What troubles does it condemn a person to? Essay on the topic: “War - there is no crueler word”! Preliminary preparation for the lesson
The theme of the Great Patriotic War became for many years one of the main ones in the literature of the 20th century. There are many reasons for this. This is the everlasting awareness of the irreparable losses that the war brought, and the severity of moral conflicts that are possible only in an extreme situation (and the events of war are exactly that!). In addition, for a long time every truthful word about modernity was expelled from Soviet literature, and the theme of war sometimes remained the only island of authenticity in the stream of far-fetched, false prose, where all conflicts, according to instructions “from above,” were supposed to reflect only the struggle between the good and the best. But the truth about the war did not come through easily; something prevented it from being told to the end.
“War is a state contrary to human nature,” wrote Leo Tolstoy, and we, of course, agree with this statement, because war brings pain, fear, blood, tears. War is a test for a person.
The problem of the moral choice of a hero in war is characteristic of the entire work of V. Bykov. It is staged in almost all of his stories: “The Alpine Ballad”, “Obe-lisk”, “Sotnikov”, “Sign of Trouble”, etc. In Bykov’s story “Sotnikov” attention is emphasized to the essence of genuine and imaginary heroism, which is the plot collision of the work.
In the story, it is not representatives of two different worlds who collide, but people of the same country. The heroes of the story - Sotnikov and Rybak - in ordinary, peaceful conditions, perhaps would not have shown their true nature. But during the war, Sotnikov goes through difficult trials with honor and accepts death, without renouncing his convictions, and Rybak, in the face of death, changes his convictions, betrays his Motherland, saving his life, which after betrayal loses all value. He actually becomes an enemy. He enters a world alien to us, where personal well-being is placed above all else, where fear for one’s life forces one to kill and betray. In the face of death, a person remains as he really is. Here the depth of his convictions and his civic fortitude are tested.
Going on a mission, they react differently to the upcoming danger, and it seems that the strong and smart Rybak is more prepared for the feat than the frail, sick Sotnikov. But if Rybak, who all his life “managed to find some way out,” is internally ready for betrayal, then Sotnikov remains faithful to the duty of a man and citizen until his last breath. “Well, I had to muster the last of my strength to face death with dignity... Otherwise, why would there be life? It is too difficult for a person to be careless about its end.”
In Bykov's story, each character took his place among the victims. Everyone except Rybak made it to the end. The fisherman took the path of betrayal only in the name of saving his own life. The traitor investigator sensed Rybak’s passionate desire to live by any means and, almost without hesitation, stunned Rybak point-blank: “Let’s save life. You will serve great Germany." The fisherman had not yet agreed to join the police, but he had already been spared torture. The fisherman did not want to die and told the investigator something. Sotnikov lost consciousness during the torture, but did not say anything. The policemen in the story are depicted as stupid and cruel, the investigator - cunning and just as cruel.
Sotnikov came to terms with death; he would like to die in battle, although he understood that in his situation this was impossible. The only thing that remained for him was to decide on his attitude towards the people who happened to be nearby. Before the execution, Sotnikov demanded an investigator and declared: “I am a partisan, the rest have nothing to do with it.” The investigator ordered Rybak to be brought in, and he agreed to join the police. The fisherman tried to convince himself that he was not a traitor and was determined to escape.
In the last minutes of his life, Sotnikov unexpectedly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same thing that he demands from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the crowd surrounding the execution site. He did not want anyone to think badly of him, and he was only angry with Rybak, who was performing the duties of the executioner. The fisherman apologizes: “Sorry, brother.” - "Go to hell!" - follows the answer.
What happened to Fisherman? He did not overcome the fate of a man lost in war. He sincerely wanted to hang himself. But circumstances got in the way, and there was still a chance to survive. But how to survive? The police chief believed that he had “picked up another traitor.” It is unlikely that the police chief understood what was going on in the soul of this man, confused, but shocked by the example of Sotnikov, who was crystal honest and fulfilled the duty of a man and citizen to the end. The boss saw Rybak's future in serving the occupiers. But the writer left him the possibility of a different path: continuing the struggle through the ravine, possible confession of his fall to his comrades, and ultimately, atonement.
