The inner world of the individual and its relationship with various aspects of reality according to Yu. Trifonov “Exchange”

methodological development

Outline of a writing lesson in the 11th grade “Life and being in the story by Yu.V. Trifonov “Exchange” Goal of the lesson: 1. Formation of skills in literary analysis of the text, instilling interest in thoughtful reading of the text. 2.Helping students see existential problems behind everyday details. 3. Fostering a culture of speech, a culture of relationships, a culture of soul. Cultivating kindness, morality, instilling love for loved ones, remembering the great duty to the mother. 4.Ability to write a letter.
Equipment:
text of the story “Exchange” portrait of the writer letters
Methodical techniques:
analytical conversation
Epigraph for the lesson:
“Having completed half my earthly life, I found myself in a dark forest.” Dante
During the classes:

1.Introductory conversation
. 2.
Reading a student’s letter about the life and work of Yu.V. Trifonov.
3.Response message from the teacher. -Hello, dear friend! Yuri Valentinovich Trifonov was a “stranger” to Soviet literature. They always reproached him for not writing about the fact that his works are entirely gloomy, that he is completely immersed in everyday life. What is your reader’s perception of the story? Did you like this story? (students’ opinions)
The reason for such different assessments is again the writer’s predilection for everyday details. Some are captivated by this, others are repulsed. Everyday life is the condition for the existence of heroes. Apparent routine, familiarity is deceptive. In fact, the test of everyday life is no less difficult and dangerous than the tests that befall a person in acute, critical situations. It is dangerous because a person changes under the influence of everyday life without being noticed. Everyday life provokes a person without internal support, a core, to actions that the person himself is horrified by. And the person gets lost in the crowd, cannot find his path. The plot of the story “Exchange” is a chain of events, each of which is an independent short story. Let's listen to the first short story. (A student’s letter about the exchange, about Lena’s persuasion to move in with Victor’s terminally ill mother for the sake of living space) - How does Dmitriev react to the exchange offer? -How does the conflict end? (student’s letter about Victor’s experiences, about remorse, but despite this about his thoughts about exchange options, including even Tanya in this) - Every detail is important here, so think and tell me what Dmitriev’s pose expresses at this moment? What internal Dmitriev experiences the struggle, feeling Lena’s hand on his shoulder? What happens in Dmitriev’s mind when he obeys Lena? How does Dmitriev react to his wife’s reminder about the exchange in the morning? (Students’ answers) -We talked about the fact that Dmitriev, thinking about exchange options, connects to this even Tanya, a woman who truly loves and understands him. -How has Dmitriev’s attitude towards Tanya changed over the year? How does Tanya manifest herself in her attitude towards Dmitriev? What does Dmitriev experience in his relationship with Tanya? What is alarming about Dmitriev’s state of mind? (students' stories) -How and why does Dmitriev behave this way when Tanya reads poetry to him? What role does Pasternak’s line, which the hero repeats, play in the story?
(Additions from the teacher) _The words “the patient thought” spoken after a long pause indicate Dmitriev’s awareness of his moral illness, his mental inferiority, and inability to live a full, independent life. Having lost his moral foundations, he is incapable of a moral act. -How should a person behave in this situation? Saving self-deception comes to the aid of a person. Remember another short story, namely the moment how Dmitriev ended up in GINEGA? What does the hero experience in this situation? How does the internal struggle end? How did the hero calm himself down? (a student’s story about the story with Dmitriev’s old friend Levka Bubrik, in whose place Victor was placed in Institute) -Trifonov studies his hero so closely that one gets the feeling that Dmitriev is an individual. But the author refutes this opinion. Alas, Dmitriev is typical. He is one of many. He is a man from the crowd. And he does not stand out in any way. -How does the crowd influence Dmitriev? (We read from the text) -What assessment of personality does his grandfather give to Dmitriev? (“You are not a bad person, but not amazing either”) -Did the hero have the opportunity to become a person, an individual? -A symbol of the hero’s spiritual degradation—a briefcase with cans of saury. -Victor is only 37 years old. And sometimes it seems to him that everything is still ahead. Why does the hero take 2 steps forward and immediately 2 steps back. Why does the hero submit to the pressure of circumstances? What is the reason? Students' stories) You probably noticed that Victor is located between two “poles”: the Dmitrievs (his relatives) and the Lukyanovs (his wife and her parents). The Dmitrievs are hereditary intellectuals, and the Lukyanovs are of the “who know how to live” breed. Which of these families did you like? After all, today people “who know how to live” are valued. What is your opinion? (divided into 2 groups)
