“My attitude to the works of Sholokhov. An essay on the topic of my attitude to the works of Sholokhov What does my attitude to the work mean

I really liked Fonvizin's comedy "Undergrowth", as it contains many instructive thoughts that are useful to me

My attention was attracted by Starodum. Starodum breaks into the Prostakovs' house like the Spirit of Enlightenment. He talks on such important topics as education, family, dignity. It was interesting for me to read his speeches, because I learned a lot about good manners, honesty and virtue.

I really liked his statement: “A nobleman is not worthy of being a nobleman! I don’t know anything meaner in the world.” I agree with him, since the title of a nobleman must be earned, and not just inherited.

What is a noble state without noble deeds? I do not think that noble fortune deserves more respect than noble deeds.

Wealth does not adorn a person as much as good, disinterested deeds.

There were many funny moments in the comedy, but most of all I liked Mitrofanushka's exam. He was sixteen years old, but he could not distinguish a noun from an adjective: “Door? This? Adjective?

I believe that the final punishment of Prostakova is natural, because because of her self-interest and thirst for power, she wanted to forcibly marry Sophia to Mitrofanushka. But evil is always punished.

I liked the comedy because it describes topics that are interesting to me: education and upbringing. I enjoyed reading about the upbringing and education of that time. I think this is the most instructive work of the 18th century.

Updated: 2017-01-26

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

The writing

Before me is an article by V. Marchenko "Our Daily Bread" ("Literary Russia".). I read: “Stalin’s collectivization… through the efforts of the leaders of the revolution turned the Russian (and not only Russian) peasant into a farm laborer, alienated from the land, deprived of traditions, wise comprehension of rural life… Not a single society in the entire world history, not a single state allowed itself the luxury of hating so their peasantry as ours…”. Heavy, cruel words. More and more like them are heard from the stands, in various speeches and reports. Yes, the "great turning point" in the countryside, the "revolution from above" turned out to be unnecessary, destructive, leading to a dead end. The causes of the tragedy and its perpetrators are mostly known, although historians still have a lot of work to do. But most people draw their idea of ​​a particular era not from the works of scientists, but from fiction. And our descendants will judge collectivization by novels and short stories. But a more vivid work about that time than “Virgin Soil Upturned” has not yet been created. It is not for nothing that publicists, when speaking about the period of collectivization, often take examples from Sholokhov.

This novel, no matter how one judges it, has firmly and forever entered the golden fund of Russian literature. In the history of literature, we will read that many have written about the era of collectivization. Why are Bars by F. Panferov, Bast shoes by P. Zamoysky and other works forgotten, while Sholokhov's novel lives on? The work has many merits. It is written in the language of a master, the book is full of genuine humor, beautiful descriptions of nature, easy to read. The Cossack life is excellently described, the language and way of thinking of the Cossacks are accurately and vividly reproduced. Reading the book carefully, comparing it with the facts that have become known, with later works about the village of the 20-30s by V. Belov, B. Mozhaev, A. Antonov and others, we will see that Sholokhov in most cases accurately reflected era. The doubts and hesitations of the peasants (justified!), the mass slaughter of cattle, the coercion of the Cossacks with a pistol, the complete arbitrariness during dispossession, the dispossession of the middle peasants, the confusion of the authorities after the release of Stalin's hypocritical article "Dizziness from Success" and much more are depicted by the writer vividly and truthfully.

But, speaking about the book and the attitude towards it, you always experience some kind of duality. Indeed, along with the truth, Sholokhov also allows its distortion to please political demands. So, in the novel, a former White Guard creates a secret organization, the Union for the Liberation of the Don, in order to overthrow Soviet power. It is known that these organizations were invented by Stalin and his entourage in order to justify arbitrariness and repression. And the murder of Davydov and Nagulnov? Historians have long proved that stories about the horrors of the "kulak terror" served as a cover for terror against the peasants. And many times fewer leaders were killed by robbed and embittered peasants than were killed by the chairmen of collective farms by the authorities themselves. Nevertheless, I think Sholokhov, like many of our cultural figures of that time, sincerely believed that the country was building a wonderful future. The youth of the writer passed in the fire of the Civil War. Perhaps that is why violence did not seem to him as terrible as we do.

