Pechorin and Raskolnikov - heroes of philosophical search

I. Introduction

Pechorin and Raskolnikov belong to different eras and estates (a representative of the St. Petersburg world, an aristocrat and a raznochinets), and, it would seem, nothing brings them together. But they also have a lot in common. Both can be called heroes of a philosophical search.

II. main part

1. Both characters are young and both have very high self-esteem. Princess Mary says about Pechorin that he has a very high opinion of himself, with which Pechorin fully agrees. About Raskolnikov, Razumikhin says that he “values ​​himself terribly highly and, it seems, not without some right to do so.”

2. It can be said about both of them in the words of Dostoevsky that they “do not need millions, but they need to resolve the idea”, i.e. it doesn’t matter to them how their personal life will turn out, but it is important to answer the question that torments them.

Pechorin has been looking for a “high purpose” for his “immense forces” all his life. But he is a well-to-do nobleman and could live his life calmly and happily. But he no longer "succumbs to the bait of empty and ungrateful passions", he needs something more (see Pechorin's reflections at the end of the story "Princess Mary").

Raskolnikov also cannot help but test his idea in practice, although he himself is horrified by this idea: “What dirt, however, my heart is capable of!” (Raskolnikov's thoughts after the first dream). And yet he goes to kill.

3. From what has been said, it follows that both heroes have an inherent tragedy, although each has his own.

Raskolnikov's inner tragedy arises from the fact that his idea is contrary to human nature, but has already acquired too much power over the hero, he is no longer able to refuse it. Raskolnikov's suffering is an attempt to resolve the eternal philosophical and moral question of whether a person can shed blood at his own discretion, "am I a trembling creature or have the right."

But Pechorin’s psychological discomfort also arises not only because of the discrepancy inner world reality. The tragedy of Pechorin also has philosophical reasons. He is trying to find an answer to the eternal question of who rules the world: providence, chance or the person himself. Here he really “does not need millions, but needs to resolve the idea”: he goes on the most dangerous experiments, “puts at stake” his life and honor. But neither the successful outcome of the duel, nor the case with Vulich, nor the fight with the Cossack make him a fatalist, and he is also not sure of the opposite. The tragedy of Pechorin is that it is extremely important for him to answer an insoluble question, and, it would seem, the strongest arguments turn out to be unconvincing.

4. How extraordinary strong personalities both are opposed to society. Society rejects both Pechorin and Raskolnikov; few understand and accept them. However, both deliberately "disconnect from people."

Pechorin realizes that he is higher and more honest than most of his contemporaries, and the old generation (Maxim Maksimych) does not understand him too much. Therefore, Pechorin remains alone, says that “he is not capable of friendship”, he is disappointed in love.

Raskolnikov also leaves even people close to him (mother, sister, Razumikhin), he says: “You are tired of me to death ... I want to be alone.” But he does it for a different reason. He feels that there is no place for him in society, because he is a criminal, he is not like everyone else. That is why he goes to Sonya, believing that she will not condemn him, because she herself is a harlot.

5. Consciousness of one's own originality gives rise to individualism in the heroes; but their individualism is also different.

Pechorin wants to serve a lofty goal, directly to providence. He says to himself: "... how many times have I played the role of an ax in the hands of fate!"

For Raskolnikov, such a role is unacceptable. He is trying to replace fate, God, he picks up an ax himself. (Similar symbols for both authors are most likely not accidental).

III. Conclusion

So, these heroes have enough in common and different. Both are trying to lift an unbearable load for a person, both are trying to resolve eternal questions. But Raskolnikov goes further than Pechorin. He is trying to replace God, destiny. Experiences of Pechorin and Raskolnikov ( internal monologues heroes) are also similar. This suggests that Lermontov and Dostoevsky achieved the broadest generalization, because their heroes are tormented by the same questions as we are a century and a half later.

In his novel “A Hero of Our Time”, M. Yu. Lermontov depicted the 30s of the 19th century in Russia. These were difficult times in the life of the country. Having suppressed the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I sought to turn the country into a barracks - all living things, the slightest manifestations of freethinking ...

"A Hero of Our Time" belongs to those phenomena of true art, which, occupying ... the attention of the public, as literary story, are converted into eternal capital, which, in the course of time, increases more and more by certain percentages. V. G....

Expressing an attitude towards a particular person or artistic image, we, first of all, make a detailed analysis of his actions and words. We strive to understand the motivation of his actions, the impulses of his soul, conclusions, attitude to the world. If the sphere...

Belinsky said about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity among themselves is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora. Herzen also called Pechorin "Onegin's younger brother". (This material will help you write correctly ...

End of Pechorin's journal. Princess Mary. Before us is Pechorin's diary, in which the days of recording are marked. On May 11, Pechorin records his arrival in Pyatigorsk. Finding an apartment, he went to the source. On the way, he was called by an acquaintance with whom he...

From the second half of XIX century, primarily thanks to fiction, the concept of “extra person” comes into use (for the first time this term was used by A. S. Pushkin in one of his draft sketches for Onegin). There are a number of artistic...

