Sholokhov's great artistic talent. Quests

Place all punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) in whose place(s) there should be a comma(s) in the sentence.

Sholokhov's great artistic talent (1), whose decline (2) (3) turned out to be inevitable under the influence of Soviet ideological dogmas (4), was able to fully manifest itself in the novel “Quiet Don”.

Explanation (see also Rule below).

Let's put punctuation marks.

[The great artistic talent of Sholokhov, (1) (the withering (2) of which (3) turned out to be inevitable under the influence of Soviet ideological dogmas), (4) was able to fully manifest itself in the novel “Quiet Don”].

Commas are needed only for subordinate clause boundaries.

Answer: 14.

Answer: 14|41

Relevance: Current academic year

Rule: Task 19. Punctuation marks in a complex sentence

FOR-DA-NIE 19 Unified State Examination (2016): DISTANCE-STA-NOV-KA SIGNS OF PRE-PI-NA-NIYA IN COMPLEX-UNDER-SUBJECT PRED-LO-ZHE-NII.

Particularly ben-no-sti you-not-for-yes 18.

Objective: Place punctuation marks: indicate all the numbers that should be replaced by commas in the sentence. With this form, the answer can contain one or more digits. In the writing, indicate all the numbers (U) very strongly, but it makes the task easier and makes it easier than the rest. That's why at the RE-SHU-USE there will be only one form like this.

Students are required to demonstrate the ability to arrange pre-pi-na signs in a complex subordinate clause.

At the same time, in 100% of cases, the model of the preposition is the same: it is a complex subordinate preposition with a precise definition -tel-nym with a conjunction word which. Why exactly this type? You see that it is precisely in the sentences with the given conjunctive word that the students do not see the boundaries before -lo-z-niya, following the rule of the elementary school “Before the word “whom” put a fifth.” There is no such thing as a right.

For you to understand the new signs of pre-pi-na-niya not-about-ho-di-mo:

1. To understand what SPP is, for this, go to the Help section;

2. Be able to determine the main and most important propositions;

3. I don't care what the union word is which yes-le-ko does not always stand in the beginning of the exact pre-position and it can be in a different gender, number of pas-de-same, with pre-logo or without, that other members of the pre-exact pre-position may stand in front of him;

4. Teach that the main sentence can be complicated by one of its members, in particular by saying zu-e-we-mi;

5. Keep in mind that sometimes in the main clause there may be participle phrases that are not separate , and there is no need to look for a fifth to separate them. There simply won’t be a hundred such fives.

Consider the pre-lo-zhe-niya from the ka-ta-lo-ga RE-SHU-USE. Let's start with the simplest ones.

Place punctuation marks: indicate all the numbers that should be replaced by commas in the sentence.

The mighty Far Eastern taiga (1) with its amazing beauty (2) which (3) we admired (4) represented a boundless green ocean.

[Mighty Far Eastern taiga which? ,( amazing beauty which we admired) represented vast green ocean].

As can be seen from the analysis of the members of the proposal, in the case of the main one, you are asking questions for the second one -foam members, and this is one proposal. It would be a gross mistake not to notice that the words “surprisingly beautiful” are included in the appendix, because the meaning is presupposed The point is that they loved beauty, and not tai-goi in general.

The correct answer is 1 and 4.

In the poem (1) Pushkin recalls his two-year exile and the nanny (2) steps (3) whom (4) he will never hear again.

[In the poem, Pushkin remembers his two-year exile and his nanny], which one? (steps which he will never hear again.)

The pre-exact thing stands after the main thing, before the completeness of the “steps” it clarifies that the author will not hear them, but they are reap that nanny who called her with the word “who-swarm.”

A more complex case is a very common proposition.

The urban and rural clergy (1), individual representatives (2) of which (3) even before the revolution showed themselves as intellectuals (4), at some point again singled out from their midst a number of remarkable representatives of the intelligentsia.