-And now the first task for the groups. Draw the pedigree of two families on album leaves. Let’s pay attention to the Dmitriev family. -Let’s give the floor to the second group. What kind of Lukyanovs are they? What can we say about their pedigree? In what tones is the author’s characterization of Ivan Vasilyevich and Vera Lazarevna used? What are the main features of the Lukyanovs’ life position? Did Lena inherit them? (students’ stories) -So , we have reached the main characters - Victor and Lena. The plot core of the story is an exchange. And in connection with this, events unfold and two characters are revealed - Lena and Victor. According to this plan, we will try to make a comparative description of these two heroes not as husband and wife , but as representatives of two families: the Dmitrievs and the Lukyanovs. Plan: 1. Attitude to one's own destiny. 2. The right to be called a person. 3. Attitude to family traditions. 4. “Ability to live”, taste for life. 5.Moral promiscuity. Comparative characteristics (letters from two students) Victor Lena 1. A person of compromise, a person who is decisive, proactive, has a follower, constantly obeys a strong character, easily finds circumstances and has an internal common language with the right people. his struggle ends in vain. 2. There was an opportunity to become a person - The right to be called a person, nature endowed him, was denied to Lena by the author. talent. But the right to name-
Her personality was rejected by her relatives. 3. Victor’s grandfather is intelligent, Ivan Vasilyevich and Vera Lazarevna are principled and humane. His mother is a people who “know how to live.” Lena, they retained these qualities. And Victor’s daughter inherited these qualities. 4.Victor is weak-willed... Lena didn’t expect you to be aggressive, used to achieving. everything yourself, and not blame the circumstances. 5. Victor is tormented by his conscience, but Lena “... she bit into her desires, Despite this, he obeys like a bulldog. Such a pretty bulldog woman with a short straw-colored haircut... She didn’t let go until the desires were right with her in the teeth - they didn’t turn into flesh...” - Life changes only externally, but people remain the same. Let us remember what Bulgakov’s Woland said about this: “only the housing issue spoiled everyone.” The “housing issue” becomes a test for Trifonov’s hero, a test that he cannot withstand and breaks down. Grandfather says: “Ksenia and I expected that you would turn out to be something else. Nothing terrible, of course, happened. You are not a bad person. .But not surprising either.” This is the judgment of the author himself. The process of “poaching” proceeds imperceptibly, seemingly against the will of the person, with a lot of self-justification, but as a result it destroys the person, and not only morally: after the exchange and the death of his mother, “Dmitriev became a hypertensive crisis, and he spent three weeks at home on strict bed rest.” The hero becomes different: “not yet an old man, but already an elderly man with limp cheeks.” 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 be angry. It’s just so unnoticeable...” At the end of the story there is a list of legal documents necessary for the exchange. Their dry, businesslike, official language
emphasizes the tragedy of what happened. Next to it are phrases about a “favorable decision” regarding the exchange and about the death of Ksenia Fedorovna. The exchange of value ideas took place. -Trifonov did not set himself the task of either condemning or “rewarding” his heroes: the task was different - to understand. We are convinced that this is partly true... There are no ideals. And the circle of our discussion includes the following questions: what in the story comes to the fore when how is it perceived by us now? Does Trifonov really have no ideals? In your opinion, will this story remain in literature and how will it be perceived in another thirty years? D\Z. Write a letter to a friend, taking these questions as a basis, making them the subject of discussion