“Pechorin, returning from Persia, died ...” Have you ever wondered under what circumstances this could happen?
Lermontov's death was instantaneous - Pechorin, who died on the road for an unknown reason, apparently was destined by his creator to fully survive the torment of "death longing". Who was next to him in this difficult moment? His "proud" lackey?
What if it happened to him not on the road? What would change? Most likely - nothing! Not a single living, indifferent soul nearby ... But after all, both Mary and Vera loved him. Maksim Maksimych is ready to “throw himself on his neck” at any moment. Even Werner at some point would have done the same if Pechorin "showed him the slightest desire for this." But all ties with people are cut off. Remarkable inclinations are not implemented. Why?
According to Grigory Alexandrovich, Werner is "a skeptic and a materialist." Pechorin considers himself to be a believer. In any case, in the “Fatalist”, written on behalf of Pechorin, we read: “They argued that the Muslim belief that the fate of a person is written in heaven, finds between n-a-m-i, x-r-i-s -t-i-a-n-a-m-i, many admirers ... ”It is as a believer, in the story“ Taman ”, Pechorin exclaims: “There is not a single image on the wall - a bad sign!” In "Taman", the hero quotes the Book of the prophet Isaiah, albeit inaccurately: "On that day the dumb will cry out and the blind will see." In "Princess Mary" (an entry dated June 3), Grigory Alexandrovich, without any irony, argues that only "in the highest state of self-knowledge can a person appreciate the justice of God."
At the same time, in the well-known fragment “I was returning home through the empty lanes of the village ...” (“Fatalist”), Pechorin cannot help laughing, recalling that “there were once wise people who thought that the heavenly bodies were taking part in our insignificant disputes for a piece of land or some fictitious rights", people convinced that "the whole sky with its countless inhabitants looks at them with participation, although mute, but unchanged! .." The above quotes indicate that Pechorin's soul is tormented by doubts. The same fragment also indicates the reason for his doubts - "an involuntary fear that squeezes the heart at the thought of an inevitable end." The same “sadness of death” that torments Bela, forcing her to rush about, knocking off the bandage. This acute, painful feeling of the finitude of being may be familiar not only to the dying. The abstract idea of ​​the immortality of the soul at such moments may well seem faded and unconvincing. It can be assumed that Pechorin has to experience such doubts because his faith has weakened under the influence of a secular lifestyle, acquaintance with various newfangled trends, etc. However, Bela, a deeply religious woman who had never heard of any “materialism”, did not escape this torment of “death longing”. So the dependence here is rather the opposite: the fear of death leads to a weakening of faith.
Pechorin tries to overcome his doubts with the help of reason. “For a long time I have been living not with my heart, but with my head” - this recognition of the hero is fully confirmed by the content of the novel. And this despite the fact that in the work there is irrefutable evidence of the veracity of the voice of the heart - the story of the tragic death of Vulich. Why does this story not convince Pechorin of the need to listen to his heart? The voice of the heart is "unfounded", not based on any material arguments. “The seal of death on the pale face” of the lieutenant is too shaky, indefinite. You can't build any more or less convincing theory on this. And so "metaphysics" is thrown aside. Moreover, it follows from the context that this term used by Pechorin in the sense that the Dictionary of Foreign Words, for example, defines as “anti-scientific fabrications about the “spiritual principles” of being, about objects that are inaccessible to sensory experience” (1987, p. 306). Is it possible to remain a believer, relying on one bare mind?
To answer this question, it is necessary to arrange the stories in chronological order and follow the development of the character of the hero.
No one doubts that from a chronological point of view, the first in the chain of stories is "Taman". In this story, we see the hero full of energy and thirst for knowledge of the life of the hero. Only one shadow, flashed on the floor, encourages him to go on an adventure. And this despite the obvious danger: going down the same slope for the second time, Pechorin remarks: “I don’t understand how I didn’t break my neck.” However, danger is only a wonderful stimulus for active action, for the manifestation of unbending will.
In addition, Pechorin rushes towards adventures "with all the strength of youthful passion." The kiss of a stranger, which the author of the Journal evaluates as "fiery", evokes equally hot reciprocal feelings: "My eyes went dark, my head was spinning."
Quite Christianly, Grigory Alexandrovich shows mercy, reveals the ability to forgive his enemies. "What happened to the old woman and b-e-d-n-s-m blind- I don’t know, ”he laments about the fate of the man who robbed him a few hours ago.
True, Pechorin’s reasoning about the blind boy in particular and about “all the blind, crooked, deaf, dumb, legless, armless, hunchbacked” in general prompts the reader to recall A.S. Pushkin’s lines about the unfortunate Hermann from “ Queen of Spades"Having little true faith, he had many prejudices." Subsequently, it turns out that prejudice against people with handicapped it is necessary to add Pechorin's "irresistible disgust" to marriage, based on the fact that once in childhood an old woman predicted to him "death from an evil wife" ...
But is it fair to reproach Pechorin for having "little true faith"? There are almost no grounds for this in Taman. The only thing that is alarming in Pechorin's behavior in this story is that he does not give free rein to his good feelings - mercy, repentance; tries to drown out the voice of the heart with the arguments of reason: “... What do I care about the joys and misfortunes of people, me, a wandering officer, and even with a traveler for state business! ..”
In "Princess Mary" this feature of the hero's behavior is greatly enhanced. Grigory Alexandrovich not only laughs at feelings in a conversation with Mary, he simply poses before himself (or possible readers of the Journal?) with the ability to manipulate people, controlling his own feelings.
Thanks to the “system”, he gets the opportunity to meet alone with Vera, achieves Mary’s love, arranges for Grushnitsky to choose him as his attorney, as planned. Why does the “system” work so flawlessly? Last but not least, thanks to outstanding artistic data - the ability to take on a "deeply touched look" at the right moment. (How can one not recall Pushkin’s: “How quick and gentle his gaze was, // Shy and impudent, and sometimes // Shined with an obedient tear! ..”) And most importantly, such artistry is possible because the hero of the novel acts, completely neglecting own feelings.
Here Pechorin goes to the princess to say goodbye before leaving Kislovodsk to fortress N. By the way, was this visit really necessary? Surely, it was possible, referring to the suddenness of the departure, to send a note with apologies and wishes "to be happy and so on." However, Grigory Alexandrovich not only appears to the princess in person, but also insists on a meeting with Mary alone. For what purpose? Tell the deceived girl what plays in her eyes “the most pitiful and disgusting role”? And she wouldn't even know about it!
“No matter how I searched in my chest for at least a spark of love for dear Mary, my efforts were in vain,” Pechorin declares. Why, then, "the heart was beating strongly"? Why the irresistible desire to "fall at her feet"? Grigory Alexandrovich is cunning! “Her eyes sparkled wonderfully,” is the remark of a man in love, not the cold cynic he plays in this episode.
The feelings and behavior of the hero in the episode of Grushnitsky's murder are just as far from each other. And his role in this story is no less "pathetic and ugly."