Urban and rural clergy, which? (separate representatives which even before the revolution showed themselves to be intellectuals), at some point again highlighted from its midst a number of remarkable representatives of the intelligentsia.

We write two sentences separately, replacing the word “someone” with “spirituality.”

At some point, the urban and rural clergy again distinguished from their midst a number of remarkable representatives of the intelligentsia. Individual representatives of the clergy (= which) even before the revolution showed themselves as intellectuals.

You should pay attention to the propositions, in which the main part has similar members.

Gray's father and mother were slaves of (1) the wealth and laws of that society (2) in relation to (3) to which it is customary to say “higher” (4) and their position in it.

Gray's father and mother were slaves wealth and laws that society, which one? (relative to to which it's customary to say“highest”), and their position in it.

The correct answer is 2 and 4.

Thus, you should develop the skill of seeing words associated with the word “something”, and not forgetting put in fifths.

To a boy whose older sister...

Bulgaria, whose geostrategic position...

Fun, memories of which...

To a photograph whose history...

The kitchen, to the left wall of which...

and this row is crazy.

was written immediately on the heels of the events of the 30s, which ended with the creation of a new collective farm system. Therefore, for many years, starting from the 30s, criticism viewed “Virgin Soil Upturned” as the most truthful artistic reflection of the collectivization process, affirming the victorious triumph of the collective farm system. Now, in connection with the publication of many tragic facts and materials about that terrible era, the attitude towards the novel has naturally changed, which is now considered as a work that gave an incomplete, simplified and distorted picture of the Russian village of the 30s. But this does not detract from the ideological and artistic value of Sholokhov’s novel. On the contrary, many well-known scenes and episodes of “Virgin Soil Upturned” today receive a different understanding and assessment, because they are considered from the point of view not of class, but of universal morality. For example, when Sholokhov describes the scene of distributing dispossessed things to the poor, it evokes not a feeling of triumphant joy, as Soviet critics claimed, but pain and pity for the crying children and their mothers, from whom their hard-earned goods are being taken away. This is exactly how Andrei Razmetnov perceives this event, who was usually criticized for his softness, lack of communist integrity, and merciless hatred of the class enemy. The fact that collectivization here began relatively early and took place in an extremely acute situation is evidenced by Sholokhov’s letter from Veshenskaya in 1929: “And you should see what’s going on here and in the neighboring Lower Volga region. They are pressing their fists, but the middle peasants are already crushed The poor are starving, property, including samovars and cavities, is being sold in the Khopersky district to the most genuine middle peasants, often even those with little power. The people are going wild, the mood is depressed, and next year the sowing wedge will be catastrophically reduced." The essence of what happened on the Don land in the "year of the great turning point" is clear without comment. But two years later, in 1931, Sholokhov published a number of essays on collectivization issues. For example, in Pravda on May 25 1931, the spring sowing on the Don is described very optimistically: “Don’t doubt it, comrade,” a Cossack collective farmer tells the author. “We all understand thoroughly how much the state needs bread. Well, maybe we’ll be a little late, but we’ll sow everything to the grain.” In these cheerful intonations, the voices of the future heroes of “Virgin Soil Upturned” are already discernible. The conclusion suggests itself that the author, who knows the life depicted very well , deliberately softened the colors so that his interpretation of events coincided with political course parties. Against the backdrop of the movement to power of fascism in Germany, he certainly believed in the need for a quick economic breakthrough that would help turn Russia into an indestructible military camp. For the sake of this large-scale goal, any means could be suitable to accelerate the processes of industrialization and collectivization, methods of pressure, intolerance, and ruthlessness towards enemies. Thus, the inevitable sacrifices during the rapid construction of a monolithic strong state were, in the writer’s opinion, historically justified. But, on the other hand, striving for the exact; realistic image In fact, in the novel Sholokhov resorts to a salutary explanation of the lawlessness and repressions perpetrated in the village by “excesses” local authorities, which distorted the “wise and humane” policies of the Communist Party. A special role in this is played in “Virgin Soil Upturned” by Stalin’s article “Dizziness from Success” (1930). She performs a real miracle - she turns the Cossacks away from the uprising against Soviet power, which Captain Polovtsev wanted to raise. This idea is easy to confirm with a quote from the novel, reproducing the words of the Cossacks addressed to the enemy. “Our farm authorities made a fool of us, they drove some fools into the collective farm, they hoodwinked many middle peasants... And our chairman of the Council bore us so much that at the meeting you couldn’t even say a word against him... and we decided everything through that article in the newspaper "The truth is 'don't rebel'." Now such an immediate impact of the printed word on the psychology and worldview of the Cossacks seems extremely unconvincing, especially since the famous article of the “Father of Nations” was, as we know, a forced reaction of the then party leadership to the widespread and widespread dissatisfaction of the peasantry with the policy of forced collectivization, that is, it was just a maneuver to temporarily calm down the village workers. And the desired effect was indeed achieved. The grain growers were relieved to receive the article, since they thought that the general line of the party was supposedly at odds with the excesses that the lower party workers allowed. These sentiments are depicted in “Virgin Soil Upturned” as widespread. They reflect the desire of farmers for freedom of choice of forms and means of farming. Sholokhov's novel was created as a student of the new life, as its model, a positive example to which residents of the most advanced country should strive. Therefore, it is quite possible to believe the evidence that in the villages “Virgin Soil Upturned” was read with rapture, without at all identifying the picture presented in it with reality; in Sholokhov’s novel they saw that bright life that they had vainly dreamed of and strived for. “Virgin Soil Upturned” was a tragic attempt to glorify the unsung, to idealize reality. It clearly demonstrated the contradiction between great artistic talent and the ideological scheme that constrained it, which was also reflected in the composition of the novel.