The work is imbued with thoughts about life and death, about human duty and humanism, which are incompatible with any manifestation of selfishness. An in-depth psychological analysis of every action and gesture of the characters, fleeting thoughts or remarks is one of the strongest aspects of the story “Sotnikov”.
The Pope presented the writer V. Bykov with a special prize from the Catholic Church for the story “Sotnikov”. This fact speaks of what kind of universal, moral principle is seen in this work. Sotnikov’s enormous moral strength lies in the fact that he was able to accept suffering for his people, maintain faith, and not succumb to that base thought that Rybak could not resist.
1941, the year of military trials, was preceded by the terrible year of 1929, the “great turning point,” when, after the liquidation of the “kulaks as a class,” they did not notice how all the best in the peasantry was destroyed. Then 1937 came. One of the first attempts to tell the truth about the war was Vasil Bykov’s story “Sign of Trouble.” This story became a milestone in the work of the Belarusian writer. It was preceded by the now classic “Obelisk”, the same “Sot-nikov”, “Until Dawn”, etc. After “Sign of Trouble”, the writer’s work takes on a new breath and deepens into historicism. This applies primarily to such works as “In the Fog”, “Roundup”.
At the center of the story “Sign of Trouble” is a man at war. A person does not always go to war; sometimes war itself comes to his house, as happened with two Belarusian old men, peasants Stepanida and Petrak Bogatko. The farm where they live is occupied. The police come to the estate, followed by the Germans. V. Bykov does not show them as intentionally committing atrocities. They simply come to someone else’s house and settle down there like the owners, following the idea of their Fuhrer that anyone who is not an Aryan is not a person, complete destruction can be caused in his house, and the inhabitants of the house themselves can be perceived as working animals. And therefore, Stepanida’s refusal to obey unquestioningly was unexpected for them. Not allowing yourself to be humiliated is the source of this middle-aged woman’s resistance in a dramatic situation. Stepanida is a strong character. Human dignity is the main thing that drives her actions. “During her difficult life, she nevertheless learned the truth and, little by little, gained her human dignity. And the one who once felt like a human will never become a beast again,” writes V. Bykov about his heroine. At the same time, the writer does not just draw this character to us, he reflects on its origins.
It is necessary to think about the meaning of the title of the story - “Sign of Trouble.” This is a quote from a poem by A. Tvardovsky, written in 1945: “Before the war, as if as a sign of trouble...” What was happening even before the war in the village became the “sign of trouble” that V. writes about. Bykov. Stepanida Bogatko, who “for six years, without sparing herself, worked hard as a farm laborer,” believed in a new life and was one of the first to enroll in a collective farm - it was not for nothing that she was called a rural activist. But she soon realized that the truth that she was looking for and waiting for was not in this new life. When they began to demand new dispossessions in order to avert suspicions of pandering to the class enemy, it was she, Stepanida, who hurled angry words at an unfamiliar man in a black leather jacket: “Isn’t justice needed? Don’t you smart people see what’s going on?” More than once Stepanida tries to intervene in the course of the case, to intercede for Levon, who was arrested on a false denunciation, and to send Petrok to Minsk with a petition to the chairman of the Central Election Commission himself. And every time her resistance to untruth runs into a blank wall.
Unable to change the situation alone, Stepanida finds the opportunity to preserve herself, her inner sense of justice, to move away from what is happening around: “Do what you want. But without me." The source of Stepanida’s character is not that she was a collective farmer activist in the pre-war years, but that she managed not to succumb to the general rapture of deception, words about a new life, fear * she managed to listen to herself, follow her innate sense of truth and preserve the human element in oneself. And during the war years, all this determined her behavior.
At the end of the story, Stepanida dies, but she dies without resigning herself to fate and resists it to the last. One of the critics noted ironically that “the damage Stepanida inflicted on the enemy army was great.” Yes, the visible material damage is not great. But something else is infinitely important: Stepanida, with her death, proves that she is a human being, and not a working beast who can be subjugated, humiliated, and forced into submission. Resistance to violence reveals that strength of character of the heroine, which refutes even death, shows the reader how much a person can do, even if he is alone, even if he is in a hopeless situation.