“Like all boys, he has a claim to be an old man,” Grigory Aleksandrovich ironically over Grushnitsky (record dated June 5), which means that Pechorin is both older and more experienced than his friend. It is not difficult for him to make a toy out of a young friend. However, there is a threat that the behavior of the “toy” will get out of control. Destroy immediately!
Pechorin talks about his opponent a few minutes before the start of the duel: “... A spark of generosity could wake up in his soul, and then everything would work out for the better; but pride and weakness of character d-o-l-g-n-s
b-s-l-and triumph ... "A peaceful scenario is undesirable! The expected, demanded option is the second ... "I wanted to give myself the full right not to spare him if fate had mercy on me." In other words, "I want to kill him if I can" ... But at the same time, Pechorin has to risk his life ...
Grigory Alexandrovich is a subtle psychologist, he knows perfectly well that Grushnitsky is not one of those people who cold-bloodedly shoot an unarmed enemy in the forehead. Indeed, “he [Grushnitsky] blushed; he was ashamed to kill an unarmed man ... I was sure that he would shoot into the air! I am sure to such an extent that, when he sees a gun pointed at himself, he becomes furious: "An inexplicable rage boiled in my chest." However, Pechorin's expectations were completely justified: only the captain's cry: "Coward!" - makes Grushnitsky pull the trigger, and he shoots at the ground, no longer aiming.
It turned out ... "Finita la comedia ..."
Is Pechorin happy with his victory? “I had a stone in my heart. The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me, ”such is his state of mind after the duel. But after all, no one forced you, Grigory Alexandrovich, to shoot at this stupid, pitiful boy!
But this is not a fact. This is precisely the feeling that in these episodes, and not only in them, Pechorin does not act of his own free will.
“But there is an immense pleasure in the possession of a young, barely blossoming soul!” - Pechorin confesses in his Journal. Just think: how can a mortal person have an immortal soul? A person cannot... But if we agree that "there is a deep spiritual connection between the image of Pechorin and the Demon" (Kedrov, 1974), then everything falls into place. And it’s hard to disagree when so many coincidences have been revealed: both the scene (Caucasus), and the love plot (“The Demon” - the story of “Bela”), and specific episodes (The Demon looks at the dancing Tamara - Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych come to visit their father Bela; the meeting of the Demon and Tamara is the last meeting of Pechorin and Mary).
In addition, it is certainly not by chance that the novel almost ends with a mention of this off-stage character: “The devil pulled him to talk to a drunk at night! ..” exclaims Maxim Maksimych, after listening to Pechorin's story about the death of Vulich.
So Pechorin, who plays with people, is himself just an obedient toy in his hands. evil spirit, moreover, feeding it (the evil spirit) with spiritual energy: “I feel in myself this insatiable greed, absorbing everything that meets on the way; I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.
Pechorin himself feels that a certain force controls his actions: “How many times have I played the role of an ax in the hands of fate!” An unenviable role that brings Pechorin nothing but suffering. The trouble is that the great psychologist Pechorin cannot deal with his own feelings and his own soul. He has on one page of the "Journal" reasoning about the justice of God - and confessions, like: "My first pleasure is to subordinate everything that surrounds me to my will." The religious feeling has long been lost, the Demon has settled in the soul, and he continues to consider himself a Christian.
The murder of Grushnitsky did not pass without a trace. Grigory Alexandrovich was thinking about something when, after the duel, he “rides for a long time” alone, “throwing the reins, lowering his head to his chest.”
The second shock was for him the departure of Vera. It is impossible not to take advantage of Valery Mildon’s commentary on this event: “One circumstance, secondary in Lermontov’s novel, suddenly acquires a deep meaning: Pechorin’s only true, enduring love is called Vera. He parted with her forever, and she writes to him in a farewell letter: "No one can be as truly unhappy as you, because no one tries to convince himself otherwise."
What is it - "to assure otherwise"? Pechorin wants to assure himself that he has faith (hence hope). His desperate pursuit of the departed beloved is a metaphor of amazing power ... ”(Mildon, 2002)
The path to salvation opened before Pechorin - sincere repentance and prayer. That did not happen. "Thoughts have returned to normal order." And, leaving Kislovodsk, the hero leaves behind not only the corpse of his horse, but also the very possibility of rebirth. The return point has been passed. Onegin was resurrected by love - Pechorin's "disease" turned out to be too neglected.
Pechorin's further life path is the path of destruction of the hero's personality. In The Fatalist, he “jokingly” makes a bet with Vulich, in fact, provoking suicide, and he is not at all embarrassed by the “imprint of inevitable fate” on the face of the lieutenant. It's just that Pechorin really needs to find out if predestination exists. It is unbearable to think that only then did he come into the world to "play the role of an ax"! The author of the novel could not but be interested in this question, knowing that his grave awaits "without prayers and without a cross." However, the question remained open.
Pechorin's behavior in the story "Bela" cannot but arouse bewilderment and compassion in the reader. What made Grigory Alexandrovich decide to kidnap a sixteen-year-old girl? The absence in the fortress of the pretty daughter of the officer - Nastya? Or crazy love, sweeping away all obstacles in its path?
“I, a fool, thought that she was an angel sent to me by a compassionate fate,” the hero explains his act. As if it wasn’t him who was ironic in the “Journal” over the poets who “called women so many times angels that they really, in the simplicity of their souls, believed this compliment, forgetting that the same poets called Nero a demigod for money ...” Or did Grigory Alexandrovich think of something that prompted him to kill Grushnitsky? A drowning man, as you know, clutches at straws. However, the hero's feelings cooled faster than he himself expected. And were they? And he really does not feel anything, looking at the dying Bela!
And how Grigory Aleksandrovich used to love his enemies! They excited his blood, stimulated his will. But why not an enemy who killed Bela Kazbich ?! However, Pechorin did not lift a finger to punish the criminal. In general, if he does anything in “Bel”, then only by proxy.
Feelings are atrophied. Will weakened. Soul emptiness. And when Maxim Maksimych began to console his friend after Bela's death, Pechorin "raised his head and laughed ..." In an experienced person, "frost ran through the skin from this laughter ..." Did the devil himself laugh in the face of the staff captain?
“There is only one thing left for me: to travel. ...Maybe I’ll die somewhere on the road!” - the twenty-five-year-old hero argues, who until recently believed that "nothing will happen worse than death."
During our last meeting with Pechorin (the story "Maxim Maksimych"), we see a "spineless" (= weak-willed) person who has lost interest in his own past (he is indifferent to the fate of his "Journal", although once Grigory Alexandrovich thought: "That's it, whatever I throw into it will in time be a precious memory for me”), who does not expect anything from the future, who has lost touch not only with people, but also with his homeland.
In conclusion, it should be noted that in the “Book of the Prophet Isaiah” immediately before the line quoted by Pechorin, there is a warning that prompts reflection: “And the Lord said: since this people approaches me with their mouth, and honors me with their tongue, but their heart is far away from me, and their reverence for me is the study of the commandments of men, then, behold, I will still act unusually with this people, wonderfully and marvelously, so that the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and their understanding will not be.”
Notes