Let's remember its beginning. Almost simultaneously, the Cossack esaul Polovtsev, an enemy of the Soviet regime, who is trying to involve the farmers in a counter-revolutionary uprising, and the mechanic Davydov enter Gremyachiy Log with a noble and humane mission - to create a strong collective farm in Gremyachiy Log. The contrast in the goals of ideological opponents is emphasized by the fact that the insidious enemy of the Polovtsians gallops into the farm at night, cowardly hiding his face. On a clear, sunny day, communist Davydov arrives in Gremyachiy Log. This visible detail was supposed to clearly demonstrate the baseness of the goals of one hero and the nobility of the other. In addition, the very beginning of the novel clearly defined its main conflict - the fierce class struggle of communists with counter-revolutionaries, pushing into the background the glaring problems that accompany complete collectivization. Thus, the northward trains with special settlers, hungry crowds of men, and the crippled fates of the children of the “kulaks” were beyond the author’s field of vision. This means that the rigid ideological scheme has already doomed the novel to an incomplete, truncated truth about time. But thanks to the remarkable talent of the writer, this truth nevertheless leaked into the novel, reflecting the main dramatic circumstances that were of key importance in the process of collectivization. True, they are not depicted by the author in all their volume and completeness. For example, only the dotted line indicates the most drastic, violent actions of the leaders and initiators of collectivization during dispossession. This is especially evident in the image of the communist Makar Nagulnov. What is it worth frank confessions about his own method of agitation for collective farms: “How did I campaign for the collective farm? But here’s how: I directly said to some of our villains, although they are considered middle peasants: “Aren’t you going to the collective farm?” So you are against Soviet power? In 1919 he fought with us, opposed us, and then turned against us? Well, then don’t expect peace from me either. I'm going to ruin you, the bastard, so much that it will become a chore for all the devils." Did I say that? I spoke. And I even tapped the table with a revolver." to its logical conclusion, the violent policy of the government towards the peasantry, which is covered up by the kindness and delicacy of Davydov or Vanyushka Naydenov. But they, in essence, do one thing - they take away bread from the workers of the earth, fulfilling the plan issued from above. The ominous truth of the 30s breaks through, for example, in the following episode of the novel: “Andrei continuously looked into Nagulnov’s face, which was covered with a deathly veil. Unexpectedly for Davydov, he quickly stood up and immediately, as if thrown by a springboard, Nagulnov jumped. “Bastard!” he exhaled in a ringing voice. in a whisper, clenching his fists. - How do you serve the revolution?! ... I’ll kill them all with a machine gun! - Nagulnov suddenly shouted wildly, and fury splashed in his huge dilated pupils, foam boiled at the corners of his lips, Makar began to convulse in a fit.” Such demoniacal assistants of the party clearly revealed its inhumane, inhuman essence. No fair and lofty words of Soviet slogans, or Davydov’s sincere, confidential conversations with the farmers could cover up the indisputable fact that for the sake of the abstract mythical happiness of the entire people, the ruthless extermination of specific people who made up the same people was carried out. About the fact that there was depreciation human life in the era of dispossession and complete collectivization, say the actions of Nagulnov, who, using the power entrusted to him, beats the individual farmer Grigory Bannik and, under the cocked hammer of a revolver, forces him to give a receipt with an obligation to take seed grain to the collective farm barn. For the same purpose, he arrests three collective farmers and keeps them locked up overnight. Nagulnov’s actions in Sholokhov’s novel are condemned, but both the heroes and the author are not satisfied mainly with their external manifestations, despite the absolute correctness of the idea that guides them. This idea often came into conflict with normal, natural human feelings, giving rise to a tragic duality of consciousness of the heroes, which was especially evident in the image of Andrei Razmetnov. A member of the Gremyachen party cell, who believes in the correctness of the party’s course towards complete collectivization, he is nevertheless unable to drown out his pity for the children of the dispossessed. Razmetnov is a sensitive, kind nature. Hence his heightened impressionability and sensitivity, which help him unconsciously sense the cruelty and injustice of what is happening. This is what makes him come to the village council and say: “I’m not working anymore... I’m not going to dispossess kulakism anymore.” Razmetnov's behavior was regarded by Soviet criticism as a manifestation of ignorance, naivety, and lack of intelligence. Another thing is Nagulnov. For all his excesses, he is “much more conscious and principled” than the soft-bodied, compassionate Razmetnov, since he understands the need for a merciless class struggle. Such an ideological interpretation of the images of “Virgin Soil Upturned” is unacceptable in our days. Now, perhaps, it is Razmetnov’s experiences and actions that seem closest to the humanistic understanding of the tragedy that unfolded in the “year of the great turning point.”

