Does abstract humanism exist in the novel defeat. An essay on the topic “Does abstract humanism exist?” Based on Fadeev's novel, "Destruction"

27. The problem of humanism in works about the civil war (A. Fadeev, I. Babel)

Babel, “Cavalry” is a collection of short stories about the civil war, connected by a single image of the narrator and repeating the characters without a detailed description of their lives. A life in which heroism and cruelty, truth-seeking and spiritual underdevelopment, the beautiful and the disgusting, the funny and the tragic are intertwined. The story is told on behalf of Lyutov, an employee of the division headquarters. The hero is autobiographical. The hero, an intellectual, a humanist, thought that the war would bring about an internationalization of good people. Trying to become one of our own looks pathetic.

"My first goose." Among the cavalrymen, Lyutov is a stranger. A bespectacled man, an intellectual, a Jew, he feels a condescending, mocking, and even hostile attitude towards himself on the part of the fighters. At the front, they are not used to standing on ceremony and live one day at a time. Making fun of the arriving literate, the Cossacks throw out his chest, and Lyutov pathetically crawls along the ground, collecting scattered manuscripts. In the end, he, hungry, demands that the mistress feed her. Without waiting for a response, he pushes her in the chest, takes someone else’s saber and kills a goose staggering around the yard, and then orders the owner to fry it. Now the Cossacks no longer mock him, they invite him to eat with them. Now he is almost like his own, and only his heart, stained with murder, “creaked and flowed” in his sleep.

In the collection “Cavalry” Babel shows the civil war without embellishment. The writer is concerned about the problem of humanism in war. Is there still room for goodness among the harsh everyday life of war? Do soldiers accustomed to killing still have good feelings? How do humanism and cruelty relate in war? All these questions are posed, in particular, in a story with a very simple title “Salt”. Here Babel makes us think about the spontaneous cruelty of the people in the civil war, about the fact that the craving for home, for a normal peaceful life, remaining in the war-scorched soul of the Budennovsky Cossacks, can sprout the sprouts of humanism, and then they carefully protect a woman and child from danger. But it can also grow into unbridled cruelty when, having discovered the deception, the cavalrymen easily deal with a defenseless woman who unwittingly laughed at their innermost feelings.

"The Death of Dolgushov." Here the author, Kirill Lyutov, an intellectual who, as a result of a conscious choice, finds himself on the side of the Reds, finds himself in a difficult moral situation. A mortally wounded cavalryman, telephone operator Dolgushov, asks to be finished off, saving him from torment and possible abuse from the Poles. Lyutov refuses to do this. The very fact of the choice that Lyutov has to make is deeply tragic. To kill a person is to violate the internal moral law. Not killing him means dooming him to a slower and more painful death. It’s as if Afonka Vida is performing an act of mercy, finishing off Dolgushov and thereby doing good. However, the Cossack was already infected with a passion for murder.

"Squadron Troon".

"Clothespin"

According to Babel, to dare is destruction. Condemnation of war is not the price of human life; it cannot be justified by it. Unjustified cruelty - salt is my first goose.

“Destruction” of Fadeev.

One of the most serious humanistic questions considered in the literature about the civil war is the problem of what a detachment should do in a difficult situation with its seriously wounded soldiers: carry them, taking them with them, putting the entire detachment at risk, abandon them, leaving them to a painful death, or kill. Alexander Fadeev’s story “Destruction” also echoes this idea. A large place in this story is occupied by the description of events seen through the eyes of Mechik, an intellectual who accidentally ended up in a partisan detachment. The soldiers cannot forgive either him or Lyutov, the hero of Babel, for having glasses and their own convictions in their heads, as well as manuscripts and photographs of their beloved girl in a chest and other similar things. Lyutov gained the trust of the soldiers by taking away a goose from a defenseless old woman, and lost it when he was unable to finish off his dying comrade, and Mechik never received trust at all. In the description of these heroes, of course, many differences are found. I. Babel clearly empathizes with Lyutov, if only because his hero is autobiographical, and A. Fadeev, on the contrary, strives in every possible way to denigrate the intelligentsia in the person of Mechik. He describes even his most noble motives in very pathetic words and somehow tearfully, and at the end of the story he puts the hero in such a position that Mechik’s chaotic actions take on the appearance of outright betrayal. And all because Mechik is a humanist, and the moral principles of the partisans (or rather, the almost complete absence of them) raise doubts in him; he is not sure of the correctness of revolutionary ideals.