Next to Stepanida, Petrok is the direct opposite of her; in any case, he is completely different, not active, but rather timid and peaceful, ready to compromise. Petrok's endless patience is based on the deep conviction that it is possible to come to an agreement with people in a kind way. And only at the end of the story, this peaceful man, having exhausted his entire reserve of patience, decides to protest, openly resist. It was violence that prompted him to become disobedient. Such depths of the soul are revealed by the unusual, extreme situation in this person.
The folk tragedy shown in V. Bykov’s stories “The Sign of Trouble” and “Sotnikov” reveals the origins of genuine human characters. The writer continues to create to this day, bit by bit extracting from the treasury of his memory the truth that cannot but be told.
Composition
War means grief and tears. She knocked on every house and brought trouble: mothers lost
their sons, wives - husbands, children were left without fathers. Thousands of people went through the crucible of war, experienced terrible torment, but they survived and won. We won the most difficult of all wars that humanity has endured so far. And those people who defended their Motherland in the hardest battles are still alive.
The war emerges in their memory as the most terrible, sad memory. But it also reminds them of perseverance, courage, unbroken spirit, friendship and loyalty. Many writers went through this terrible war. Many of them died or were seriously injured, many survived the fire of trials. That’s why they still write about the war, that’s why they talk again and again about what became not only their personal pain, but also the tragedy of an entire generation. They simply cannot die without warning people about the danger that comes from forgetting the lessons of the past.
My favorite writer is Yuri Vasilyevich Bondarev. I like many of his works: “Battalions Ask for Fire”, “The Shore”, “Last Salvos”, and most of all “Hot Snow”, which tells about one military episode. At the center of the novel is a battery, which is given the task: not to miss the enemy rushing towards Stalingrad at any cost. This battle may decide the fate of the front, and that is why General Bessonov’s order is so menacing: “Not a step back! And knock out tanks. Stand and forget about death! Don’t think about her under any circumstances.” And the fighters understand this. We also see a commander who, in an ambitious quest to seize a “moment of luck,” dooms the people subordinate to him to certain death. He forgot that the right to control the lives of others in war is a great and dangerous right.
Commanders bear great responsibility for the fate of people, the country has entrusted them with their lives, and they must do everything possible to ensure that there are no unnecessary losses, because every person is a destiny. And this was clearly shown by M. Sholokhov in his story “The Fate of Man.” Andrei Sokolov, like millions of people, went to the front. His path was difficult and tragic. The memories of the B-14 prisoner of war camp, where thousands of people were separated from the world by barbed wire, where there was a terrible struggle not just for life, for a pot of gruel, but for the right to remain human, will forever remain in his soul.
Viktor Astafiev writes about a man in war, about his courage and perseverance. He, who went through the war and became disabled during it, in his works “The Shepherd and the Shepherdess”, “Modern Pastoral” and others, talks about the tragic fate of the people, about what he had to endure in the difficult years at the front.
Boris Vasiliev was a young lieutenant at the beginning of the war. His best works are about war, about how a person remains a person only after fulfilling his duty to the end. “Not on the lists” and “The Dawns Here Are Quiet” are works about people who feel and bear personal responsibility for the fate of the country. Thanks to the Vaskovs and thousands of people like him, the victory was won.
All of them fought against the “brown plague” not only for their loved ones, but also for their land, for us. And the best example of such a selfless hero is Nikolai Pluzhnikov in Vasiliev’s story “Not on the Lists.” In 1941, Pluzhnikov graduated from military school and was sent to serve in the Brest Fortress. He arrived at night, and at dawn the war began. Nobody knew him, he was not on the lists, since he did not have time to report his arrival. Despite this, he became the defender of the fortress along with soldiers whom he did not know, and they saw him as a real commander and carried out his orders. Pluzhnikov fought with the enemy until the last bullet. The only feeling that guided him in this unequal battle with the fascists was a sense of personal responsibility for the fate of the Motherland, for the fate of the entire people. Even when left alone, he did not stop fighting, fulfilling his soldier’s duty to the end. When the Nazis saw him a few months later, emaciated, exhausted, unarmed, they saluted him, appreciating the courage and stamina of the fighter. A person can do a lot, a surprising amount, if he knows in the name of what and for what he is fighting.