In the 60–70s of the twentieth century, a new phenomenon arose in Russian literature, called “urban prose.” The term arose in connection with the publication and wide recognition of the stories of Yuri Trifonov. M. Chulaki, S. Esin, V. Tokareva, I. Shtemler, A. Bitov, the Strugatsky brothers, V. Makanin, D. Granin and others also worked in the genre of urban prose. In the works of the authors of urban prose, the heroes were townspeople burdened with everyday life, moral and psychological problems, generated, among other things, by the high pace of city life. The problem of the loneliness of the individual in the crowd, covered up by the higher education of the terry philistinism, was considered. Works of urban prose are characterized by deep psychologism, an appeal to intellectual, ideological and philosophical problems of the time, and a search for answers to “eternal” questions. The authors explore the intelligentsia layer of the population, drowning in the “quagmire of everyday life.”
Yuri Trifonov's creative activity occurred in the post-war years. The author’s impressions of student life are reflected in his first novel “Students,” which was awarded the State Prize. At the age of twenty-five, Trifonov became famous. The author himself, however, pointed out the weak points in this work.
In 1959, a collection of short stories “Under the Sun” and a novel “Quenching Thirst” were published, the events of which took place during the construction of an irrigation canal in Turkmenistan. The writer already spoke about quenching spiritual thirst.
For more than twenty years, Trifonov worked as a sports correspondent, wrote many stories on sports topics: “Games at Twilight,” “At the End of the Season,” and created scripts for feature films and documentaries.
The stories “Exchange”, “Preliminary Results”, “Long Farewell”, “Another Life” formed the so-called “Moscow” or “urban” cycle. They were immediately called a phenomenal phenomenon in Russian literature, because Trifonov described people in everyday life, and made heroes of the then intelligentsia. The writer withstood attacks from critics who accused him of “petty topics.” The choice of topic was especially unusual against the backdrop of the books that existed at that time about glorious exploits and labor achievements, the heroes of which were ideally positive, purposeful and unshakable. It seemed to many critics that it was dangerous blasphemy that the writer dared to reveal internal changes in the moral character of many intellectuals and pointed out the lack of high motives, sincerity, and decency in their souls. By and large, Trifonov poses the question of what intelligence is and whether we have an intelligentsia.
Many of Trifonov’s heroes, formally, by education, belonging to the intelligentsia, never became intelligent people in terms of spiritual improvement. They have diplomas, in society they play the role of cultured people, but in everyday life, at home, where there is no need to pretend, their spiritual callousness, thirst for profit, sometimes criminal lack of will, and moral dishonesty are exposed. Using the technique of self-characterization, the writer in internal monologues shows the true essence of his characters: the inability to resist circumstances, to defend one’s opinion, spiritual deafness or aggressive self-confidence. As we get to know the characters in the stories, a true picture of the state of the minds of Soviet people and the moral criteria of the intelligentsia emerges before us.
Trifonov’s prose is distinguished by a high concentration of thoughts and emotions, a kind of “density” of writing, which allows the author to say a lot between the lines behind seemingly everyday, even banal subjects.
In The Long Goodbye, a young actress ponders whether she should continue, overpowering herself, to date a prominent playwright. In “Preliminary Results,” translator Gennady Sergeevich is tormented by the consciousness of his guilt, having left his wife and adult son, who have long become spiritual strangers to him. Engineer Dmitriev from the story “Exchange,” under pressure from his overbearing wife, must persuade his own mother to “move in” with them after the doctors informed them that the elderly woman has cancer. The mother herself, not knowing anything, is extremely surprised by the sudden hot feelings on the part of her daughter-in-law. The measure of morality here is the vacated living space. Trifonov seems to ask the reader: “What would you do?”
Trifonov’s works force readers to take a stricter look at themselves, teach them to separate the important from the superficial, momentary, and show how heavy the retribution can be for neglecting the laws of conscience.

