she is far from positive hero, since it equally contains and negative qualities. After a while, we learn that Ksenia Fedorovna is not at all as intelligent and disinterested as she wants to seem. But, despite its shortcomings, it fully realizes itself as loving mother. She treats her only son with feeling quivering love, pities him, worries about him, perhaps even blames himself for his unrealized opportunities. In his youth, Victor drew superbly, but did not receive this gift. further development. Ksenia Fedorovna, spiritually bound by love with her son, is also the guardian internal communications the Dmitriev family.
Victor Dmitriev is finally separated and spiritually cut off from his grandfather, in relation to whom he has only "childish devotion". Hence the misunderstanding and alienation that arose in their last conversation when Victor wanted to talk about Lena, and grandfather wanted to think about death. It is no coincidence that with the death of his grandfather, Dmitriev, more than ever, felt cut off from his home, family, loss of ties with people close to him. However, the origins of the process of Victor's spiritual alienation from his family, which took on an irreversible character with the death of his grandfather, should be sought from the moment of his marriage to Lena Lukyanova. The rapprochement of the two houses becomes the cause of endless quarrels and conflicts between families and turns into the final destruction of the Dmitriev family.
The Lukyanov clan is opposite to them both in origin and occupation. These are practical people "who know how to live", in contrast to the impractical and poorly adapted Dmitrievs. The author presents the Lukyanovs much narrower. They are deprived of a home, and, consequently, of rootedness, support and family ties in this life. In turn, the absence of family ties leads to the absence of spiritual ties in this Lukyanov family, where the feeling of love, family warmth and simple human participation are unfamiliar. Relations in this family are somehow uncomfortable, official business, not at all like home. Therefore, two are not surprising fundamental features Lukyanov - practicality and incredulity. For this family, a sense of duty replaces a sense of love. It is because of the feeling of his duty to the family that Ivan Vasilyevich financially equips his house and provides for his family, for which Vera Lazarevna feels for him a feeling comparable to dog devotion, since she herself "never worked and lived on Ivan Vasilyevich's dependency."
Lena Lukyanova is an absolute copy of her parents. On the one hand, she combined her father's sense of duty and responsibility to her family, and on the other, Vera Lazarevna's devotion to her husband and family. All this is complemented by the practicality inherent in the entire Lukyanov family. So, Lena tries to carry out a profitable apartment exchange during her mother-in-law's illness. However, all these "deals" are not something immoral for her. For the heroine, initially, only the concept of benefit is moral, because her main life principle is expediency. Finally, Lena's practicality reaches its highest limit. This is confirmed by the "mental defect", "mental inaccuracy", "underdevelopment of feelings", noticed in it by Victor. In this lies her tactlessness in relation to close people (an apartment exchange started out of place, a quarrel that arose due to the movement of Lena's father's portrait in the Dmitrievs' house). In the house of the Dmitriev-Lukyanovs there is no love and family warmth. The daughter of Lena and Victor, Natasha, does not see affection, because for her mother "the measure parental love"is an English special school. Hence the constant falsehood, insincerity in relations between members of this family. In Lena's mind, the material replaces the spiritual. Proof of this is the fact that the author never mentions any of her spiritual qualities, talents, reducing everything exclusively to the material. On the other hand, Lena is much more viable than her husband, she is morally stronger and more courageous than him. The situation of the merger of two families, the combination of spiritual principles and practicality, shown by Trifonov, leads to the victory of the latter. Victor finds himself crushed as a person by his wife and, in the end, "sucks".
The story "Exchange" begins at a tragic moment in the hero's life - the fatal illness of the mother and the apartment exchange started in this connection. Thus, the author puts his hero before a choice, since it is in such a situation that the true essence of a person is manifested. Subsequently, it turns out that Viktor Dmitriev is a weak-willed person, constantly making worldly compromises. He seeks to get away from the decision, from responsibility and the desire to preserve the usual order of things at all costs. The cost of choosing Victor is extremely bitter. for the sake of wealth and settled life, he loses his mother. But the worst thing is that Victor does not blame himself either for the death of his mother or for breaking spiritual ties with his family. He lays all the blame on the confluence of circumstances that he was never able to overcome, on the irresistible "lukianization". At the end of the story, Victor bitterly admits that he "really does not need anything", that he is only looking for peace.