Another image of the novel, the middle peasant Kondrat Maydannikov, reveals the most important problem of our days, originating in the fateful thirties. This is the peasant’s loss of a sense of ownership, which led decades later to the economic and moral collapse of the collective farm system. The image of Maydannikov was by no means ignored by critics. On the contrary, Kondrat’s mentality, his mental anguish before joining the collective farm they received a very simple and clear explanation. They were regarded as a struggle between private property instincts, which the author calls nothing less than “pity-viper” or “devil,” and the desire for a bright collective farm life. An honest worker, not thinking about war with his native Soviet government, is trying to change himself, make him believe in the future prosperity and prosperity of the socialized economy. But common peasant sense tells him something completely different: “What if people scatter in a week, afraid of something difficult?” In addition, Maidannikov, as a reasonable, hardworking owner, can very easily imagine how work will go on a collective farm, where there is no “mine”, where everything is only “ours”. It pains him to think that his cattle, which he raised with such love and care, will be looked after by a careless collective farmer, a lazy person and a drunkard, who will destroy it. He is not sure that general work will do everything conscientiously, because he knows too well some of his fellow villagers, who are not particularly interested in working conscientiously: “...everyone dries up around his own, but about strangers - never mind. ... They don’t want to look at thinness; it has alienated many.” In these ingenuous arguments of a simple farmer, one can hear the bitter truth about how persistently his main quality was eradicated from the peasant’s soul - a sense of ownership, giving rise to courage, initiative, and a willingness to sacrifice sleep and rest in order to joyfully see the fruits of his hard work. Naturally, a man who plowed from dawn to dusk while the poor were wandering around the farm, waving a revolver and doing nothing, is painfully sorry to part with the farm that was given to him with sweat and blood, especially since he managed the collective farm throughout Apparently, there will still be the same ideological slackers. Why work so conscientiously if the fruits of your labor can be taken away at any moment by someone’s willful decision, and then divided “fairly” between hard workers and slackers. This means that Sholokhov touched on one of the most painful points of collectivization - the peasantry’s loss of faith in the stability of life, in the fact that all the promises of the party and government concerning the land could be grossly violated at any moment. This social and moral traumatization of grain growers logically led to “de-peasantization” and even “dehumanization,” the results of which we are now reaping.