It is known that Mikhail Alexandrovich himself was engaged in the creation of collective farms, struggled with shortcomings, mistakes and excesses in the collective farm movement on the Don, saved many honest communists, Soviet workers, and ordinary workers from unreasonable repressions. It probably seemed to him that these difficulties and "excesses" could be overcome, that happy days would indeed come in the life of the peasants. In the second part of "Virgin Soil Upturned", written 20 years later, it is felt that the author is writing without the former enthusiasm and optimism. I personally like the novel "Virgin Soil Upturned". I am heartily amused at the antics and stories of grandfather Shchukar, I worry with Kondrat Maidannikov and other Cossacks when they “with tears and blood” tear “the umbilical cord that connects ... with property, with bulls, with the native share of the land.” It's funny how Makar Nagulnov learns English, listens to roosters at night. I pity Davydov, who is tormented because he cannot break with Lushka, and I admire Varya Kharlamova and her pure feeling for Davydov. I feel sorry for the handsome Timofey Rvany to tears. Real life is described in the novel.

But there is nothing in this work that has always distinguished Russian literature. Apparently, there is a lack of humanism. Indeed, in almost all the scenes in which arbitrariness is described, the author, as it were, silently sympathizes with the rapists. The fate of "Virgin Soil Upturned" proves once again that one cannot serve an idea that calls for building happiness with the help of cruelty. The writer is first of all a philanthropist, and only then a politician. Sholokhov, fulfilling Stalin's order, seemed to justify with his talent those unheard-of outrages and lawlessness that were done to the peasantry. The attitude towards the characters of the novel is also contradictory. This is especially true for Davydov and Nagulnov. The former Baltic sailor, locksmith of the Krasnoputilovsky plant captivates with his strength, honesty, ability to understand and admit mistakes, lack of arrogance. We sympathize with him when he works hard to plow his tithe. It is impossible not to grieve over his death. But we cannot but marvel at the ease with which this city dweller undertakes to judge agriculture. We are repulsed by his attitude towards the “kulaks”. Never once would he be visited by the thought that these are, first of all, people who have the same right to happiness, life and freedom as he does! After a conversation with the secretary of the district committee, he reflects; “Why can’t he - to the nail? No bro, I'm sorry! Through your tolerance of faith, you disbanded the fist ... with its root as a pest. Makar Nagulnov is devoted to the idea of ​​world revolution to the marrow of his bones. This is a person who personally does not need anything, an ascetic who lives for the sake of higher interests. But it becomes scary when you read his confessions: “Zha-le-e-sh? Yes, I ... put thousands of grandfathers, kids, women at once ... Yes, tell me that they need to be sprayed ... For the revolution it is necessary ... I shoot them with a machine gun ... ". Is it not like Nagulnov, with a light heart for the sake of the "revolution" and destroyed thousands of innocent people? Makar does not only speak. He does not think of using force to force the Cossacks to surrender their grain.

Not! It is not force, not coercion that raises people to a real, happy life. A person must feel that he is the master of his own destiny, and not a cog in a huge state machine. A person wants to be the master of the earth not in a song, but on his own, albeit a small, plot. He must eat bread grown on his land and by his own hands, and not "released" by the authorities. Today, laws reviving the peasantry have already been adopted. The revival of the Cossacks began. The novel "Virgin Soil Upturned" is an outstanding work, despite all the shortcomings. It will always remain a monument to the life of the Cossacks, historical evidence of a difficult era, a reminder that a bright future cannot be built on violence.

Before me is an article by V. Marchenko "Our Daily Bread" ("Literary Russia".). I read: “Stalin’s collectivization… through the efforts of the leaders of the revolution turned the Russian (and not only Russian) peasant into a farm laborer, alienated from the land, deprived of traditions, wise comprehension of rural life… Not a single society in the entire world history, not a single state allowed itself the luxury of hating so their peasantry as ours…”. Heavy, cruel words. More and more like them are heard from the stands, in various speeches and reports. Yes, the "great turning point" in the countryside, the "revolution from above" turned out to be unnecessary, destructive, leading to a dead end. The causes of the tragedy and its perpetrators are mostly known, although historians still have a lot of work to do. But most people draw their idea of ​​a particular era not from the works of scientists, but from fiction. And our descendants will judge collectivization by novels and short stories. But a more vivid work about that time than “Virgin Soil Upturned” has not yet been created. It is not for nothing that publicists, when speaking about the period of collectivization, often take examples from Sholokhov.