The theme of the tragic fate of Soviet people will never be exhausted in literature. I don't want the horrors of war to be repeated. Let children grow up peacefully, not afraid of bomb explosions, let Chechnya not happen again, so that mothers don’t have to cry for their lost sons. Human memory stores both the experience of many generations who lived before us, and the experience of everyone. “Memory resists the destructive power of time,” said D. S. Likhachev. Let this memory and experience teach us kindness, peacefulness, and humanity. And let none of us forget who and how fought for our freedom and happiness. We are in your debt, soldier! And while there are still thousands of unburied ones on the Pulkovo Heights near St. Petersburg, and on the Dnieper steeps near Kiev, and on Ladoga, and in the swamps of Belarus, we remember every soldier who did not return from the war, we remember at what cost he achieved victory. He preserved for me and millions of my compatriots the language, culture, customs, traditions and faith of my ancestors.
War is one of the most terrible phenomena in the world. War means pain, fear, tears, hunger, cold, captivity, loss of home, loved ones, friends, and sometimes the whole family.
Let us remember the siege of Leningrad. People starved and died. All the animals in the city were eaten. And someone’s fathers, husbands, sons, brothers fought at the front.
Many men died during the war and during this dark time the number of fatherlessness and widows increased. It is especially scary when a woman, having survived the war, finds out that her son or sons have died and will never return home. This is a huge grief for the mother, and I could not bear it.
Many people returned from the war disabled. But after the war, such a return was considered lucky, because the person did not die, but many, as I already said, died! But what was it like for such people? The blind know that they will never see the sky, the sun, or the faces of their friends again. Deaf people know that they will not hear the singing of birds, the rustling of grass and the voice of a sister or loved one. Those without legs understand that they will no longer stand up and feel solid ground under their feet. Armless people understand that they will never be able to pick up a child and hug him!
And the worst thing is that all those who remain alive and escape from terrible captivity after torture will never be able to smile a truly happy smile, and most will forget how to show their feelings and will put a mask on their face.
But after the war, ordinary people realize how wonderful it is to breathe deeply, eat warm bread and raise children.
Reviews
Anastasia, just now I read you, and realized that you reflected a very relevant topic that is always, but especially in our troubled times, the misfortune and desperation of humanity. Touched me, thank you for the good message. Good luck with your creativity.
The Proza.ru portal provides authors with the opportunity to freely publish their literary works on the Internet on the basis of a user agreement. All copyrights to works belong to the authors and are protected by law. Reproduction of works is possible only with the consent of its author, which you can contact on his author’s page. Authors bear responsibility for the texts of works independently on the basis
“The insidious fate of a man lost in war” - this is the phrase that concludes V. Bykov’s story about the Fisherman. Fate is the irresistible power of circumstances and how much at the same time depends on the person. The question naturally arises: why, under the same circumstances, did one of the two partisans turn out to be a traitor?
The fisherman is not an evil man, a man disguised for the time being; There is much about him that evokes sympathy, and not because we did not recognize his true face at first, but because he really has many merits. He has a sense of camaraderie. He sincerely sympathizes with the ill Sotnikov; noticing that he is freezing in his overcoat and cap, he gives him his towel so that he can at least wrap it around his neck. Sharing with him the remains of his portion of steamed rye is not so little, because they have been in the detachment for a long time on starvation rations. And in battle, under fire, Rybak was not a coward, he behaved with dignity. How did it happen that Rybak, who seems to be neither a coward nor a selfish person, becomes a traitor and participates in the execution of his comrade?
In the mind of Rybak there is no clear boundary between moral and immoral. Having been captured, he thinks with irritation about Sotnikov’s “hard-headed” stubbornness, about some principles that he would never want to give up. Being in the ranks with everyone else, he conscientiously follows the usual rules of conduct in war, without thinking deeply about either life or death. Faced face to face with inhumane circumstances, he finds himself spiritually and ideologically unprepared for difficult moral tests.