1.Kedrov Konstantin. Candidate's thesis "The epic basis of the Russian realistic novel of the 1st half of the 19th century." (1974)
Lermontov's tragic epic "A Hero of Our Time"
http://metapoetry.narod.ru/liter/lit18.htm
2. Mildon Valery. Lermontov and Kierkegaard: the Pechorin phenomenon. About one Russian-Danish parallel. October. 2002. No. 4. p.185
3. Dictionary of foreign words. M. 1987.

Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov is a brilliant poet, lyricist and true romantic. Creativity M.Yu. Lermontov is still relevant, it attracts with a deep meaning in every word, phrase. His work has been studied by many linguists, but it still retains some mystery.

In his first lyrical works, he is a truly Russian poet, in his works we see the indestructible strength of the spirit, but he surprised me with a strange joylessness in them. He ruthlessly condemns the youth of his time. Poetry is his torment, but also his strength. Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov owns the poems “Duma”, “Both boring and sad”, “Farewell, unwashed Russia ...”, “Death of a poet” and many others, as well as the famous truly Russian, which remains popular among Russian and foreign readers. V.G. Belinsky wrote: “There is something unsolved in this novel ...” and he was right, because he remains.

The novel has an unusual genre of travel writing, which sets us up for short description travels, as we later learn, of an itinerant officer, but we later come across the notes of another person. In addition, the chronology of the events of the novel is broken: first we see everything that the young man meets on the way, we observe his acquaintance with Maxim Maksimovich, we get acquainted with the history of the staff captain, then the travel notes of the hero-narrator are replaced by the journal of the guards officer Grigory Pechorin, which disrupts the composition of the novel.

The whole novel contains omissions and omissions, and the character of the protagonist is very complex and "multi-storied", he is also full of mysteries that each reader has his own special opinion about him.
So what is Pechorin really? When the novel was published, it caused a lot of responses and completely opposite assessments. Someone believed that the novel is moral, someone - that the novel does not contain deep meaning, someone was delighted with the novel, and someone severely criticized it.