Morozka. He has a wonderful quality - love for people. The first time he proved this by saving Mechik, risking his own life, and subsequently almost every action of his testified to this. A striking example is his behavior at the “trial”. For love for the people, for dedication to work, for kindness, for a humane beginning, it is expressed even in Morozka’s love for Mishka, his horse - for these best human qualities the author loves Morozka and makes the reader sympathize with him, despite his many shortcomings, with He writes with bitterness about the heroic death of Morozka and almost ends the novel there.

Concentrating the best qualities of a person is Levinson. In his person, Fadeev portrayed the best type of leader of the masses, endowed with intelligence, determination and organizational skills.

A school-type essay based on A. Fadeev’s novel “Destruction.” The issues of humanism during the war period and the evolution of the concept of “humanism” are considered using the example of this work. ...

Introduction

There is nothing more terrible and inhumane than war, especially civil war. War denies such universal human values ​​as compassion, tolerance, the right to life, freedom and happiness, that is, those values ​​that form the basis of humanism. Humanism is faith in human personality, respect for others; In war, human life loses value.
The Civil War of 1918 - 1920 was one of the most tragic periods in Russian history. Author of the novel “Destruction” (1927) A.A. Fadeev experienced first-hand the horrors of the civil war. And, despite the fact that Fadeev adhered to revolutionary views and remained faithful to the Bolshevik ideology to the end, he, like any real artist, endowed his characters with a contradictory and complex inner life. Thus, in the episode of the expropriation of a pig from a Korean peasant, the author plays out a complex moral dilemma: on the one hand, Levinson and the partisans taking away a pig from a poor peasant, on the other hand, the internal experiences of Levinson himself, who does not pick up the Korean who threw himself at his feet not out of hardness of heart, but , as Fadeev himself wrote, because “he was afraid that having done this, he would not be able to stand it and would cancel his order.”

Fragment of work for review

He always faces a moral choice, but the conditions of the fratricidal war in which the decision is made cannot tolerate delay. Fadeev’s humanistic position in “Destruction” is manifested mainly in the fact that he demonstrates that his heroes do not and cannot, in principle, have justifications for their actions, but the worst thing is that they have no other choice. The novel “Destruction” conceals complex moral problems that do not have an unambiguous assessment, problems of humanism. On the one hand, we are shown the heroism of the partisans (Frolov realizes the situation and voluntarily drinks the poison), their humanity, because they are not just fighting for ideals, ready to kill and commit violence indiscriminately, but they experience remorse for the evil committed, believing that this is being done for the good of the future. On the other hand, we see Mechik, an intelligent, romantically inclined person, whose morality does not coincide with the morality of the partisans, but, rather, is generally Christian, rejecting violence. And Mechik, like other characters in the novel, faces a difficult choice. He deserts, but the flight seems painful to him. He opposes the poisoning of Frolov, the murder of the peasant “in the vest,” but, nevertheless, he eats the pig along with everyone else, because he is hungry. It is obvious that Fadeev, portraying the heroes as hesitant and doubting individuals, placing them in a situation of tragic choice in inhuman circumstances of wartime, demonstrates the so-called “historical” humanism, different from universal humanism.

Bibliography

A. Fadeev "Destruction"

Please carefully study the content and fragments of the work. Money for purchased finished works will not be returned due to the fact that the work does not meet your requirements or is unique.

* The category of work is of an evaluative nature in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the material provided. This material, neither in its entirety nor any of its parts, is a finished scientific work, final qualifying work, scientific report or other work provided for by the state system of scientific certification or necessary for passing intermediate or final certification. This material is a subjective result of processing, structuring and formatting the information collected by its author and is intended, first of all, to be used as a source for independent preparation of work on this topic.