If for Sotnikov there was no choice between life and death, then for Rybak the main thing was to survive at any cost. Sotnikov thought only about how to die with dignity, since there was no way to survive. The fisherman is cunning, dodges, deceives himself and, as a result, surrenders his positions to the enemies. An egoist, he is endowed with an instinctive sense of self-preservation. He believes that in a moment of danger, everyone thinks only about himself, and he doesn’t care about anyone. Let's trace his behavior before he and Sotnikov were captured.
In a shootout with the police, Rybak decided to leave alone - “Sotnikov can no longer be saved,” and when the shootout died down, he thought with relief that, apparently, everything was over there, and only after some time he realized that he could not leave - What will he say in the forest, in the detachment? He was not thinking about saving Sotnikov at that moment when he was returning for him, but only about himself.
While in captivity, he vaguely feels that he has some chance to get out of this mess safely, but he can only take advantage of it by untying his hands, that is, by separating his fate from that of his partner. This was the first step towards his downfall. And here is his last step. Four people who died a heroic death are swinging on the gallows, and an empty fifth loop of new hemp rope is slowly swinging above them - a strong and visible image.
And even now Rybak does not understand what he did: what does he have to do with it? He just pulled the block out from under Sotnikov’s feet. And then on the orders of the police. Even now he does not understand that, having decided to “bypass fate” at any cost, to “get out of it”, he is dooming himself to only one thing - betrayal. He tells himself, convinces himself, that he needs to survive to fight the enemy. And only after seeing the hatred and fear in the eyes of the local residents, he feels that he has nowhere to run. The story of the Fisherman ends with an unsuccessful suicide attempt, after which comes reconciliation with betrayal.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ABOUT V. BYKOV.
Vasily Vladimirovich Bykov was born in 1924 into a peasant family in the Vitibsk region. Before the war he studied at the Vitebsk Art School. When the war began, Bykov was studying at the Saratov Infantry School for accelerated graduation. A nineteen-year-old junior lieutenant is sent to the front. He takes part in many military operations and has had to endure a lot. This is evidenced by the following fact: on the obelisk of one of the mass graves near Kirovograd, his name is among the long list of victims. He was saved from death by accident: being seriously wounded, he crawled out of the hut, which a few minutes later was demolished by fascist tanks that broke through. Bykov in the territory of Ukraine, Belarus, Romania, Hungary, Austria. Was wounded twice. He was demobilized only in 1955. Collaborated in newspapers in Belarus.
V. Bykov’s first stories are not about the war, but about the post-war life of rural youth: “Happiness”, “At Night”, “Fruza”. Over the years, he created his first war stories and remained faithful to the military theme in subsequent works: “Crane Cry” (1959), “Alpine Ballad” (1963), “Trap” (1964), “Sotnikov” (1970), “Obelisk” (1972), “Wolf Pack” (1974), “Sign of Trouble” (1984).
For the stories “Obelisk” and “To Live Until Dawn” V. Bykov was awarded the USSR State Prize. In 1984, the writer was awarded the title of Hero of Labor.
In recent years, the writer has turned to the theme of the dramatic thirties. The story "The Roundup" refers precisely to such works.
In V. Bykov's works about war, along with the theme of moral origins of struggle, there is also the motive of testing humanity. V. Bykov’s heroes go through such a test at the border between life and death. It is very important for the writer to find out what the moral qualities of our people are, who showed themselves with such force in a fierce battle.
Sotnikov began to fight from the very first days. The first battle was his last in the sense that he was captured. Then escape, again captivity, again escape. In the persistent desire to escape from captivity one can feel the determination, strength, and courage of Sotnikov’s character. After a successful escape, Sotnikov ends up in a partisan detachment. Here he reveals himself as a brave, determined partisan. One day he remained in cover with Rybak when their squad ran into punitive forces. In battle, Sotnikov saves Rybak’s life. After that, they ate together from the same pot... The sick Sotnikov goes on his next mission with Rybak, while two healthy partisans refuse. When asked by the perplexed Rybak why he agrees to go on the mission, Sotnikov replies: “That’s why he didn’t refuse, because others refused.”