Everyone understands him differently, for everyone the image of the hero is assembled from his actions, which can be condemned, but can be understood. Pechorin said: “Some revere me worse, others better than I really ... Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a bastard! Both will be false." It seems that the hero himself does not know who he is and what his goal in life is, but one thing is clear right away - the main character belongs to the young people of that time who were disappointed in life.

He has both good and bad qualities, because a person should not become the subject of an unambiguous and straightforward assessment, his soul is multifaceted, which was shown to us by M.Yu. Lermontov. Pechorin's personality is indeed very contradictory, which we see in his actions, in the manner of communicating with people.

Grigory Alexandrovich is a very smart and reasonable person, he knows how to admit his mistakes, but at the same time he wants to teach others to confess their own, as, for example, he tried to push Grushnitsky to admit his guilt and wanted to resolve their dispute peacefully. But the other side of Pechorin immediately appears, after some attempts to defuse the situation in a duel and call Grushnitsky to conscience, he himself offers to shoot in a dangerous place so that one of them dies. At the same time, the hero tries to turn everything into a joke, despite the fact that there is a threat to both the life of young Grushnitsky and his own life.

After the murder of Grushnitsky, we see , how much Pechorin's mood has changed: if on the way to the duel he notices how beautiful the day is, then after the tragic event he sees the day in black colors, there is a stone in his soul. I feel sorry for Pechorin, because, despite their bad deeds, she accepts her mistakes, in his journal he is very frank, frank with himself. Pechorin understands that he sometimes plays the role of an ax in the hands of fate, because he himself intervenes in the peaceful life of people and turns it upside down.

Not without reason in the work the chapters are located not in chronological order, M.Yu. Lermontov shows us the personality and soul of Pechorin with different parties, with each chapter we are more and more immersed in the novel, we find in Pechorin something that we did not notice characters novel. The author, as it were, makes us judges, gives us the most important information about him so that we can make our own decision.

Many people notice the similarity of Eugene Onegin A.S. Pushkin and Grigory Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov, because they lived at about the same time, they are both from a noble family, they do not accept much of secular life, they have a negative and negative attitude towards hypocrisy in secular society. They both suffer from blues, like many young people, only there is a significant difference between them and the rest - Onegin and Pechorin are not victims of "fashion" on. They are alone among the motley secular crowd, they are trying to find themselves in art, they go to travel. Pechorin and Onegin thought in a completely different way than their contemporaries thought.

Heroes are also prone to irony, which played a cruel joke on them. Despite many similarities, there are also differences. Throughout the novel "A Hero of Our Time" we see that Pechorin strives to find himself, he wants to subjugate circumstances, to awaken in himself a thirst for life, love, fear. Onegin does not aspire to all this, he is characterized by indifference to the world, to people. We see that the characters are quite similar, but there are differences. Pechorin and Onegin are each hero of their time, but in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, Onegin is presented precisely from the social side, and Pechorin - from the philosophical side.

Let us turn to the events that happened to Pechorin after his meeting with Grushnitsky on the waters. Main character there he met his former love - Vera, became friends with Grushnitsky, Princess Ligovskaya and Princess Mary. Pechorin knew that Grushnitsky was in love with Mary, so he tried to arouse jealousy in him, he played on the guy’s feelings in every possible way, manipulated Mary’s feelings, consciously gives her hope for reciprocity on his part, but at the same time she knows that she is acting shamelessly and selfishly.

In this chapter, because of his character, he addresses society as a destructive force. Pechorin says: “I love enemies, although not in a Christian way. They amuse me, excite the blood. As a result of his "game" he did not have fun, but only ruined the lives of Grushnitsky, Mary and Vera. He understood this only when Grushnitsky challenged him to a duel. Pechorin tried to correct the situation, but, moreover, did not deviate from his principles: “I decided to provide all the benefits to Grushnitsky; I wanted to experience it; a spark of generosity could awaken in his soul, and then everything would triple for the better.

But nothing happened. Innocent, according to Pechorin, the game turned against him. He lost a friend, love and broke the heart of an innocent girl who fell in love with a young cadet Grushnitsky. I agree with B.T. Udodov, who wrote: "Pechorin's misfortune and fault is that his independent self-knowledge, his free will turn into direct individualism."

Roman M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" will always attract the attention of readers, it will always be studied, because there are so many omissions and secrets in the novel. The protagonist of the novel, Grigory Pechorin, is the most controversial and complex character, he causes rather ambiguous assessments of critics and literary critics. Pechorin is often considered as one of those whose future is described in the poem by M.Yu. Lermontov "Duma". But Pechorin is indeed similar to Lermontov's contemporaries: "... And we hate, and we love by chance, / Without sacrificing anything to either anger or love ...".

At that time, the brighter was the individuality of a person, the deeper was her suffering from the contradiction between the life of secular society and environment. Pechorin was a real hero of that time, he stood out from the "water" society, he was himself, although he severely condemned himself in everything. One gets the impression that Pechorin is two different person: one is "the one who lives, acts, makes mistakes, and the second is the one who harshly condemns the first » .

At the same time, his self-esteem often does not coincide with what others think of him based on his actions. The novel teaches us on the example of Pechorin, shows us how to act and how not to. We see that we must learn to analyze our actions like the hero of a novel, but we must learn from our mistakes, try not to repeat them. Pechorin also teaches us prudence in his actions, but he likes to ironize situations, which is not always appropriate.