The basis of Yuri Trifonov's story "Exchange" is the desire of the protagonist, a typical Moscow intellectual Viktor Georgievich Dmitriev, to exchange housing and improve his own housing situation. To do this, he needs to live with his hopelessly ill mother, who is aware of her imminent death. The son convinces her that he is terribly eager to live with her in order to better take care of her. However, his mother realizes that he is primarily concerned not with her, but with the apartment, and that he is in a hurry with the exchange out of fear

After her death, lose her room. Material interest replaced Dmitriev’s feeling of filial love. And it’s not for nothing that at the end of the work the mother declares to her son that she once intended to live with him together, but now she doesn’t, because: “You’ve already exchanged, Vitya. The exchange happened... It was a very long time ago. And it always happens, every day, so don't be surprised, Vitya. And don't be angry. It's just so imperceptible.." Dmitriev, an initially decent person, little by little, under the influence of his wife's selfishness, and his personal egoism, changed his moral position for philistine well-being. And yet, having managed to move in with his mother right before her death, her death, perhaps a little caused by a hasty exchange, is depressingly experienced: “After the death of Ksenia Fedorovna, Dmitriev had a hypertensive crisis, and he spent three weeks at home on strict bed rest.” . Then he slowed down greatly and seemed as if “not yet an old man, but already elderly.” What is the reason for Dmitriev’s ethical fall?

In the story, his grandfather is presented to us as an old revolutionary who says to Victor, “You are not a bad person. But you are not amazing either.” There is no high idea in Dmitriev that inspires his life, there is no passion for any cause. No, which turns out to be very important in this case, and willpower. Dmitriev cannot resist the pressure of his wife Lena, who strives to obtain the benefits of life at any cost. At times he protests, makes scandals, but only to clear his conscience, because almost always, in the end, he capitulates and does as Lena wants. Dmitriev’s wife has long been putting her own prosperity at the forefront. And she knows that her husband will be an obedient instrument in achieving her goals: “...She spoke as if everything was predetermined and as if it was also clear to him, Dmitriev, that everything was predetermined, and they understood each other without words.” Regarding people like Lena, Trifonov said in an interview with critic A. Bocharov: “Egoism is something in humanity that is most difficult to defeat.” And at the same time, the writer is far from sure whether it is, in principle, possible to completely overcome human egoism, whether it would be wiser to try to bring it within some moral limits, to set certain boundaries for it. For example, the following: the desire of each person to satisfy his own needs is legal and fair as long as it does not harm other people. After all, selfishness is one of the most powerful factors in the development of man and society, and this cannot be ignored. Let us remember that Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky wrote about “reasonable egoism” with sympathy and almost as an ideal of behavior in his novel “What is to be done?” The trouble, however, is that in real life it is very difficult to find the line that separates “reasonable egoism” from “unreasonable.” Trifonov emphasized in the aforementioned interview: “Egoism disappears when an idea arises.” Dmitriev and Lena do not have such an idea, so selfishness becomes the only moral value for them. But those who oppose them do not have this idea either - Ksenia Fedorovna, Victor’s sister Laura, cousin of the main character Marina... And it is no coincidence that in a conversation with another critic, L. Anninsky, the writer objected to him: “You pretended that “I idolize the Dmitrievs (meaning all representatives of this family, except Viktor Georgievich), but I make fun of them.” The Dmitrievs, unlike Lena’s family and the Lukyanovs, are not very adapted to life, they do not know how to benefit themselves either at work or at home. They do not know how and do not want to live at the expense of others. However, Dmitriev's mother and his relatives are by no means ideal people. They are characterized by one vice that really bothered Trifonov - intolerance (it is no coincidence that this is what the writer called his novel about the Narodnaya Volya member Zhelyabov - “Intolerance”).

Ksenia Feodorovna calls Lena a bourgeois, and she calls her a hypocrite. Dmitriev’s mother, in fact, is hardly fair to consider a hypocrite, but her inability to accept and understand people with different behavioral attitudes makes her difficult to communicate with, and this type of people is unviable in the long term. Dmitriev's grandfather was still inspired by the revolutionary idea. For subsequent generations, it has greatly faded due to comparison with the very far from ideal post-revolutionary reality. And Trifonov understands that at the end of the 60s, when “Exchange” was written, this idea was already dead, and the Dmitrievs had no new one. This is the tragedy of the situation. On the one hand, there are the Lukyanovs, the acquirers, who know how to work well (that Lena is valued at work is emphasized in the story), who know how to arrange their everyday life, but do not think about anything other than this. On the other hand, the Dmitrievs, who still retain the inertia of intellectual decency, but over time, lose more and more of it, not supported by an idea.