Thus, we see that Sholokhov’s great artistic talent constantly came into conflict with the narrowness of the ideological scheme. There are many picturesque paintings in "Virgin Soil Upturned" folk life, poetic descriptions of Don nature, unique humor. But, despite this, the general flavor of the era depicted in the novel does not evoke an optimistic feeling. And not only because the pages of the novel, figuratively speaking, are drenched in blood. During the 8 months during which the action takes place, 11 people die. And only one of them - the farm shepherd grandfather Agey - died a natural death. Almost all the rest were killed, and their deaths were directly related to collectivization. Life in Gremyachiy Log is shown to be far from normal.

The Cossacks seemed to have lost their centuries-old love of freedom, character, broad, free-spirited songs, proud, courageous nature. Intense pressure from party leaders brought the village into a state of extreme tension. “Life in Gremyachey Log reared up, like a restive horse in front of a difficult obstacle,” writes Sholokhov in “Virgin Soil Upturned.” Showing his characters during plowing, haymaking and other main stages of rural labor, the author tried to merge the personal fate of each individual character with the historical plot. The reality that appears in the novel not only influences people, but also draws them into a turbulent stream of events, breaking and destroying characters and destinies. It is no coincidence that the reorganization of affairs in the village is led not by a peasant working on the land, but by a city man unfamiliar with this sphere of labor. The atmosphere of violence, the focus on the proletarian as the most advanced class, required a stranger who was not connected with the farmers, who would not feel sorry for the dispossessed or worry about their property. Davydov, of course, is depicted by the author with amazing sympathy. With all his actions and words, he literally captivates both the Cossacks and the reader. The image of Davydov strengthened the belief that kind and decent people who sincerely wanted to improve the lives of grain growers were sent to Cossack farms. But the initial thesis - to kill the owner in the farmer, force him to part with the goods that he acquired through hard work, and take care of the common, that is, no one's - is fundamentally incorrect and hostile to man. This formulation of the question makes him an opportunist, indifferent to everything, ultimately leading to the moral deformation of society. True to the truth of life, Sholokhov does not give in the novel a victoriously optimistic picture of the well-being and prosperity of the Gremyachensky collective farm. In the final pages of the work there is no feeling that the hopes and aspirations of the grain growers have come true. The author even avoids talking about the specific results of the collective farm's activities. For example, there is not a word about the harvest, that is, the author seems ashamed to loudly trumpet the victory of the collective farm system. Therefore, the idea of ​​the triumph of party policy in the countryside was created largely thanks to the name. The life of the peasantry was compared to uncultivated, unplowed virgin land, fraught with powerful forces and opportunities. Such forces certainly existed in society. And now they are making their way out to understand and rethink the tragedy of a turning point, which radically changed the existing way of life.