Pechorin is a very attention-grabbing hero, he studies himself, makes mistakes, thinks, he is honest, lives and acts as he sees fit, and this confirms that Pechorin is really a hero of his time.

Description of the presentation on individual slides:

1 slide

Description of the slide:

Final essay. Thematic direction Experience and mistakes. Prepared by: Shevchuk A.P., teacher of Russian and Literature MBOU"Secondary School No. 1", Bratsk

2 slide

Description of the slide:

Recommended reading list: Jack London "Martin Eden", A.P. Chekhov "Ionych", M.A. Sholokhov " Quiet Don”, Henry Marsh “Do No Harm” M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" "The Tale of Igor's Campaign." A. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter"; "Eugene Onegin". M. Lermontov "Masquerade"; "Hero of Our Time" I. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"; "Spring Waters"; " Noble Nest". F. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"; "Anna Karenina"; "Sunday". A. Chekhov "Gooseberry"; "About love". I. Bunin "The Gentleman from San Francisco"; " Dark alleys". A.Kupin "Olesya"; " Garnet bracelet". M. Bulgakov dog's heart»; "Fatal Eggs". O. Wilde "Portrait of Dorian Gray". D. Keyes "Flowers for Algernon". V. Kaverin "Two captains"; "Painting"; "I'm going to the mountain." A. Aleksin "Mad Evdokia". B. Ekimov "Speak, mother, speak." L. Ulitskaya "The Case of Kukotsky"; "Sincerely yours Shurik."

3 slide

Description of the slide:

Official commentary: Within the framework of the direction, discussions are possible about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, people, humanity as a whole, about the price of mistakes on the way to knowing the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes us think about the relationship between experience and mistakes: about experience that prevents mistakes, about mistakes, without which it is impossible to move forward. life path, and about irreparable, tragic mistakes.

4 slide

Description of the slide:

Guidelines: "Experience and mistakes" - a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is implied to a lesser extent, because without mistakes there is no and cannot be experience. Literary hero, making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, changes, improves, embarks on the path of spiritual and moral development. Giving an assessment of the actions of the characters, the reader acquires his invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make one's own mistakes, the price of which can be very high. Speaking about the mistakes made by the heroes, it should be noted that it is wrong decision, an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also most fatally affect the fate of others. In literature, we also encounter such tragic mistakes that affect the fate of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic direction.

5 slide

Description of the slide:

Aphorisms and sayings famous people:  One should not be shy for fear of making mistakes, the most big mistake is to deprive yourself of experience. Luc de Clapier Vauvenargues  You can make mistakes in various ways, you can only do the right thing in one way, that's why the first is easy, and the second is difficult; easy to miss, hard to hit. Aristotle  In all matters we can only learn by trial and error, falling into error and correcting ourselves. Karl Raimund Popper  The one who thinks that he will not be mistaken if others think for him is deeply mistaken. Avreliy Markov  We easily forget our mistakes when they are known only to us alone. François de La Rochefoucauld  Take advantage of every mistake. Ludwig Wittgenstein  Shame can be appropriate everywhere, but not in the matter of admitting one's mistakes. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing  It is easier to find a mistake than the truth. Johann Wolfgang Goethe

6 slide

Description of the slide:

As a support in your reasoning, you can refer to the following works. F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Raskolnikov, killing Alena Ivanovna and confessing to his deed, does not fully realize the whole tragedy of the crime he committed, does not recognize the fallacy of his theory, he only regrets that he could not transgress, that he cannot now consider himself among the elect. And only in penal servitude the soul-worn hero does not just repent (he repented, confessing to the murder), but embarks on the difficult path of repentance. The writer emphasizes that a person who admits his mistakes is able to change, he is worthy of forgiveness and needs help and compassion. (In the novel, next to the hero, Sonya Marmeladova, who is an example of a compassionate person).

7 slide

Description of the slide:

M.A. Sholokhov "The Fate of Man", K.G. Paustovsky "Telegram". The heroes of such different works make a similar fatal mistake, which I will regret all my life, but, unfortunately, nothing can be fixed. Andrei Sokolov, leaving for the front, repels his wife hugging him, the hero is annoyed by her tears, he is angry, believing that she is "burying him alive", but it turns out the opposite: he returns, and the family dies. This loss is a terrible grief for him, and now he blames himself for every little thing and says with inexpressible pain: “Until my death, until my last hour, I will die, and I won’t forgive myself for pushing her away then!”

8 slide

Description of the slide:

The story of K.G. Paustovsky is a story about lonely old age. Abandoned by her own daughter, grandmother Katerina writes: “My beloved, I will not survive this winter. Come for a day. Let me look at you, hold your hands. But Nastya calms herself with the words: "Since the mother writes, it means she is alive." Thinking about strangers, organizing an exhibition of a young sculptor, her daughter forgets about her only loved one. And only after hearing warm words of gratitude “for caring for a person,” the heroine recalls that she has a telegram in her purse: “Katya is dying. Tikhon. Repentance comes too late: “Mom! How could this happen? Because I don't have anyone in my life. No, and it will not be dearer. If only to be in time, if only she would see me, if only she would forgive me. The daughter arrives, but there is no one to ask for forgiveness. The bitter experience of the main characters teaches the reader to be attentive to loved ones "before it's too late."