Viktor Georgievich has already “gotten crazy”, and this process was probably accelerated by Nadezhda, who hopes that the main character’s conscience will be resurrected. Still, in my opinion, the death of the mother caused some kind of moral shock in the hero, which, apparently, was associated with Dmitriev’s illness. But still, the chances of his spiritual revival are very small. And it is not without reason that in the last lines of this story the author reports that he learned the whole story from Viktor Georgievich, who now seems like a sick man, crushed by life. An exchange of moral values ​​took place in his soul and led to a sad result. A reverse exchange for the hero is almost impossible.

It turns out that the moral values ​​and traditions of the protagonist are replaced by prudence and indifference to others.

Victor Dmitriev“betrayed” his ideals. He did not want to fight with his wife for the right to be “heard” and completely submitted to her “leadership.” But most likely, this seed of an “immoral personality” was always present in him, and his wife was only a cover.

It is for this reason that Victor suddenly takes a position that a friend of the Dmitriev family was really counting on getting. He “piously believes” that he is doing this for the sake of his family and wife, but in fact, the man deceived his friend for personal gain.

Lena Ivanova intervened in the scandal that arose due to betrayal. The woman told everyone that it was entirely her “fault”, since it was she who insisted on changing her husband’s job. Because of this, Laura’s mother and sister very much condemned Victor, calling him “foolish.”

The Lukyanovs and Dmitrievs were in conflict. Different views on life, goals and means of achieving them created a whole abyss of misunderstanding between families. Victor was on edge. He could not fully accept anyone’s side, because it is difficult to choose between his own mother and the mother of his child.

But the man was far from an exemplary family man. The author notes that while his wife and daughter were on vacation and left the city, Victor started an affair with his colleague Tatyana. The girl fell in love with Victor, and subsequently, because of her feelings, was forced to divorce her husband. She did not think that Victor, unlike her, would be able to continue deceiving his wife.

But the man was not going to lie. He simply abandoned Tatiana upon arrival Lena with his daughter and with a clear conscience “returned” to the family. The poor woman was left to live with the hope that they would someday be together again. She even offered to loan her ex-lover money when he urgently needed it.

Victor took a certain amount from the woman. Of course, he was going to give them to her, but was there such a need to “raise the past”? Or maybe he specifically gave her hope?!

One way or another, he really really needed the funds. The mother, who had recently undergone major surgery, needed treatment. Yes, and Lena put pressure on him with the inevitable exchange of living space. The woman had planned everything for a long time, and now having learned about Ksenia Fedorovna’s fatal diagnosis, she decided to act.

This action was blasphemy towards Dmitrieva, and the son understood this very well. He even tried to object to his wife’s “pressure,” but gave up after an unsuccessful attempt to “protest.” His wife's arguments were more powerful than all his arguments and condemnations.

Soon, just recently, the warring parties “reunited” and began to live in the same two-room apartment. Ksenia Fedorovna’s room was exchanged in addition to a room in Dmitriev’s communal apartment. Lena thought of everything here too. She knew that her mother-in-law’s days were numbered and she wouldn’t have to “tolerate” her for long. Ivanova turned out to be right - Victor’s mother died soon after.

Victor became very ill. It slowly began to dawn on him that the man had really changed, but not for the better...

In the center of Y. Trifonov's story "Exchange" is an image of two families, the Dmitrievs and the Lukyanovs, who became related through the marriage of two representatives of their young tribe - Victor and Lena. These two families are to a certain extent the opposite of each other.

However, the author does not show their direct confrontation; it is expressed indirectly through numerous comparisons, through collisions and conflicts in the relations of representatives of these families. Thus, the Dmitrievs are distinguished from the Lukyanovs, first of all, by their ancient roots, the presence of several generations in this family, which ensures the continuity of moral values ​​and ethical principles that have developed in this family. The transfer of these values ​​from generation to generation determines the moral stability of members of this family. Gradually, these values ​​leave the Dmitriev family and are replaced by others.

