The question of the title of the article is largely rhetorical.Bulgakov wrote about the eternal problems of the Russian land, and not only Russian. But we will try to understand specifically the topic that determines the urgency of the story "The Dog's Heart," and explain why this work is not only eternal, but also topical.
The most famous saying (quotation) from the work of M.A. Bulgakova: "Disruption is not in the closets, but in the minds" remains fair for today. The story was published in 1925, almost 100 years ago. Since then, nothing has changed at all. Yes, people started talking on mobile phones, the message became faster. The world has become very small thanks to the Internet, but the Russian person himself has changed little.
All this makes the urgency of the story "The Dog Heart" unquestionable.
No matter how bitter it is to admit, but nowthere are people who turn someone else's entrance (and sometimes their own) into a public toilet, and explain to them that this is not good, there is no possibility, because their parents did not bring up well.
The general decline in education and culture (and notonly intellectual, but also household) also does not add optimism. Children sometimes grow up without understanding the basic rules of decency. But the younger generation is not to blame for it. Parents can not once instill in them "good and bright," they must earn money, and the main today's "nannies" are TV and the Internet. It is clear that you can not expect anything good here. This creates "devastation in the minds". Another sad answer to the rhetorical question about the relevance of the story "The Heart of a Dog."
Generation, brought up on "MUZ-TV" and MTV, has grownwith the conviction that to be an artist, a dancer, a musician - "it's cool", and all other professions - "it sucks." The Soviet formula: "All professions are important, all professions are needed" - has sunk into oblivion. In other words, there has come a strange time, when everyone wants only to entertain and entertain - "sing in chorus", instead of working. People believe that the world is large enough, and, according to this logic, there will necessarily be someone who will still work for the common good in a profession not related to creativity. In other words: "Someone, but not me."
Did F.F. Preobrazhensky speak about this state of affairs? The reader still asks himself the question about the urgency of the story "The Dog's Heart"?
There is nothing wrong with giving a chance"Ordinary guys and little girls" break through to the creative Olympus. But for some reason it seems that real talent is a rare thing, and various kinds of reality shows legitimize idleness, educating a generation of individualists and egoists who do not care about the country, they are only interested in personal welfare. It's one thing when people achieve success, but quite another, when they simply dissolve in the general mass. Of course, singing after the show on TV for restaurants - not cars to unload, but there is no point in it for a penny.
FF Fyodorov spoke about this in one way or another.Preobrazhensky: Russian people suffer from the fact that there is no sense in his social reality (and, accordingly, in life), but he is too lazy to equip it himself, it is easier for him to urinate in the dressing and steal galoshes (or search for himself all his life). Since then, unfortunately, little has changed, it also removes the question of the relevance of the story "Dog Heart" in our time.
And it is not clear what kind of phenomenon is more terrible.Of course, the “consumer” is more cultured, smarter, but it makes the world tremble for other reasons than “shvonder” and “ball”. As a rule, the “consumer” is underdeveloped, but he has his own opinion: about high art, high fashion, good literature. He controls the flow of money and any other flows. In a world where much is subject to rating, the “consumer” controls everything, because he is the incarnated majority. Bulgakov guessed in his work a general type that flooded Europe in the 20th century, and reached Russia in the 21st. Should I ask myself, what is the relevance of the story "The Heart of a Dog" in our day?
В 1930 году вышла культовая книга Хосе Ortega i Gasset "The Rise of the Masses." In it, he examined in detail the phenomenon of "mass man." Among other things, he wrote in his essay: "A mass person (consumer) feels and considers himself the master of life." But the thing is that this is not an illusion of the consciousness of the consumer, he really became the master of life. All modern civilization is built under his needs.
M.A.Bulgakov rather pessimistic looks at the nature of man. No wonder he contrasted in his story "good" animal and "evil" man. There was a good dog, a bad man. What is surprising is not the transformation of Sharik into Sharikov, but the fact that Philip Filippovich, knowing about the devastation, nevertheless decided on a bold experiment.
"Russian Frankenstein" is not only not justifiedhopes of the creator, but let into the quiet and cozy life of the professor the Soviet reality with all its filth. For Bulgakov, there was no charm in her and no advantages - only dirt.
And if the result of the Bulgakov experimentput in one lapidary formulation, it will be like this: “A good dog is better than a bad person.” As it seems, many modern people will subscribe to this idea, which plays into the hands of the Russian classic writing when answering the question of what is the relevance of Bulgakov's The Heart of a Dog.
Finally, I would like to say only one thing, imitating I. Volgin: “Read and re-read the classics, revealing more and more new meanings in it”.