Already at the beginning of the story, a daring contrast is outlined between the strong, energetic, successful Fisherman and the silent, sick, gloomy Sotnikov. The gloomy, awkward, unyielding Sotnikov does not immediately and simply win our respect and sympathy. And even sometimes at first some kind of hostility arises towards him: why did he, a sick man, go on this mission and only hinder Rybak’s actions? There is also a reckless categoricalness in Sotnikov, which at another time and under other conditions may not be harmless.
Here is one of these episodes from the story. Sotnikov and Rybak, in search of food, went into the hut of the elder Peter. Sotnikov is not touched by the sympathy of the elder, who noticed that he is sick, or by her apparent kindness.
He had a case when the same woman “seemingly simple, with a prudent face, wearing a white scarf on her head,” as V. Bykov describes her, who also scolded Germany and offered to eat, sent for the police at that time, and he barely carried his feet. The war weaned Sotnikov from excessive gullibility. Therefore, he categorically refuses the food, drink, and medicine offered to him in this house.
L. Lazarev in the book “Vasil Bykov”. An essay on creativity believes that this behavior of Sotnikov reveals the logic of his character: for him to accept someone’s help means to take upon himself the obligation to repay the same, and he does not wish well to people who have contacted their enemies. Then, in the basement of the policemen, he will find out how and why Peter became the headman, he will understand that he was wrong in relation to this old man, that one cannot judge a person only by his external behavior.
The feeling of guilt and remorse will not give him peace. He will try to shield the headman and all the others to whom he considers himself guilty. But the exception that he made for the headman, having learned the truth, did not in the slightest degree shake his overall firm and uncompromising position: he is convinced that all he has to do is extend a finger to the fascists, and he will have to serve them. He eradicated in himself everything that could turn into weakness. This made his character difficult, but it was also a difficult time.
Do not be a burden to others, always demand more from yourself than from others - he will strictly follow these principles.
How did it happen that Sotnikov and Rybak were captured? Many asked: why in the attic, when the police heard Sotnikov coughing, did he not get up first? Maybe this would have saved Rybak. He, hiding, waited for Sotnikov to rise, and the police would not notice him. The logic of Sotnikov’s character is such that he is capable of self-sacrifice. But, firstly, he was sick and his reactions were slow, otherwise he would have shot at his enemies, and secondly, he was not one of those who would be the first to surrender. Sotnikov prefers death when he does not find the strength to resist.
Sotnikov is the first to be taken in for interrogation, reading that he will quickly give information, since he is physically weak. But V. Bykov’s hero does not live up to the policemen’s hopes; he remains silent even under torture.
On the last night of his life, Sotnikov is overcome by childhood memories. Bykov in many of his works refers to the childhood of the heroes and shows a direct connection between the past and the present. At first glance, the childhood episodes of Sotnikov and Rybak do not foreshadow their future behavior in extreme situations of captivity. The fisherman saves the children's lives, Sotnikov first lies to his father, then hardly admits that he secretly took his father's Mauser without permission and fired from it. The fisherman accomplishes his childhood feat without thinking, instinctively, relying on his physical strength. Sotnikov's lie to his father became a lesson in pangs of conscience for the rest of his life. Sotnikov’s moral sense does not sleep; he judges himself strictly and holds himself accountable to his conscience. Sotnikov lived and fought for people, strove to do everything in his power for them. It is no coincidence that in the last minutes of his life, standing with a noose around his neck, Sotnikov wanted to see people. Catching the gaze of a thin, pale boy in a Budenovka, he, realizing how unbearable the spectacle of execution is for a child, finds the strength to support him. He smiled at the boy with only his eyes - “nothing, brother.” The boy will probably never forget this partisan’s smile addressed to him, just as Sotnikov himself did not forget the feat of the gray-haired colonel when he was in captivity. So Bykov in this work emphasizes that courage and heroism do not disappear without a trace, but are passed on from generation to generation.
The main thing for Sotnikov is to die “in good conscience, with the dignity inherent in a person,” as Bykov writes about this. He dies not in battle, but in single combat with a police car, with his own physical weakness. He remained human in inhumane circumstances. And this is his feat, his moral ascent, contrasted with the fall of the Fisherman.