This novel, no matter how one judges it, has firmly and forever entered the golden fund of Russian literature. In the history of literature, we will read that many have written about the era of collectivization. Why are Bars by F. Panferov, Bast shoes by P. Zamoysky and other works forgotten, while Sholokhov's novel lives on? The work has many merits. It is written in the language of a master, the book is full of genuine humor, beautiful descriptions of nature, easy to read. The Cossack life is excellently described, the language and way of thinking of the Cossacks are accurately and vividly reproduced. Reading the book carefully, comparing it with the facts that have become known, with later works about the village of the 20-30s by V. Belov, B. Mozhaev, A. Antonov and others, we will see that Sholokhov in most cases accurately reflected era. The doubts and hesitations of the peasants (justified!), the mass slaughter of cattle, the coercion of the Cossacks with a pistol, the complete arbitrariness during dispossession, the dispossession of the middle peasants, the confusion of the authorities after the release of Stalin's hypocritical article "Dizziness from Success" and much more are depicted by the writer vividly and truthfully.

But, speaking about the book and the attitude towards it, you always experience some kind of duality. Indeed, along with the truth, Sholokhov also allows its distortion to please political demands. So, in the novel, a former White Guard creates a secret organization, the Union for the Liberation of the Don, in order to overthrow Soviet power. It is known that these organizations were invented by Stalin and his entourage in order to justify arbitrariness and repression. And the murder of Davydov and Nagulnov? Historians have long proved that stories about the horrors of the "kulak terror" served as a cover for terror against the peasants. And many times fewer leaders were killed by robbed and embittered peasants than were killed by the chairmen of collective farms by the authorities themselves. Nevertheless, I think Sholokhov, like many of our cultural figures of that time, sincerely believed that the country was building a wonderful future. The youth of the writer passed in the fire of the Civil War. Perhaps that is why violence did not seem to him as terrible as we do.

It is known that Mikhail Alexandrovich himself was engaged in the creation of collective farms, struggled with shortcomings, mistakes and excesses in the collective farm movement on the Don, saved many honest communists, Soviet workers, and ordinary workers from unreasonable repressions. It probably seemed to him that these difficulties and "excesses" could be overcome, that happy days would indeed come in the life of the peasants. In the second part of "Virgin Soil Upturned", written 20 years later, it is felt that the author is writing without the former enthusiasm and optimism. I personally like the novel "Virgin Soil Upturned". I am heartily amused at the antics and stories of grandfather Shchukar, I worry with Kondrat Maidannikov and other Cossacks when they “with tears and blood” tear “the umbilical cord that connects ... with property, with bulls, with the native share of the land.” It's funny how Makar Nagulnov learns English, listens to roosters at night. I pity Davydov, who is tormented because he cannot break with Lushka, and I admire Varya Kharlamova and her pure feeling for Davydov. I feel sorry for the handsome Timofey Rvany to tears. Real life is described in the novel.

But there is nothing in this work that has always distinguished Russian literature. Apparently, there is a lack of humanism. Indeed, in almost all the scenes in which arbitrariness is described, the author, as it were, silently sympathizes with the rapists. The fate of "Virgin Soil Upturned" proves once again that one cannot serve an idea that calls for building happiness with the help of cruelty. The writer is first of all a philanthropist, and only then a politician. Sholokhov, fulfilling Stalin's order, seemed to justify with his talent those unheard-of outrages and lawlessness that were done to the peasantry. The attitude towards the characters of the novel is also contradictory. This is especially true for Davydov and Nagulnov. The former Baltic sailor, locksmith of the Krasnoputilovsky plant captivates with his strength, honesty, ability to understand and admit mistakes, lack of arrogance. We sympathize with him when he works hard to plow his tithe. It is impossible not to grieve over his death. But we cannot but marvel at the ease with which this city dweller undertakes to judge agriculture. We are repulsed by his attitude towards the “kulaks”. Never once would he be visited by the thought that these are, first of all, people who have the same right to happiness, life and freedom as he does! After a conversation with the secretary of the district committee, he reflects; “Why can’t he - to the nail? No bro, I'm sorry! Through your tolerance of faith, you disbanded the fist ... with its root as a pest. Makar Nagulnov is devoted to the idea of ​​world revolution to the marrow of his bones. This is a person who personally does not need anything, an ascetic who lives for the sake of higher interests. But it becomes scary when you read his confessions: “Zha-le-e-sh? Yes, I ... put thousands of grandfathers, kids, women at once ... Yes, tell me that they need to be sprayed ... For the revolution it is necessary ... I shoot them with a machine gun ... ". Is it not like Nagulnov, with a light heart for the sake of the "revolution" and destroyed thousands of innocent people? Makar does not only speak. He is not. thinks of using force to force the Cossacks to hand over their grain.