From that moment on, his rapid "lukyanization" begins. Victor finally loses his spiritual qualities and moral education, originally inherent in the Dmitrievs' house. Gradually, he turns into a cold, mentally callous person, living in self-deception and taking everything for granted, while his youthful aspirations and real, sincere dreams turn into inaccessible dreams. So the hero dies spiritually, degrades as a person and loses family ties.
No less important semantic load bears the image of Tanya, embodying normal human connections, relationships and sincere love. She lives according to a completely different system of moral values, according to which it is impossible for her to live with an unloved person, even if he loves her. In turn, this man who loves her quietly leaves, allowing Tanya to live her life. That's what it is real love- the desire for good and happiness to a loved one. Despite all the misfortunes that befell her, Tanya managed to maintain her spiritual world. Thanks in large part to their internal integrity, strong moral principles and spiritual strength, she managed to survive in this life. Thanks to these qualities, Tanya is much stronger and stronger than Victor. Her "exchange" turned out to be much more honest than Dmitriev's material "exchange", since it was carried out in accordance with feelings and at the call of the heart.
"You have already exchanged, Vitya. The exchange has taken place," - such is the dramatic finale of the "exchange", put into the mouth of the mother of Viktor Dmitriev, who exchanged his way of life, moral values And life principles the Dmitriev family on the practical way of life of the Lukyanovs. Thus, the exchange that took place is not so much a material transaction as a spiritual and psychological situation.
The general leitmotif of Yuri Trifonov's story "The Exchange" is reflections on the ever-decreasing spiritual relations between people and the rapidly thinning human ties. Hence follows the main problem personality - the lack of spiritual ties with other people and, in particular, with loved ones. According to the author, relationships within the family are more dependent on spiritual closeness, on the depth of mutual understanding, and these are very difficult and subtle things that require the usual warmth and sensitivity. This is the tragedy of the Dmitriev-Lukyanov family. Without all these qualities, the family simply cannot exist. As a result, only the outer shell remains, destroyed inside and spiritually disunited.
"Urban" prose in modern literature.
Yu. V. Trifonov. "Eternal themes and moral issues in "The Exchange".
Lesson Objectives: give the concept of "urban" prose, a brief overview of its central themes; analysis of Trifonov's story "Exchange"
Requirements for the level of preparation of students:
Students should know:
the concept of "urban" prose, information about the life and work of Yu.V. Trifonov, the plot, the heroes of the work.
Students must understand:
Students should be able to:
characterize the characters of the story and their relationship to the mother.
1. "Urban" prose in the literature of the 20th century.
Work with the textbook.
Read the article (textbook edited by V.P. Zhuravlev, part 2, pp. 418-422).
What do you think the concept of "urban prose" means?
2. "Urban" prose by Yuri Trifonov.
Life and creative way Trifonova.
The writer's parents were professional revolutionaries. Father, Valentin Andreevich, joined the party in 1904 and was exiled to Siberia. In 1923-1925 he headed the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR.
In the 1930s, my father and mother were repressed. In 1965, the documentary novel "Bonfire Reflection" was published, in which he used his father's archive. From the pages of the work rises the image of a man who "kindled a fire and himself died in this flame." In the novel, Trifonov for the first time applied a peculiar artistic technique the principle of timing.
History will disturb Trifonov constantly ("The Old Man", "The House on the Embankment"). The writer realized his philosophical principle: “We must remember that the only possibility of competition with time is hidden here. Man is doomed, time triumphs.
During the war, Yuri Trifonov was evacuated to Central Asia, worked at an aircraft factory in Moscow. In 1944 he entered Literary Institute them. Gorky.
The first story "Students" - graduate work budding prose writer.
The story was published by the magazine New world» A. Tvardovsky in 1950, and in 1951 the author received the Stalin Prize for it.
Trifonov himself claimed: “Yes, I don’t write life, but life.”
Critic Yu.M. Oklyansky rightly states: “The test of everyday life, the imperious force of everyday circumstances and the hero, one way or another romantically opposing them ... is a through and title theme of the late Trifonov ...”.