The author and his heroes help us understand the origins of the mass heroism of our people in the brutal battle against fascism. Sotnikov passed the terrible test and showed his maturity, ideological and moral. That is why Sotnikov is of great importance in this story.
This story was luckier in its own way than others. The writer himself spoke about how it arose in response to ambiguous questions and requests from readers in an article called “How the story “Sotnikov” was created.”
It turns out that the plan was prompted by the real fate of a man whom Lieutenant Vasil Bykov met on his front-line roads, and the meeting with him remained in the memory for a long time, exciting the consciousness for many years, until it was reflected in the plot, grew into the ideas and images of the story...
This happened in August 1944 at the height of the famous Iasi-Kishinev operation. Soviet troops broke through the defenses and surrounded a large group of Nazis. Driving past a Romanian village in those days, where there were many unfamiliar faces, he suddenly saw the face of a man who seemed familiar to him. The prisoner also held a detached gaze on him, and the next moment Vasil Bykov recognized his former fellow soldier, who had long been considered dead. As it turned out now, he did not die, but ended up wounded in a Nazi concentration camp. In the terrifying conditions of captivity, I did not find the strength to resist and fight and, wanting to survive at all costs, I consciously made a temporary, of course, temporary deal with my conscience. Having enlisted in the Vlasov army, he consoled himself with the hope of running over to his own people at a convenient moment. Day after day, a person, initially guilty without guilt, became bogged down in apostasy, taking upon himself an ever-increasing amount of betrayal. As they say, nothing can be done: such is the logic of fascism, which, having grabbed its victim by the little finger, will not stop until it swallows it whole. This is how V. Bykov formulated the instructive lesson of the human destiny that was revealed to him, which a quarter of a century later led to the writer’s awareness of the moral idea that formed the basis of the story “Sotnikov.”
“Sotnikov” is the ninth story by V. Bykov, but among the other stories preceding it, it occupies a special place.
Lesson-seminar on the story “Sotnikov” by V. Bykov.
The purpose of the lesson: trace the stages of a writer’s creative path in class; features of his work; consider the moral problems posed in the story “Sotnikov”; develop the ability to independently analyze a work of art; development of logical thinking and monologue speech.
Equipment: portrait of a writer, exhibition of books: V. Bykov “Alpine Ballad”, “Obelisk”, “Sotnikov”, “Until Dawn”, works of other writers about the war.
Preliminary preparation for the lesson:
1. Lesson - consultation, in which the main features of V. Bykov’s creative individuality are recalled, based on the works read earlier.
PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION: prepare students for independent analysis of V. Bykov’s story “Sotnikov”.
2. Before analyzing the story “Sotnikov,” written questionnaires were conducted to find out the students’ opinions about what they read.
QUESTIONS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
The questionnaires were used in the teacher’s opening remarks, in reports and during debates.
3. Individual consultation of two main speakers who examined the motives for the behavior of Sotnikov and Rybak.
4. Questions for the interview during the seminar.
Did they expect just such an ending, could they have foreseen that this is how the fate of the heroes would end?
What are the writer’s ideas about heroism and heroic personality?
How is the question of the continuity of generations posed in the works “Until Dawn”, “Obelisk”, “Sotnikov”?
What moral problems does the writer solve when addressing the topic of the Great Patriotic War?
What artistic techniques does the author most often use in the story “Sotnikov”?
What do you see as the main features of V. Bykov’s work?
5. Biographical information about the writer.
6. The history of the creation of the story “Sotnikov” (message).
Seminar plan.
1). Org. moment.
2) Introductory speech by the teacher.
Vasil Bykov is one of the writers faithful to the military theme. He writes about the war as an eyewitness, as a person who has experienced the bitterness of defeat, the severity of losses and losses, and the joy of victory.
Biographical information about the writer (student speech).
V. Bykov writes about the war in such a way that it leaves no one indifferent. said the following about the work of V. Bykov: “ V. Bykov is a writer of heightened moral consciousness, his stories reek of pain and burning, they seem to burn in their impatience for an immediate answer, an immediate resolution of the situation. Their move is uncompromising to any hesitation, to any extension of the hour of choice. And this hour is most often not an hour, but a minute of an instant in which the hero must take one side or the other: the side of evil or the side of good. Every hesitation under these conditions is an apostasy, a retreat, a moral decline.”