In this regard, the image of grandfather Fyodor Nikolaevich is extremely important, since it makes it possible to trace the process of the Dmitriev family’s loss of those qualities and life principles by which their ancestors lived and which distinguished the Dmitriev family from others. The grandfather appears in the story as a kind of ancient “monster”, since many great historical events befell him, but at the same time he remains a real historical figure. The grandfather embodies the best qualities of the Dmitriev family - intelligence, tact, good manners, integrity, which once distinguished all representatives of this family. His daughter, Ksenia Fedorovna, is already somewhat distant from her father: she is distinguished by excessive pride, feigned intelligence, and rejection of his life principles (a scene of an argument with her father about contempt). A trait such as “hypocrisy” appears in her, that is, the desire to look better than you really are. Playing the role of an ideal woman-mother in the story, Ksenia Fedorovna is nevertheless not a positive hero, since she also contains negative qualities. As the plot develops, we learn that Ksenia Fedorovna is not as intelligent and disinterested as she wants to seem.

However, a person is always a combination of negative and positive principles. Despite her shortcomings, Ksenia Fedorovna fully realizes herself as a mother. She treats her only son with a feeling of reverent love, feels sorry for him, worries about him, perhaps blames herself for his unrealized potential (Dmitriev in his youth knew how to draw beautifully, but this gift was not further developed). Thus, Victor’s mother is the keeper of the spiritual ties of this family; with her love, she spiritually bonds herself with her son. Finally separated, spiritually cut off from his grandfather is Victor, who has only “childish devotion” towards his grandfather. Hence the misunderstanding and alienation in their last conversation, when Dmitriev wanted to talk about Lena, and the grandfather wanted to think about death.

It is no coincidence that with the death of his grandfather, Dmitriev feels cut off from home, family, and the loss of family ties. However, the process of Victor’s spiritual alienation from his family, which became irreversible after the death of his grandfather, began a long time ago, from the moment of his marriage to Lena Lukyanova. It is in the twinning of two houses that one should look for the origins of the destruction of the Dmitriev family, since it marked the beginning of quarrels, scandals and disagreements both between families and within them. The Lukyanov family is different both in origin and in occupation: these are people of practical acumen, “who know how to live,” in contrast to the impractical Dmitrievs, not adapted to life. Their family is presented much narrower: they do not have a home, that is, a family nest, thereby the author, as it were, deprives them of rootedness, support and family ties in this life.

The absence of family ties, in turn, determines the lack of spiritual ties in this family; there is no love, family warmth, or human participation. On the contrary, the relationships in this family bear the imprint of official business, are uncomfortable, and not at home. In this regard, two fundamental traits of this kind are natural - practicality and distrust.

The feeling of love is replaced by a sense of duty, it is precisely because of the feeling of his duty to his family that Ivan Vasilyevich financially equips his home, financially provides for his family, for which Vera Lazarevna feels a sense of dog-like devotion to him, since she herself “never worked and lived dependent on Ivan Vasilievich". Their daughter Lena is an absolute copy of her parents. She combined in herself a sense of duty, responsibility to her family, taken from her father, on the one hand, and Vera Lazarevna’s devotion to her husband and family, on the other, and all this is complemented by the practicality that is inherent in the entire Lukyanov family. That is why Lena is trying to make a profitable apartment exchange during her mother-in-law’s illness, gets him a lucrative job at GINEGA, thereby betraying her childhood friend Levka Bubrik, who at that time had no job at all.

However, all these “deals” are not immoral for Lena, since for her the concept of benefit is initially moral, because her main life principle is expediency. Lena's practicality reaches its highest degree. This is confirmed by the “mental defect”, “mental inaccuracy”, “underdevelopment of feelings”, which Victor notes in her. And from here follows her tactlessness, first of all, in relation to close people (an apartment exchange started at the wrong time, a quarrel over Lena moving her father’s portrait in the Dmitrievs’ house). In the Dmitriev-Lukyanov house there is no love, no family warmth, daughter Natasha does not see affection, because the “measure of parental love” for Lena is an English special school. Hence one senses constant falsehood and insincerity in the relations between members of this family.