This topic touches on one of the most acute, painful problems in the history of our country, which has found artistic reflection in the works of writers, contemporaries of the events, and subsequent generations. For a long time M. Sholokhov’s novel “Virgin Soil Upturned” was considered a classic, textbook work on collectivization. The novel was given particular value by the fact that it was written immediately on the heels of the events of the 30s, which ended with the creation of a new collective farm system. Therefore, for many years, starting from the 30s, criticism viewed “Virgin Soil Upturned” as the most truthful artistic reflection of the collectivization process, affirming the victorious triumph of the collective farm system. Now, in connection with the publication of many tragic facts and materials about that terrible era, the attitude towards the novel has naturally changed, which is now considered as a work that gave an incomplete, simplified and distorted picture of the Russian village of the 30s. But this does not detract from the ideological and artistic value of Sholokhov’s novel. On the contrary, many well-known scenes and episodes of “Virgin Soil Upturned” today receive a different understanding and assessment, because they are considered from the point of view not of class, but of universal morality. For example, when Sholokhov describes the scene of distributing dispossessed things to the poor, it evokes not a feeling of triumphant joy, as Soviet critics claimed, but pain and pity for the crying children and their mothers, from whom their hard-earned goods are being taken away. This is exactly how Andrei Razmetnov perceives this event, who was usually criticized for his softness, lack of communist integrity, and merciless hatred of the class enemy. The question inevitably arises: how did the author himself feel about the process of forced involvement of peasants in collective farms that he depicted? Did he believe in the necessity and effectiveness of this measure aimed at transforming Russia into a powerful industrial power? Did he know what was really happening in Cossack villages and farmsteads? Let's try to answer these questions by turning to facts and documentary evidence from the writer himself about what is happening on the Don. The fact that collectivization here began relatively early and took place in an extremely acute situation is evidenced by Sholokhov’s letter from Veshenskaya in 1929: “And you should see what’s going on here and in the neighboring Lower Volga region. They are pressing their fists, but the middle peasants are already crushed “The poor are starving, property, including samovars and cavities, is being sold in the Khoper district to the most honest middle peasants, often even those with little power. The people are going wild, the mood is depressed, and next year the sowing crop will be catastrophically reduced.” The essence of what happened on the Don land in the “year of the great turning point” is clear without comment. But two years later, in 1931, Sholokhov published a number of essays on collectivization issues. For example, in Pravda of May 25, 1931, the spring sowing on the Don is very optimistically described: “You, comrade, don’t doubt it,” a Cossack collective farmer tells the author. “We all understand through and through how much the state needs grain. Well, maybe we’ll be a little late.” , and let us sow everything down to the grain.” In these cheerful intonations one can already discern the voices of the future heroes of Virgin Soil Upturned. The conclusion suggests itself that the author, who knows the life he depicts very well, deliberately softened the colors so that his interpretation of events coincided with the political course of the party. Against the backdrop of the movement to power of fascism in Germany, he certainly believed in the need for a quick economic breakthrough that would help turn Russia into an indestructible military camp. For the sake of this large-scale goal, any means could be suitable to accelerate the processes of industrialization and collectivization, methods of pressure, intolerance, and ruthlessness towards enemies. Thus, the inevitable sacrifices during the rapid construction of a monolithic strong state were, in the writer’s opinion, historically justified. But, on the other hand, striving for the exact; realistic depiction of reality, Sholokhov resorts in the novel to a salutary explanation of the lawlessness and repressions committed in the countryside by the “excesses” of local authorities, which distorted the “wise and humane” policies of the Communist Party. A special role in this is played in “Virgin Soil Upturned” by Stalin’s article “Dizziness from Success” (1930). She performs a real miracle - she turns the Cossacks away from the uprising against Soviet power, which Esul Polovtsev wanted to raise. This idea is easy to confirm with a quote from the novel, reproducing the words of the Cossacks addressed to the enemy. “Our farm authorities made a fool of us, they drove some fools into the collective farm, they hoodwinked many middle peasants... And our chairman of the Council bore us so much that at the meeting you couldn’t even say a word against him... and we decided everything through that article in the newspaper "The truth is 'don't rebel'." Now such an immediate impact of the printed word on the psychology and worldview of the Cossacks seems extremely unconvincing, especially since the famous article of the “Father of Nations” was, as we know, a forced reaction of the then party leadership to the widespread and widespread dissatisfaction of the peasantry with the policy of forced collectivization, that is, it was just a maneuver to temporarily calm down the village workers. And the desired effect was indeed achieved. The grain growers were relieved to receive the article, since they thought that the general line of the party was supposedly at odds with the excesses that the lower party workers allowed. These sentiments are depicted in “Virgin Soil Upturned” as widespread. They reflect the desire of farmers for freedom of choice of forms and means of farming. Sholokhov's novel, apparently, was created rather as a student of a new life, as its model, a positive example to which residents of the most advanced country should strive. Therefore, it is quite possible to believe the evidence that in the villages “Virgin Soil Upturned” was read with rapture, without at all identifying the picture presented in it with reality; in Sholokhov’s novel they saw that bright life that they had vainly dreamed of and strived for. “Virgin Soil Upturned” was a tragic attempt to glorify the unsung, to idealize reality. It clearly demonstrated the contradiction between great artistic talent and the ideological scheme that constrained it, which was also reflected in the composition of the novel.