Why do you think the writer was reproached for being immersed in everyday life?
What is the role of everyday life in the story "Exchange"?
The very title of the story "Exchange" first of all reveals the everyday, everyday situation of the hero - the situation of exchanging an apartment. The life of urban families, their daily problems occupy a significant place in the story. But this is only the first, superficial layer of the story. Life is the conditions for the existence of heroes. The seeming routine, the universality of this way of life is deceptive. In fact, the test of everyday life is no less difficult and dangerous than the tests that fall on a person in acute, critical situations. It is dangerous that a person changes under the influence of everyday life gradually, imperceptibly for himself, everyday life provokes a person without internal support, a core for actions that the person himself is then horrified by.
- What are the main events of the plot of the story?
The plot of the story is a chain of events, each of which is an independent short story. In the first, Lena persuades Viktor Dmitriev, her husband, to move in with his terminally ill mother for the sake of living space. In the second, Victor worries about his mother, is tormented by remorse, but still considers options for an exchange. The third short story is Victor's genealogy, his memories of his father and his family. The fourth is the story of the confrontation between two family clans: hereditary intellectuals Dmitriev and Lukyanov, people from the breed of "able to live." Fifth - history with an old friend of Dmitriev, Levka Bubrik, instead of whom Victor was attached to the institute. The sixth is the dialogue of the hero with
sister Laura about what to do with a sick mother.
What is the meaning of this composition?
Such a composition gradually reveals the process of the hero's moral betrayal. The sister and mother believed that "he had quietly betrayed them", "he had gone rogue". The hero gradually makes one compromise after another, as if by force, due to circumstances, retreats from his conscience: in relation to work, to his beloved woman, to a friend, to his family, and finally, to his mother. At the same time, Victor “was tormented, amazed, racked his brains, but then he got used to it. I got used to it because I saw that everyone had the same thing, and everyone got used to it. And he calmed down on the truth that there is nothing more wise and valuable in life than peace, and it must be protected with all your might. Habit, complacency are the reasons for the readiness to compromise.
- How does Trifonov move from describing private life to generalizations?
The word invented by Victor's sister, Laura, - "bewildered" - is already a generalization that very accurately conveys the essence of changes in a person. These changes are not limited to just one hero. On the way to the dacha, remembering the past of his family, Dmitriev delays meeting with his mother, delays an unpleasant conversation and a treacherous conversation about an exchange. It seems to him that he should “think about something important, the last”: “Everything has changed on the other side. Everything was "loosened". Every year something changed in detail, but when 14 years passed, it turned out that everything was lukewarm and hopeless. The second time the word has already been given without quotes, as a well-established concept. The hero thinks about these changes in much the same way as he thought about his family life: “Maybe it’s not so bad? And if this happens to everything - even to the shore, to the river and to the grass - then maybe it's natural and it should be so? No one but the hero himself can answer these questions. And it’s more convenient to answer yourself: yes, it should be so, and calm down.
What is the difference between the Dmitriev and Lukyanov family clans?
In contrast to the two life positions, two systems of values, spiritual and domestic, is the conflict of the story. The main bearer of the Dmitrievs' values is his grandfather, Fedor Nikolaevich. He is an old lawyer, in his youth he was engaged in revolutionary affairs, he sat in a fortress, fled abroad, went through the Gulag - this is said indirectly. Dmitriev recalls that "the old man was a stranger to any Lukian-likeness, he simply did not understand many things." For example, how can an elderly worker who came to them pull the couch, say "you", as Dmitriev's wife and mother-in-law do. Or give a bribe, as Dmitriev and Lena already did together when they asked the seller to put the radio set aside for them.
If Dmitriev's father-in-law openly "knows how to live", then Lena covers up this skill, resourcefulness with care for her family, for her husband. For her, Fedor Nikolaevich is a “monster” who does not understand anything in modern life.
What is the meaning of the story?
Life changes only externally, people remain the same. The "housing problem" becomes a test for the hero Trifonov, a test that he cannot stand and breaks down. Grandfather says: “Ksenia and I expected that something different would come out of you. Nothing terrible happened, of course. You're not a bad person, but you're not amazing either."