Not! It is not force, not coercion that raises people to a real, happy life. A person must feel that he is the master of his own destiny, and not a cog in a huge state machine. A person wants to be the master of the earth not in a song, but on his own, albeit a small, plot. He must eat bread grown on his land and by his own hands, and not "released" by the authorities. Today, laws reviving the peasantry have already been adopted. The revival of the Cossacks began. The novel "Virgin Soil Upturned" is an outstanding work, despite all the shortcomings. It will always remain a monument to the life of the Cossacks, historical evidence of a difficult era, a reminder that a bright future cannot be built on violence.

My attitude to the works of Sholokhov

Other essays on the topic:

1. In the work of Sholokhov, while maintaining the classical conflicts of Russian literature, the tragedy of a person's collision with the fatal forces of fate is shown. Works by this author...
2. Upturned virgin soil (ideological and artistic content) The name of MA Sholokhov is known to all mankind. His outstanding role in the world literature of the XX century is not...
3. Russian writer Mikhail Sholokhov was born on May 11 in the Kruzhilinsky farm of the village of Veshenskaya into a peasant family. He studied at the parochial school, with ...
4. Sholokhov's mother - from a peasant family, his father - a native of the Ryazan province, sowed bread on purchased Cossack land, was a clerk, ...
5. Collectivization is shown as forced: even a mild-mannered Razmetnov is sure: “We will turn their horns. Everyone will be on the collective farm!” Or: "Come out...
6. “The Fate of a Man” by Sholokhov The name of M. A. Sholokhov is known to all mankind. His outstanding role in the world literature of the 20th century cannot...
7. My attitude towards Napoleon What attitude can a Russian have towards Napoleon if he tried to conquer his Motherland? Let...
8. Mikhail Sholokhov, everyone opens it in their own way. Everyone likes their hero of Sholokhov's stories. This is understandable. After all, the fate of the heroes, the problems raised ...
9. The Hereditary Cossack himself, the writer M. Sholokhov, preserved for us the brightness and accuracy of Cossack speech, its imagery, showed the worldly wisdom of this ...
10. Sholokhov's predecessors and contemporaries wrote about the difficulties of the revolution in Russia, recreating the stages that caused the complex and severe collisions of those years. M....
11. After a meeting with Varyukha-Goryukha, Semyon found out what real, great love is. Creating an individual character or mass scenes, Sholokhov paid a lot of attention to...
12. The story was written in 1956 during Khrushchev's "thaw". Sholokhov was a participant in the Great Patriotic War. There he heard the story of life...