Let's remember its beginning. Almost simultaneously, the Cossack esaul Polovtsev, an enemy of the Soviet regime, who is trying to involve the farmers in a counter-revolutionary uprising, and the mechanic Davydov enter Gremyachiy Log with a noble and humane mission - to create a strong collective farm in Gremyachiy Log. The contrast in the goals of ideological opponents is emphasized by the fact that the insidious enemy of the Polovtsians gallops into the farm at night, cowardly hiding his face. On a clear, sunny day, communist Davydov arrives in Gremyachiy Log. This visible detail was supposed to clearly demonstrate the baseness of the goals of one hero and the nobility of the other. In addition, the very beginning of the novel clearly defined its main conflict - the fierce class struggle of communists with counter-revolutionaries, pushing into the background the glaring problems that accompany complete collectivization. Thus, the northward trains with special settlers, hungry crowds of men, and the crippled fates of the children of the “kulaks” were beyond the author’s field of vision. This means that the rigid ideological scheme has already doomed the novel to an incomplete, truncated truth about time. But thanks to the remarkable talent of the writer, this truth nevertheless leaked into the novel, reflecting the main dramatic circumstances that were of key importance in the process of collectivization. True, they are not depicted by the author in all their volume and completeness. For example, only the dotted line indicates the most drastic, violent actions of the leaders and initiators of collectivization during dispossession. This is especially evident in the image of the communist Makar Nagulnov. What are his frank confessions about his own method of campaigning for collective farms worth: “How did I campaign for the collective farm? But here’s how: to some of our villains, although they are considered middle peasants, he directly said: “Aren’t you going to the collective farm? So you are against Soviet power? In 1919 he fought with us, opposed us, and then turned against us? Well, then don’t expect peace from me either. I’m going to ruin you, you bastard, so much that it will make all the devils sick.” Did I say that? I did. And I even tapped the table with my revolver.” Well, there is nothing to add to this method of propaganda. Such “knights of the revolution” as Nagulnov, with their intolerance towards the owner and fanatical devotion to the idea of ​​world revolution, bring to their logical conclusion the government’s violent policy towards the peasantry, which is covered up by the kindness and delicacy of Davydov or Vanyushka Naydenov. But they, in essence, do one thing - they take away bread from the workers of the earth, fulfilling the plan issued from above. The ominous truth of the 30s breaks through, for example, in the following episode of the novel: “Andrei continuously looked into Nagulnov’s face, which was covered with a deathly veil. Unexpectedly for Davydov, he quickly stood up and immediately, as if thrown by a springboard, Nagulnov jumped up. Bastard! He exhaled in a ringing whisper and clenched his fists. How do you serve the revolution?! Are you eating? Yes, I... Make thousands of grandfathers, children, women at once... Yes, tell me what is needed, they will be sprayed... For the revolution it is necessary... I will kill them all with a machine gun! “Nagulnov suddenly shouted wildly, and fury splashed in his huge dilated pupils, foam boiled at the corners of his lips, Makar began to convulse in a fit.” Such demoniacal assistants of the party clearly revealed its inhumane, inhumane essence. No fair and lofty words of Soviet slogans, sincere, confidential conversations Davydov and the farmers could not hide the indisputable fact that for the sake of the abstract mythical happiness of the entire people, the ruthless extermination of specific people who made up the same people was carried out. The fact that there was a devaluation of human life in the era of dispossession and complete collectivization is evidenced by the actions of Nagulnov, who, taking advantage. with the authority entrusted to him, he beats the individual farmer Grigory Bannik and, under the cocked hammer of his revolver, forces him to give a receipt with an obligation to take the seed grain to the collective farm barn. For the same purpose, he arrests three collective farmers and keeps them under lock and key overnight. Nagulnov’s actions in Sholokhov’s novel are condemned. both the heroes and the author are dissatisfied mainly with their external manifestations, despite the absolute correctness of the idea that guides them. This idea often came into conflict with normal, natural human feelings, giving rise to a tragic duality of consciousness of the heroes, which was especially evident in the image of Andrei Razmetnov. A member of the Gremyachen party cell, who believes in the correctness of the party’s course towards complete collectivization, he is nevertheless unable to drown out his pity for the children of the dispossessed. Razmetnov is a sensitive, kind nature. Hence his heightened impressionability and sensitivity, which help him unconsciously sense the cruelty and injustice of what is happening. This is what makes him come to the village council and say: “I’m not working anymore... I’m not going to dispossess kulakism anymore.” Razmetnov's behavior was regarded by Soviet criticism as a manifestation of ignorance, naivety, and lack of intelligence. Another thing Nagulnov. For all his excesses, he is “much more conscious and principled” than the soft-bodied, compassionate Razmetnov, since he understands the need for a merciless class struggle. Such an ideological interpretation of the images of “Virgin Soil Upturned” is unacceptable in our days. Now, perhaps, it is Razmetnov’s experiences and actions that seem closest to the humanistic understanding of the tragedy that unfolded in the “year of the great turning point.”