At the same time, the hero of “Destruction” is not an iron man at all. He can have pity, compassion and love. He may cry. We are convinced of this when the news of Baklanov’s death arrives. It’s just that, in addition to the fact that he is a man, Levinson is also a commander. He must not succumb to weakness. His main task is to choose the right tactics not only in the fight against whites, but also in relations with people. Levinson devotes all his spiritual strength to serving the revolution. He subordinates personal feelings to a common task, overcoming human weaknesses in himself. In his soul there is a constant struggle between feeling and duty. Of course, duty wins. The detachment commander understands good the same way the revolution understands it. And the revolution has all bloody concepts. Therefore, any manifestations of “revolutionary humanism” are inseparable from the cruel need to rob and kill. Levinson, wanting to do good and serve a high purpose, is forced to constantly commit immoral acts (immoral from the point of view of the traditional concept of humanism, but not from the author). According to Fadeev, Levinson’s behavior is justified. Moreover, this is the only acceptable and correct behavior. He breaks all the best in himself, cripples his own soul, and thereby undergoes that “selection of human material” that Fadeev spoke about. That is, the revolution selects the best people from its positions. These are people who are ready to do anything to serve her. It seems to me that the words “selection of human material” sound wild and ridiculous. Why "material"? Can a person be “material”? Are people like bricks from which something can be built? Fadeev talks about people as a kind of mass. I think this alone makes the discussion of humanism empty and excludes the right of people who hold such views to talk about it. Levinson broke himself, killed many people in order to serve the idea of ​​revolution. And so the revolution took place. What did she bring? Dirt, blood and tears. Propaganda, calls for a bright future, slogans are empty words. A cook cannot rule the state. A revolution in its essence cannot be humane. Only progress and creation are humane. But the revolution only destroys. I will not talk now about how necessary the revolution is. Since it happened, it means there was a historical necessity. Or rather, inevitability. It would probably be possible to do without it, but it is impossible to avoid it. Just don’t, it seems to me, when talking about revolution, throw around such a universal concept as “humanism.” These are incompatible things.

Like, praise, tweet, etc.

Lesson objectives:
- give an idea of ​​the writer’s personality; discuss with students the plot and characters of the novel;
- improve the skills of free work with the text of the work; develop associative thinking;
- consider the problem of humanism in the novel.

Equipment.
Portrait of A.A. Fadeev, PC, DVD player, video fragments of the recording of V. Wolf’s program about the life and work of A. A. Fadeev on the Rossiya TV channel, recording of the audio play “Destruction” by M. Zakharov, the film “Youth of Our Fathers” ( based on the novel "Destruction").
During the classes:
I. Class organization. Announcing the topic and objectives of the lesson.
II. Life and work of A.A. Fadeev.
Video fragment of the program by V. Wulf (Introduction).
2. “On May 13, 1956, in Peredelkino, Alexander Fadeev shot himself at his dacha,
for many years General Secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers,
Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR,
member of the CPSU Central Committee,
at the time of death, a candidate member of the CPSU,
Member of the Presidium of the World Peace Council,
laureate of the Stalin Prize,
big man
great writer.

It sounded like a bomb exploding in Moscow.
No one could imagine that Fadeev would shoot himself in the heart.
In the morning, an hour and a half before my death, I spoke on the phone with my sister and told her: “They all think that I can do something, but I really can’t do anything.”
He was called to have breakfast, he went downstairs, went into the kitchen, and told the housekeeper that he would not have breakfast.
He kept trying to persuade his youngest son Misha to go for a walk in the forest, but Misha didn’t want to go for a walk. And he went up to his room.
And suddenly there was a click. No one could figure out what had clicked. Misha went upstairs to his father, entered his office and saw him lying on the bed.
He was dead. Misha rolled down the steps.
The news of Fadeev's death spread throughout Peredelkin within a few minutes.
The chairman of the State Security Committee, Serov, rushed in and, without looking at anyone, without looking at Fadeev, who was dead, asked: “Where is the letter? He probably left a letter." Someone told him: “Yes, there is a letter. It’s on the nightstand.” Serov grabbed this letter, and the car rushed into the city.

Video fragment of V. Wulf’s program (Fadeev’s Letter).

Video fragment from V. Wulf’s program (Childhood and Youth).