Before me is an article by V. Marchenko "Our Daily Bread" ("Literary Russia".). I read: “Stalin’s collectivization… through the efforts of the leaders of the revolution turned the Russian (and not only Russian) peasant into a farm laborer, alienated from the land, deprived of traditions, wise comprehension of rural life… Not a single society in the entire world history, not a single state allowed itself the luxury of hating so their peasantry as ours…”. Heavy, cruel words. More and more like them are heard from the stands, in various speeches and reports. Yes, the "great turning point" in the countryside, the "revolution from above" turned out to be unnecessary, destructive, leading to a dead end. The causes of the tragedy and its perpetrators are mostly known, although historians still have a lot of work to do. But most people draw their idea of ​​a particular era not from the works of scientists, but from fiction. And our descendants will judge collectivization by novels and short stories. But a more vivid work about that time than “Virgin Soil Upturned” has not yet been created. It is not for nothing that publicists, when speaking about the period of collectivization, often take examples from Sholokhov. This novel, no matter how one judges it, has firmly and forever entered the golden fund of Russian literature. In the history of literature, we will read that many have written about the era of collectivization. Why are Bars by F. Panferov, Bast shoes by P. Zamoysky and other works forgotten, while Sholokhov's novel lives on? The work has many merits. It is written in the language of a master, the book is full of genuine humor, beautiful descriptions of nature, easy to read. The Cossack life is excellently described, the language and way of thinking of the Cossacks are accurately and vividly reproduced. Reading the book carefully, comparing it with the facts that have become known, with later works about the village of the 20-30s by V. Belov, B. Mozhaev, A. Antonov and others, we will see that Sholokhov in most cases accurately reflected era. The doubts and hesitations of the peasants (justified!), the mass slaughter of cattle, the coercion of the Cossacks with a pistol, the complete arbitrariness during dispossession, the dispossession of the middle peasants, the confusion of the authorities after the release of Stalin's hypocritical article "Dizziness from Success" and much more are depicted by the writer vividly and truthfully. But, speaking about the book and the attitude towards it, you always experience some kind of duality. Indeed, along with the truth, Sholokhov also allows its distortion to please political demands. So, in the novel, a former White Guard creates a secret organization, the Union for the Liberation of the Don, in order to overthrow Soviet power. It is known that these organizations were invented by Stalin and his entourage in order to justify arbitrariness and repression. And the murder of Davydov and Nagulnov? Historians have long proved that stories about the horrors of the "kulak terror" served as a cover for terror against the peasants. And many times fewer leaders were killed by robbed and embittered peasants than were killed by the chairmen of collective farms by the authorities themselves. Nevertheless, I think Sholokhov, like many of our cultural figures of that time, sincerely believed that the country was building a wonderful future. The youth of the writer passed in the fire of the Civil War. Perhaps that is why violence did not seem to him as terrible as we do. It is known that Mikhail Alexandrovich himself was engaged in the creation of collective farms, struggled with shortcomings, mistakes and excesses in the collective farm movement on the Don, saved many honest communists, Soviet workers, and ordinary workers from unreasonable repressions. It probably seemed to him that these difficulties and "excesses" could be overcome, that happy days would indeed come in the life of the peasants. In the second part of "Virgin Soil Upturned", written 20 years later, it is felt that the author is writing without the former enthusiasm and optimism. I personally like the novel "Virgin Soil Upturned". I am heartily amused at the antics and stories of grandfather Shchukar, I worry with Kondrat Maidannikov and other Cossacks when they “with tears and blood” tear “the umbilical cord that connects ... with property, with bulls, with the native share of the land.” It's funny how Makar Nagulnov learns English, listens to roosters at night. I pity Davydov, who is tormented because he cannot break with Lushka, and I admire Varya Kharlamova and her pure feeling for Davydov. I feel sorry for the handsome Timofey Rvany to tears. Real life is described in the novel. But there is nothing in this work that has always distinguished Russian literature. Apparently, there is a lack of humanism. Indeed, in almost all the scenes in which arbitrariness is described, the author, as it were, silently sympathizes with the rapists. The fate of "Virgin Soil Upturned" proves once again that one cannot serve an idea that calls for building happiness with the help of cruelty. The writer is first of all a philanthropist, and only then a politician. Sholokhov, fulfilling Stalin's order, seemed to justify with his talent those unheard-of outrages and lawlessness that were done to the peasantry. The attitude towards the characters of the novel is also contradictory. This is especially true for Davydov and Nagulnov. The former Baltic sailor, locksmith of the Krasnoputilovsky plant captivates with his strength, honesty, ability to understand and admit mistakes, lack of arrogance. We sympathize with him when he works hard to plow his tithe. It is impossible not to grieve over his death. But we cannot but marvel at the ease with which this city dweller undertakes to judge agriculture. We are repulsed by his attitude towards the “kulaks”. Never once would he be visited by the thought that these are, first of all, people who have the same right to happiness, life and freedom as he does! After a conversation with the secretary of the district committee, he reflects; “Why can’t he - to the nail? No bro, I'm sorry! Through your tolerance of faith, you disbanded the fist ... with its root as a pest. Makar Nagulnov is devoted to the idea of ​​world revolution to the marrow of his bones. This is a person who personally does not need anything, an ascetic who lives for the sake of higher interests. But it becomes scary when you read his confessions: “Zha-le-e-sh? Yes, I ... put thousands of grandfathers, kids, women at once ... Yes, tell me that they need to be sprayed ... For the revolution it is necessary ... I shoot them with a machine gun ... ". Is it not like Nagulnov, with a light heart for the sake of the "revolution" and destroyed thousands of innocent people? Makar does not only speak. He does not think of using force to force the Cossacks to surrender their grain. Not! It is not force, not coercion that raises people to a real, happy life. A person must feel that he is the master of his own destiny, and not a cog in a huge state machine. A person wants to be the master of the earth not in a song, but on his own, albeit a small, plot. He must eat bread grown on his land and by his own hands, and not "released" by the authorities. Today, laws reviving the peasantry have already been adopted. The revival of the Cossacks began. The novel "Virgin Soil Upturned" is an outstanding work, despite all the shortcomings. It will always remain a monument to the life of the Cossacks, historical evidence of a difficult era, a reminder that a bright future cannot be built on violence.