Today we are talking about the story “Sotnikov”.
The history of the creation of the story (student's speech).
As the questionnaires showed, many of you have questions that we will try to sort out. In your works, you noted one feature of V. Bykov’s works: the writer is interested in the cruel and severe test that each of his heroes must pass: can he not spare himself in order to fulfill his duty, his duties as a citizen and patriot?
Bykov's stories are simple at first glance, but through their characters some important features of the people's war are revealed. Therefore, although in the center of the writer’s stories there are usually only a few episodes, the action is usually concentrated on a small area of space and is closed in a short time period and only two or three heroes act, behind them you can feel the scale of the nationwide battle in which the fate of the Motherland is being decided.
V. Bykov portrays war as a cruel and merciless test of the inner essence of people. Its moral lessons should help us understand our problems today. War was such a test of a person’s ideological and moral strength. The images of Sotnikov and Rybak tell us about this.
2. Listening to and discussing student reports.
Report on Sotnikov - “Private man of national feat” (V. Bykov).
Report on Rybak - “The insidious fate of a man lost in war” by V. Bykov).
CONCLUSION: In criticism, the concept of “Bykov’s hero” has developed. This is “an ordinary hero of the people,” as the author himself defines it. This is Sotnikov in the story.
3. Conversation on issues.
Why, under the same circumstances, Sotnikov rose to the level of heroism, and Rybak died morally?
(symbolic details, internal monologues, childhood episodes).
What are the people and circumstances like in their interaction in the works of V. Bykov?
Teacher's word.
Today we turn to the heroes of V. Bykov with the question “How to live?” We want to hear an answer from them who saw THIS. We peer into their faces, obscured by time, and say: “We would like to be with you.” Because they knew what they were doing. And they had nothing to choose from. When THIS began, they met IT halfway and did what they could. Now we think we would have done the same thing. And sometimes it seems to us that it was easier for them because they had no choice. Egoistically envying them, we forget that only those who were not THERE can envy.
THERE, AT WAR...
4. Written work.
Drawing up theses reflecting the features of V. Bykov’s stories about the war.
The main theme of the stories is war.
The main problem of creativity is moral and philosophical: a person in inhumane circumstances, overcoming limited physical capabilities by the power of the spirit.
In criticism, the concept of “Bykov’s hero” has developed. This is “an ordinary hero of the people,” as the author himself defines it.
The situation in which the writer’s heroes find themselves and act is extreme, alternative, tragic.
The action is usually concentrated on a small area of space and confined to a short time period, most often one day.
The language of the work is characterized by deep imagery and philosophy.
Of the artistic techniques, the author most often uses symbolic details (a road, a field, an empty noose on a gallows), internal monologues of characters, childhood episodes...
5. Lesson summary.
Public lesson
literature:
Municipal educational institution "Novo-Nikolaevskaya secondary school"
V. BYKOV "SOTNIKOV".
QUESTIONS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
What are your impressions of the heroes of V. Bykov’s story “Sotnikov”?
Why, under the same circumstances, Sotnikov rose to the level of heroism, and Rybak died morally?
Is the moral rebirth of the Fisherman possible?
What issues would you like to discuss?
Questions for an interview.
Did they expect just such an ending, could they have foreseen that this is how the fate of the heroes would end?
Is the moral rebirth of the Fisherman possible? Is it fair to blame Rybak for the fact that, despite “The last hope for a miracle did not leave him with a nagging feeling of misfortune.”
Why, under the same circumstances, Sotnikov rose to the level of heroism, and Rybak died morally?
What artistic techniques does the author most often use in the work?
Is the problem of the story relevant?
PROBLEM: a person in inhumane circumstances, overcoming limited physical capabilities with the power of spirit.
What are the people and circumstances like in their interaction in the works of V. Bykov?
What are the writer’s ideas about heroism and heroic personality?
How is the question of the continuity of generations posed in the works of V. Bykov “Obelisk” and “Sotnikov”?
What moral problems does V. Bykov solve by addressing the topic of the Great Patriotic War?