This is the judgment of the author himself. The process of “lukyanization” proceeds imperceptibly, seemingly against the will of a person, with a mass of self-justifications, but as a result it destroys a person, and not only morally: after the exchange and the death of his mother, Dmitriev lay at home in strict bed rest for three weeks. The hero becomes different: "not yet an old man, but already elderly, with limp-cheeked uncle."
The terminally ill mother tells him: “You have already exchanged, Vitya. The exchange took place… It was a very long time ago. And it always happens, every day, so don't be surprised, Vitya. And don't get angry. It's just so imperceptible..."
At the end of the story is a list of legal documents required for the exchange. Their dry, businesslike, official language emphasizes the tragedy of what happened. Nearby are phrases about a "favorable decision" regarding the exchange and about the death of Xenia Fedorovna. The exchange of value ideas took place.
So, Trifonov managed to draw typical picture family relations of our time: the transition of the initiative into the hands of predators, the triumph of consumerism, the loss of traditional family values. The desire for peace as the only joy makes men put up with their minority in the family. They lose their solid masculinity. The family is left without a head.
3) What makes up the image of the main character?
Description of the image based on the text.
- How does the emerging conflict with your wife over the exchange end?(“...He lay down in his place against the wall and turned to face the wallpaper.”)
- What does this pose of Dmitriev express?(This is a desire to get away from the conflict, humility, non-resistance, although in words he did not agree with Lena.)
- And here is another subtle psychological sketch: Dmitriev, falling asleep, feels his wife’s hand on his shoulder, which at first “lightly strokes his shoulder”, and then presses “with considerable weight”.
The hero realizes that his wife's hand is inviting him to turn around. He resists (this is how the author depicts the internal struggle in detail). But ... "Dmitriev, without saying a word, turned on his left side."
- What other details indicate the subordination of the hero to his wife, when we understand that he is a follower?(In the morning, the wife reminded her to talk to her mother.
“Dmitriev wanted to say something,” but he “took two steps after Lena, stood in the corridor and returned to the room.”)
This detail - "two steps forward" - "two steps back" - is a clear evidence of the impossibility for Dmitriev to go beyond the limits imposed on him by external circumstances.
- Whose rating does the hero get?(We learn his assessment from his mother, from his grandfather: “You are not a bad person. But not amazing either.”)
4) The right to be called a person Dmitriev was denied by his relatives. Lena was denied by the author: “... she bit into her desires like a bulldog. Such a pretty bulldog woman ... She did not let go until the desires - right in her teeth - did not turn into flesh ... "
Oxymoron* cute female bulldogemphasizes even more negative attitude the author to the heroine.
Yes, Trifonov clearly defined his position. This is contradicted by the statement of N. Ivanova: "Trifonov did not set himself the task of either condemning or rewarding his heroes: the task was different - to understand." This is partly true...
It seems that another remark of the same literary critic: “...behind the external simplicity of presentation, calm intonation, designed for an equal and understanding reader, - Trifonov's poetics. And - an attempt at social aesthetic education.
- What is your attitude to the Dmitriev family?
– Do you want life to be like this in your families?(Trifonov managed to draw a typical picture of family relations of our time: the feminization of the family, the transition of the initiative into the hands of predators, the triumph of consumerism, the lack of unity in raising children, the loss of traditional family values. The desire for peace as the only joy makes men put up with their secondary importance in the family. They lose their firm masculinity, the family is left without a head.)
III. Summary of the lesson.
– What questions did the author of the story “The Exchange” make you think about?
– Do you agree that B. Pankin, speaking about this story, calls a genre that combines a physiological sketch of modern urban life and a parable?
Homework.
“The exchange saw the light in 1969. At that time, the author was criticized for reproducing a “terrible mire of trifles”, for the fact that in his work “there is no enlightening truth”, for the fact that spiritual dead roam in Trifonov’s stories, pretending to be alive. There are no ideals, man has been crushed and humiliated, crushed by life and his own insignificance.
– Express your attitude to these assessments by answering the questions:
џ What comes to the fore in the story when we perceive it now?
џ Does Trifonov really have no ideals?
џ In your opinion, will this story remain in literature and how will it be perceived in another 40 years?