9 slide

Description of the slide:

M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" The hero of the novel M.Yu. also makes a series of mistakes in his life. Lermontov. Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin belongs to the young people of his era who were disappointed in life. Pechorin himself says about himself: "Two people live in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him." Lermontov's character is energetic, clever man, but he cannot find application for his mind, his knowledge. Pechorin is a cruel and indifferent egoist, because he causes misfortune to everyone with whom he communicates, and he does not care about the condition of other people. V.G. Belinsky called him a "suffering egoist", because Grigory Alexandrovich blames himself for his actions, he is aware of his actions, worries, and nothing brings him satisfaction.

10 slide

Description of the slide:

Grigory Alexandrovich is a very smart and reasonable person, he knows how to admit his mistakes, but at the same time he wants to teach others to confess their own, as, for example, he tried to push Grushnitsky to admit his guilt and wanted to resolve their dispute peacefully. But the other side of Pechorin immediately appears: after some attempts to defuse the situation in a duel and call Grushnitsky to conscience, he himself offers to shoot in a dangerous place so that one of them dies. At the same time, the hero tries to turn everything into a joke, despite the fact that there is a threat to both the life of young Grushnitsky and his own life.

11 slide

Description of the slide:

After the murder of Grushnitsky, we see how Pechorin's mood has changed: if on the way to the duel he notices how beautiful the day is, then after the tragic event he sees the day in black colors, there is a stone in his soul. The story of the disappointed and dying Pechorin soul is set forth in the hero's diary entries with all the ruthlessness of introspection; being both the author and the hero of the "magazine", Pechorin fearlessly speaks about his ideal impulses, and about dark sides of his soul, and about the contradictions of consciousness. The hero is aware of his mistakes, but does nothing to correct them, his own experience does not teach him anything. Despite the fact that Pechorin has an absolute understanding that he destroys human lives (“destroys the lives of peaceful smugglers”, Bela dies through his fault, etc.), the hero continues to “play” with the fates of others, which makes himself unhappy .

12 slide

Description of the slide:

L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". If the hero of Lermontov, realizing his mistakes, could not take the path of spiritual and moral improvement, then the beloved heroes of Tolstoy, the experience gained helps to become better. When considering the topic in this aspect, one can refer to the analysis of the images of A. Bolkonsky and P. Bezukhov. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky sharply stands out from the high society environment with his education, breadth of interests, dreams of accomplishing a feat, wishes for great personal glory. His idol is Napoleon. To achieve his goal, Bolkonsky appears in the most dangerous places of the battle. The harsh military events contributed to the fact that the prince is disappointed in his dreams, he understands how bitterly he was mistaken. Seriously wounded, remaining on the battlefield, Bolkonsky is experiencing a mental breakdown. At these moments, before him opens new world where there are no selfish thoughts, lies, but only the purest, highest, and fairest.

13 slide

Description of the slide:

The prince realized that there is something more significant in life than war and glory. Now the former idol seems to him petty and insignificant. survived further developments- the appearance of a child and the death of his wife - Bolkonsky comes to the conclusion that he only has to live for himself and his loved ones. This is only the first stage in the evolution of the hero, not only admitting his mistakes, but also striving to become better. Pierre also makes a considerable series of mistakes. He leads a wild life in the company of Dolokhov and Kuragin, but he understands that such a life is not for him. He cannot immediately correctly assess people and therefore often makes mistakes in them. He is sincere, trusting, weak-willed.

14 slide

Description of the slide:

These character traits are clearly manifested in the relationship with the depraved Helen Kuragina - Pierre makes another mistake. Soon after the marriage, the hero realizes that he has been deceived, and "processes his grief alone in himself." After a break with his wife, being in a state of deep crisis, he joins the Masonic lodge. Pierre believes that it is here that he "will find a rebirth to a new life," and again he realizes that he is again mistaken in something important. The experience gained and the “thunderstorm of 1812” lead the hero to drastic changes in his worldview. He understands that one must live for the sake of people, one must strive to benefit the Motherland.

15 slide

Description of the slide:

M.A. Sholokhov "Quiet Don". Speaking about how the experience of military battles changes people, makes them evaluate their life mistakes, we can refer to the image of Grigory Melekhov. Fighting on the side of the whites, then on the side of the reds, he understands what a monstrous injustice is around, and he himself makes mistakes, gains military experience and draws the most important conclusions in his life: "... my hands need to plow." Home, family - that's the value. And any ideology that pushes people to kill is a mistake. already wise life experience a person understands that the main thing in life is not war, but a son meeting at the threshold of the house. It is worth noting that the hero admits that he was wrong. This is the reason for his repeated throwing from white to red.

16 slide

Description of the slide:

M.A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog". If we talk about experience as “a procedure for reproducing some phenomenon experimentally, creating something new under certain conditions for the purpose of research”, then the practical experience of Professor Preobrazhensky to “clarify the issue of survival of the pituitary gland, and later on its influence on rejuvenation organism in humans” can hardly be called successful in full measure. FROM scientific point he is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation. The scientific result turned out to be unexpected and impressive, but in everyday life it led to the most deplorable consequences.