In Lena’s consciousness, the spiritual is replaced by the material. Proof of this is not only the English special school, but also the fact that the author never mentions any of her spiritual qualities or talents; everything comes down to the material.

At the same time, Lena is much more viable than her husband, she is stronger and more courageous than him morally. And the situation shown by the author of the union of two families, the merging of spiritual principles and practicality leads to the victory of the latter. Dmitriev turns out to be crushed by his wife as a person, he finally “goes off” and becomes a “henpecked” husband. It should be noted that the story begins at the climax of the hero's life - the mother's fatal illness, an apartment exchange started in connection with this. The author, thus, puts his hero in a situation of choice, since it is in a situation of choice that the moral essence of a person is revealed. As a result, it turns out that Dmitriev is a weak-willed person who constantly makes everyday compromises.

Already from the beginning of the story, his model of behavior becomes clear - this is an avoidance of decisions, from responsibility, a desire to preserve the usual order of things at all costs. The result of the choice made by Victor is deplorable - the death of his mother, whom he exchanged for material well-being, for a comfortable life. But the worst thing is that Victor has no sense of guilt, he does not blame himself either for the death of his mother or for the severance of spiritual ties with his family, he places all the blame on circumstances that he could not overcome, on the “fooling” that he did not was able to overcome.

And if earlier, in the plot situation of the story, when Lena started talking about the exchange, Dmitriev was still capable of some kind of fight against “bullying”, to defend his life principles, then at the end of the story he himself bitterly admits that he “really doesn’t care.” no need" that he is only looking for peace. From this moment on, Dmitriev begins to quickly “go crazy”, that is, lose those spiritual qualities, the moral education that were originally laid down in him by the ancestors of the Dmitriev house. Gradually, Victor turns into a cold-blooded, mentally callous person who lives by self-deception, taking everything for granted, and his youthful aspirations and real dreams turn into unattainable dreams. The result of “polarization” is the spiritual death of the hero, degradation as a person, loss of family ties.

An important semantic load in the story is carried by the image of Tanya, who is the embodiment of normal human connections, relationships, true love. In her world, there is a completely different system of moral values ​​than in Dmitriev’s world, according to which Tanya finds it impossible to live with an unloved person, even if he loves her. In turn, this man who loves her leaves, without causing scenes or scandals, without sharing rags and meters, but allowing Tanya to live her life. This is true love - the desire for good and happiness for a loved one. Another important thing about Tanya’s character is that, despite all the misfortunes that befell her, she managed to preserve her inner, spiritual world.

It was thanks to her spiritual fullness, strong moral foundations, spiritual strength that she managed to survive in this life, thanks to these qualities she is much stronger and stronger than Dmitriev. The “exchange” carried out by Tanya turned out to be much more honest than Victor’s “exchange”, since it was made not in pursuit of material gain, but in accordance with feelings, at the call of the heart. Thus, Yu. Trifonov’s exchange is not only a material transaction, but also a spiritual and psychological situation. “You have already exchanged, Vitya.

An exchange took place,” says Dmitriev’s mother, meaning not an exchange of an apartment, but an exchange of the lifestyle, moral values ​​and life principles of the Dmitriev family for the lifestyle of the Lukyanov family, that is, “olukyanivaniye.” Thus, the exchange from the sphere of everyday, material relations moves into the sphere of spiritual relations. In the story by Yu. Trifonov, the leitmotif is reflections on the diminishing spiritual relations between people, thinning human connections. This leads to the main problem of the individual - the lack of spiritual connections with other people and, above all, with one’s family.

According to Yu. Trifonov, relationships within a family depend to a greater extent on spiritual closeness, on the depth of mutual understanding, and these are very complex and subtle things that require special talent, which the Dmitriev-Lukyanov family lacks. Without these qualities, the existence of a family is impossible; only the outer shell remains with absolute internal destruction and spiritual disconnection.