4. Video fragment of V. Wulf’s program (About the film adaptation and stage production of “Destruction”).

II. "Destruction."
1.Working with text.
- “Strong-haired, rat-chested, green-brown eyes, squat, bow-legged, rustic-cunning and lascivious”? (Morozka’s stallion. Very similar to his owner.)
- “In the back group of people running in panic, something was shouting inaudibly”? (First description of Mechik.)
- Why didn’t Morozka like Mechik at first? (He didn’t like clean people, you can’t trust them. He wasn’t very courageous.)
- How did you meet Mechik for the first time in Shaldyba’s detachment? (They beat him up).
- “He was so small, unprepossessing in appearance - he consisted entirely of a hat, a red beard and ichigs above the knees”? (Levinson).
- Which of the characters “as a child helped his father sell used furniture; his father wanted to get rich all his life, but was afraid of mice and played the violin poorly”? (Levinson).
- Why didn’t Levinson tell anyone about himself? (He believed that the commander should only point out other people’s mistakes, hiding his own).
- How long ago did Morozka find out that his wife was walking? (from the first day of their marriage, when in the morning, drunk, he saw his wife sleeping in a pile of bodies on the floor in an embrace with the red-haired Gerasim, a cutter from mine No. 4).
- Where does Levinson’s manner, when talking with someone, turn to him with his whole body? (He was once wounded in the neck and otherwise could not turn at all).
- What did the drill reveal? (Kubrack has many deserters).
- Why was Mechik timid in communicating with Varya? (He had never had a woman, and he was afraid that it would turn out differently from people).
- How did they test Mechik’s accuracy? (At first they suggested shooting at the cross on the chapel, but they started shooting at the town).
- Who does Levinson look like, according to Mechik? (A gnome).
- Why did Mechik in the detachment begin to be considered a quitter and a troublemaker? (He didn’t clean the rifle, didn’t take care of the horse).
- What did Chizh teach Mechik? (To get away from the orderly and from the kitchen).

Working with fragments of the film “Youth of Our Fathers”. Assignment: comment on a movie scene.
1 fragment – ​​Morozka’s speech at the trial.
Fragment 2 – Frolov to Stashinsky before taking poison.
3 fragment – ​​capture of Metelitsa.
4 fragment – ​​death of Metelitsa.
5 fragment - an attack on a detachment of White Cossacks, Mechik loses his way and ends up in the forest, Morozka says goodbye to his dead horse.
Fragment 6 – Varya finds a drunken Morozka in the rain and makes peace with him.
7 fragment - retreating partisans clear the swamp with vines to guide their horses.
Fragment 8 – Morozka, risking her life, gives a danger signal.

Working with fragments of the audio play “Destruction”. Assignment: comment on the passage heard.
1 excerpt - Levinson punishes a fighter who forces weaker ones to climb into the river for fish.
Excerpt 2 - Levinson orders the pig to be taken away from the Korean, knowing that this will be fatal for his family.
Excerpt 3 - Mechik on patrol pours out his soul to Levinson.
Excerpt 4 - Morozka quarrels with Varya when she talks about her indifference to Mechik.
Excerpt 5 - Mechik Vare’s story about his first meeting with the partisans.
Excerpt 6 - the trial of Morozka.
Excerpt 7 - Chizh expresses his thoughts about Levinson to Mechik.

Presentation.
Assignment: comment on which part of the plot is depicted on the slides.
1) Blizzard is captured by the White Cossacks.
2) Frost in the partisan hospital. / D. Dubinsky /
3) Levinson and Baklanov./Still from the film “Destruction” 1932/
4) Nineteen. “So they left the forest - all nineteen.” / D. Dubinsky /
5) Mire./O.Vereisky/
6) Three deaths. Blizzard in captivity./O.Vereisky/
7) Snowstorm in reconnaissance./I.Godin/
8) Skirmish between Baklanov and Mechik with the Japanese. / O. Vereisky /
9) Blizzard and the shepherd boy. /D.Dubinsky/
10) Sword in the detachment. / O. Vereisky /
11) Morozka saves the wounded Mechik./V. and Yu. Rostovtsevs/
12) Men and the coal tribe. The trial of Morozka. /O.Vereisky/
13) Cargo. Partisans in the forest. /O.Vereisky/
14) Levinson leads the partisans into the attack. /D.Dubinsky/
15) Levinson leads the partisans into the attack. /O.Vereisky/
16) Snowstorm before a fight with a White Guard officer. / I. Godin /

