For more than sixty years, Heart of a Dog has been waiting for its reader. In Germany and England, the story was published in the early 60s, at the same time in the USSR only the lucky ones, who were few, could read it only in Samizdat. And only in 1987 the work was published in the Znamya magazine, and a year later it was filmed by Vladimir Bortko. In 1925 he wrote to M. A. Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog", a composition that still excites minds and reveals the meaning of what happened in Russia in those years.
Not school Bulgakov at all
The compulsory literature curriculum for secondary education includes two works by this author: "The Heart of a Dog" and "The Master and Margarita". Being the son of a professor of theology and the grandson of priests, the writer put religious symbols into each of his creations, making the idea multilayered. Perhaps that is why when re-reading his books, something new opens up every time.
Despite the complexity of the ideological content, at school an essay based on Bulgakov's story "Dogheart" will have to be written. And for this it is necessary to analyze the genre, title and main images of the work.
Anti-Soviet pamphlet or dystopia?
Usually "Heart of a Dog" is called political satire. It's right. But partially. Everything that Professor Preobrazhensky says about devastation, the House Committee and Soviet newspapers is, of course, a pamphlet. What Shvonder and Sharikov talk about and do is also, without a doubt, satire. Yes, and what! Acute. Merciless.
But the experiment with the dog is a dystopia. In his image, the birth of a new person of a young formation is shown, dangerous trends in the development of such a society are revealed. It turns out that Mikhail Bulgakov wrote Heart of a Dog as a warning. The essay on the story should reflect the presence of signs of both genres: both satire and utopia.
Why is the heart of a dog?
When analyzing a work of a small form (story, short story, short story), not the last place is occupied by its title. So, why did Bulgakov stop at this particular phrase, because in the text Professor Preobrazhensky, retorting Bormental about Sharikov’s heart, claims that he now has a human heart, only the lousiest of all.
In explanatory dictionaries, the adjective "dog", in addition to its direct meaning, indicating belonging to this animal, has other, figurative, colloquially reduced with a negative characteristic, denoting something difficult, unbearable, as well as vile, low and despicable. Andthen everything becomes clear, especially since the sub title of the story - "The Monstrous Incident" - gives a hint about what Bulgakov wanted to say. “Heart of a Dog” is a satirical composition, its title contains not the organ of a dog, but the spoiled heart of a newly-minted person.
Skin system
Surprising but true: there are no goodies in Mikhail Bulgakov's satirical works. And Heart of a Dog is no exception. A professor who thinks so correctly and fairly denounces the new government is making a monstrous mistake: the doctor should help people in the treatment of ailments, and he is trying to correct what God has created. Preobrazhensky only later realizes the inadmissibility of such experiments.
Shvonder, a demagogue with limited mental abilities, who imagines himself to be the owner of the house, is shown as an obedient cog in the newly created formation. He and the professor are carriers of completely different beginnings, even comparing them is impossible.
So which of the characters should be emphasized when asked to write an essay "Bulgakov: "Heart of a Dog""? Sharikov is the result of an experiment by F. F. Preobrazhensky - it is he who is the main one in the story and, to some extent, the object of the dispute between Shvonder and the professor. But did this fight make sense?
Highly developed personality failed
Everything connected with Orthodoxy, Bulgakov knew thoroughly, and it is no coincidence that certain dates or references to them are mentioned in his works. For example, in The Master and Margarita, everything indicates that the actiontakes place on Holy Week before Easter, but in the story about Sharikov, events begin at the end of December, and by January 7, a new person appears - Polygraph Poligrafovich.
Nothing less, but for Christmas timed the transformation of the dog Bulgakov. “Heart of a Dog” is a work whose author painfully notes not only the destruction of the best that was before the revolution, but also the appearance of a creature that will continue this extermination, but not by stealing and boarding up front doors, but by spiritual devastation.
Why Polygraph?
This name is considered Bulgakov's invention, although it is known that in the calendar calendar of the proletariat of that time its female interpretation was already listed. What could the writer warn about by repeating: Polygraph Poligrafovich? When Mikhail Bulgakov created The Heart of a Dog, the composition of such works could not become the property of a wide range of readers. It's a pity! Then many would understand: the name of the main character is associated with printing, which means replication, that is, there should be a lot of them.
The writer feared (and not in vain) that the balls would be ideal for the new government. Deprived of their own opinion, having no spiritual connections, traditions, these people will not only do what they are ordered, but also take the initiative aimed at destruction, since they are not able to create by definition. It will not work to create them in the way that Professor Preobrazhensky accidentally managed, but to educate young people in such a way.spirit will be quite real.
That's what an essay on "Heart of a Dog" should be about. Bulgakov could not reach out to his contemporaries, or rather, he did not have the opportunity, but after many decades this story is just as relevant.
Modern science is moving forward, trying to find a panacea for diseases and extend the days of a person on earth, but do not forget that along with a long life, you can also get a dog's heart, which will make the past century aimless and useless.
