The relevance of the story "Dog Heart". Is M. A. Bulgakov modern?

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 relevance of the story “Dog Heart”, and explain why this composition is not only eternal, but also topical.

The devastation in the same place where it was 100 years ago

The most famous adage (quote) from the work of M. A. Bulgakov: “Devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads” remains valid for today. The story was released in 1925, almost 100 years ago, almost without a trace. Since then, nothing has changed. Yes, people started talking on mobile phones, the message became faster. The world has become very small thanks to the Internet, but the Russian people themselves have changed little.

All this makes the relevance of the story “Dog Heart” undeniable.

No matter how bitter it is to admit, but now there are people who turn someone else's porch (and sometimes their own) into a public toilet, and to explain to them that this is not good, there is no way, because their parents raised them badly.

The general decline in education and culture (not only intellectual, but also everyday) also does not add optimism. Children sometimes grow up without understanding the elementary rules of decency. But the younger generation is not too guilty of this. Parents have no time to instill in them “good and bright”, they must earn money, and today's main “nannies” are TV and the Internet. It is clear that nothing good can be expected here. This creates "devastation in the head." Another sad answer to the rhetorical question about the relevance of the story “Dog Heart”.

Cult "Artist" as the main symptom of the disease of time

The generation brought up on MUZ-TV and MTV grew up with the conviction that being an artist, dancer, and musician is “cool”, and all other professions “it's bad”. The Soviet formula: “All professions are important, all professions are needed” - has sunk into oblivion. In other words, a strange time has come when everyone wants to just have fun and entertain - to “sing in chorus” instead of working. People believe that the world is large enough, and, according to this logic, there will certainly be someone who will work for the benefit of the common cause in a profession not related to creativity. In other words: "Someone, but not me."

Wasn't F.F. Preobrazhensky talking about this state of things? Is the reader still asking himself a question about the relevance of Dog Heart?

There is nothing wrong with giving a chance to “ordinary guys and girls” to break into the creative Olympus. But for some reason it seems that real talent is a rare thing, and all sorts of reality shows seem to legitimize idleness, while raising a generation of individualists and egoists who do not care about the country, they are only interested in personal welfare. It is one thing when people succeed, and quite another when they simply dissolve in the mass. Of course, singing after the show on TV in restaurants is not an unloading of cars, but this makes no sense.

F.F. Preobrazhensky spoke about this one way or another: the Russian man suffers from the fact that in his social reality (and, accordingly, in life) there is no sense, but he is too lazy to equip it on his own, it is easier for him to urinate in the front and steal galoshes (or look for yourself all your life). Since then, unfortunately, little has changed, this removes the question of the relevance of the story “Dog Heart” in our time.

In place of the "ball" and "shvondery" came "consumer"

And it is not yet clear which phenomenon is worse. Of course, the "consumer" is more cultured, smarter, but it makes the world tremble for other reasons than the "schwonders" and the "balloons". As a rule, the “consumer” is under-educated, but he has an opinion on everything: about high art, high fashion, and good literature. It controls the flow of cash and any other flows. In a world where a lot of things are subject to rating, the "consumer" controls everything, because he is the embodied majority. Bulgakov guessed in his work the general type, which in the 20th century flooded Europe, and in the 21st reached Russia. Is it worth asking yourself what is the relevance of the “Dog Heart” story today?

In 1930, Jose Ortega y Gasset's cult book, The Rise of the Masses, was published. 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 consumer consciousness, he really became the master of life. All modern civilization is built according to its needs.

Is the man angry or kind? The opinion of Bulgakov

M. A. Bulgakov is quite pessimistic about the nature of man. Not in vain did he contrast the “good” animal and the “evil” man in his novel. There was a good dog, he became 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" not only did not live up to the hopes of the creator, but allowed Soviet reality into its quiet and comfortable life with all its abomination. For Bulgakov, there was no charm in her and no pluses - one dirt.

And if the result of the Bulgakov experiment fit into one lapidary wording, then it will be like this: "A good dog is better than a bad person." It seems that many modern people subscribe to this idea , which plays into the hands of the work of the Russian classic when answering the question of what is the relevance of Bulgakov’s novel “Dog Heart”.

In the end, I want to say only one thing, imitating I. Volgin: “Read and re-read the classics, revealing in it more and more new meanings.”