17 slide

Description of the slide:

The type who appeared in the professor's house as a result of the operation, "small in stature and unsympathetic in appearance", behaves defiantly, arrogantly and arrogantly. However, it should be noted that the humanoid creature that has appeared easily finds itself in a changed world, but does not differ in human qualities and soon becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the whole house. After analyzing his mistake, the professor realizes that the dog was much more “human” than P.P. Sharikov.

18 slide

Description of the slide:

Thus, we are convinced that Sharikov's humanoid hybrid is more of a failure than a victory for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: "Old donkey ... Here, doctor, what happens when the researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge." Philipp Philippovich comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results. In the story “Heart of a Dog”, the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into a dog. He is content with his fate and himself. But in life, such experiments have a tragic effect on the fate of people, warns Bulgakov. Actions should be considered and not be destructive. the main idea The writer is that bare progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people and such a mistake will be irreversible.

19 slide

Description of the slide:

V.G. Rasputin "Farewell to Matera" Speaking about the mistakes that are irreparable and bring suffering not only to each individual person, but to the people as a whole, one can also refer to the specified story of the writer of the twentieth century. This is not just a story about loss. home but also about how erroneous decisions lead to catastrophes that will inevitably affect the life of society as a whole. The plot of the story is based on real story. During the construction of the hydroelectric power station on the Angara, the surrounding villages were flooded. Resettlement has become a painful phenomenon for residents of flooded areas. After all, hydroelectric power plants are built for a large number of people.

20 slide

Description of the slide:

This is an important economic project, for the sake of which it is necessary to restructure, not to cling to the old. But can this decision be called unambiguously correct? Residents of the flooded Matera move to a village built not in a human way. The mismanagement with which huge amounts of money are spent hurts the writer's soul painfully. The fertile lands will be flooded, and in the village built on the northern slope of the hill, on stones and clay, nothing will grow. Gross intervention in nature will necessarily entail environmental problems. But for the writer, they are not so much important as the spiritual life of people. For Rasputin, it is quite clear that the collapse, the disintegration of a nation, a people, a country, begins with the disintegration of the family.

21 slide

Description of the slide:

And the reason for this is a tragic mistake, which consists in the fact that progress is much more important than the souls of old people saying goodbye to their home. And there is no repentance in the hearts of young people. Wise with life experience, the older generation does not want to leave their native island, not because they cannot appreciate all the benefits of civilization, but primarily because they demand to give Matera for these amenities, that is, to betray their past. And the suffering of the elderly is the experience that each of us must learn. A person cannot, must not renounce his roots. In reasoning on this topic, one can turn to history and the catastrophes that the “economic” activity of man entailed. Rasputin's story is not just a story about great construction projects, it is a tragic experience of previous generations as a warning to us, people of the 21st century.

22 slide

Description of the slide:

The writing. “Experience is the teacher of everything” (Gaius Julius Caesar) As a person grows up, he learns, drawing knowledge from books, on schoolwork in conversations and relationships with other people. In addition, an important influence is exerted by the environment, the traditions of the family and the people as a whole. Learning, the child receives a lot theoretical knowledge, but the ability to put them into practice is necessary in order to acquire a skill, to gain one's own experience. In other words, you can read the encyclopedia of life and know the answer to any question, but in reality, only personal experience, that is, practice, and without this unique experience a person will not be able to live a bright, full, rich life. Authors of many works fiction they depict heroes in dynamics to show how each person develops his personality and goes his own way.

23 slide

Description of the slide:

Let us turn to the novels of Anatoly Rybakov "Children of the Arbat", "Fear", "Thirty-fifth and other years", "Dust and Ashes". Before the reader's eyes passes the difficult fate of the protagonist Sasha Pankratov. At the beginning of the story, this is a sympathetic guy, an excellent student, a school graduate and a first-year student. He is confident in his rightness, in his future, in the party, his friends, he is an open person, ready to help those in need. It is because of his sense of justice that he suffers. Sasha is sent into exile, and suddenly he finds himself an enemy of the people, completely alone, far from home, convicted under a political article. Throughout the trilogy, the reader observes the formation of Sasha's personality. All his friends turn away from him, except for the girl Varya, who selflessly waits for him, helping his mother overcome the tragedy.

25 slide

Description of the slide:

The story of the girl Cosette is shown in Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables. Her mother was forced to give her baby to the family of the innkeeper Thenardier. They treated a child there very badly. Cosette saw how the owners pampered and loved own daughters who were smartly dressed, played and played naughty all day. Like any child, Cosette also wanted to play, but she was forced to clean the tavern, go to the forest to the spring for water, sweep the street. She was dressed in miserable rags, and slept in a closet under the stairs. Bitter experience taught her not to cry, not to complain, but silently obey the orders of Aunt Thenardier. When, by the will of fate, Jean Valjean snatched the girl from the clutches of Thenardier, she did not know how to play, did not know what to do with herself. The poor child learned to laugh again, to play with dolls again, passing his days carefree. However, in the future, it was this bitter experience that helped Cosette become modest, with a pure heart and an open soul.

26 slide

Description of the slide:

Thus, our reasoning allows us to formulate the following conclusion. It is personal experience that teaches a person about life. Whatever this experience, bitter or blissful, it is our own, experienced, and the lessons of life teach us, shaping character and educating personality.