III. Humanism in the work.
Humanism is humanity, humanity in social activities, in relation to people. (Ozhegov S.I. and Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language.) writing on the board and in a notebook.
A.A. Fadeev: “In a civil war, a selection of human material occurs, everything hostile is swept away by the revolution, everything incapable of a real revolutionary struggle that accidentally ends up in the camp of the revolution is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution, from the millions of masses of the people, is tempered and grows , develops in this struggle. A huge transformation of people is taking place.”
Conversation.
- Based on the example of which of the novel’s heroes is the problem of humanism solved? (Using Levinson as an example. He is the most controversial character in the novel. His versatility is explained by his purpose. He is a commander. He is responsible for everything.)
- How is the idea of ​​justifying any means by the “ultimate goal” implemented in the novel? (Levinson must preserve the detachment as a fighting unit. “He stole cows, robbed peasants’ fields and vegetable gardens.” Confiscation of a pig from a Korean. Order to shoot the owner of a shepherd boy. The decision to eliminate Frolov. Humiliation of a fighter who forces another to dive for fish. Sending Morozka to certain death and Mechik on patrol, and Baklanov and Dubov to cover the detachment’s retreat.)
- Are Levinson’s actions justified? (Levinson’s cruel actions, which Mechik condemns, are seen as a conscious necessity. However, one should not call cruel, tragic inevitability an act of humanism; one cannot call the sacrifice of one in the name of many humane.)
- What obstacles would prevent Levinson from maintaining authority in the detachment? (He doesn’t want anyone to know about his childhood; he tries to hide his melancholic memories and sentimentality behind rudeness and humor. His external physical unsightliness is noticeable only to the newcomer Mechik with his romantic views. His fatigue is overcome by a huge effort of will, the consciousness of what a great man is doing duty of the commander of a partisan detachment.)

IV. Conclusion.
1. Video fragment of V. Wulf’s program (Conclusion).
2. Homework: mini-essay “Is humanity possible in a civil war? »

V. Summing up. Grading.

The problem of humanism in Fadeev’s novel The Defeat and received the best answer

Answer from Black-green[guru]
The author and his characters (based on the novel “Destruction” by Alexander Fadeev)
The events in the novel relate to the period of the Civil War in the Far East, in which Fadeev himself actively participated. However, the author brings to the fore not historical problems, but socio-psychological research. War, battle, partisan life - all this is just a background for depicting the inner world of the heroes, their psychology, relationships with society, and internal conflicts. The problems of “Destruction” resonate with modern problems of humanism, attitudes towards people, interactions between man and humanity. The plot of the novel is very simple due to its psychological orientation. In a short period of time from the beginning of the defeat to the last breakthrough of the detachment through the ring of whites, the characters of the heroes emerge, as well as the author’s attitude towards these types of people. Several figures occupy a central place in the novel: Levinson, the detachment commander, is definitely a positive hero, the most perfect of all the people acting in the novel. Snowstorm, to whom an entire chapter is devoted, where his character is fully revealed. Morozka, according to the author’s sympathy, belongs, together with Metelitsa, to Levinson’s positive camp, and Mechik, a completely different type of person who has nothing in common with the first. All of them are connected by the same living conditions, and this helps to judge the positive and negative qualities of the characters most objectively, both from the position of the author and from the position of the reader. In addition, there are no special relationships between the heroes, with the exception of Mechik and Morozka, this allows us to consider each hero separately from the others.
Metelitsa became one of the main characters only in the middle of the novel. Fadeev explained this by saying that already in the process of working on the book he saw the need to separately reveal the character of Metelitsa, and since it was too late to rebuild the novel, the episode with Metelitsa stood out, disrupting the harmony of the narrative. The author's attitude towards Metelitsa is beyond doubt: the scout is clearly sympathetic to Fadeev. Firstly, appearance: he is a flexible, slender hero, in whom “there was... an inexhaustible spring... of extraordinary physical value, animal, vitality.” Such wonderful qualities are rarely endowed on a negative hero. Secondly, lifestyle: “Metelitsa lives the way he wants, without limiting himself in anything. This is a brave, ardent, true person." Third: Metelitsa’s positive personality is proven by his actions: reconnaissance, which only such a fearless person as Metelitsa could undertake, worthy behavior in captivity, death to save others. Every step he takes is bold and decisive.
For example, being in captivity, realizing that he cannot escape, Metelitsa calmly thinks about death, he is tormented by only one thought: how to accept it with dignity, demonstrating to his enemies his contempt for them. Already on the site where he was to be identified, Metelitsa behaves independently and proudly, but dies rushing to save a little shepherd boy who did not want to hand the scout over to the whites. The author loves this hero and, apparently, that’s why he never writes about him mockingly or sympathetically, as about some others, for example Morozk.
Further -