Another image of the novel, the middle peasant Kondrat Maydannikov, reveals the most important problem of our days, originating in the fateful thirties. This is the peasant’s loss of a sense of ownership, which led decades later to the economic and moral collapse of the collective farm system. The image of Maydannikov was by no means ignored by critics. On the contrary, Kondrat’s state of mind and his mental anguish before joining the collective farm received a very simple and clear explanation. They were regarded as a struggle between private property instincts, which the author calls nothing less than “pity-viper” or “devil,” and the desire for a bright collective farm life. An honest worker, not thinking about war with his native Soviet government, is trying to change himself, make him believe in the future prosperity and prosperity of the socialized economy. But common peasant sense tells him something completely different: “What if people scatter in a week, afraid of something difficult?” In addition, Maidannikov, as a reasonable, hardworking owner, can very easily imagine how work will go on a collective farm, where there is no “mine”, where everything is only “ours”. It pains him to think that his cattle, which he raised with such love and care, will be looked after by a careless collective farmer, a lazy person and a drunkard, who will destroy it. He is not confident that everyone will do the overall work conscientiously, because he knows too well some of his fellow villagers who are not particularly interested in working conscientiously: “... everyone is too concerned about their own, but about strangers, too much. strangers, all of them are ours, but this is how it is... They don’t want to look at thinness, it has alienated many.” In these ingenuous arguments of a simple farmer, one hears the bitter truth about how persistently his main quality was eradicated from the peasant’s soul - the feeling of being an owner, which gives rise to courage, initiative, and a willingness to sacrifice sleep and rest in order to joyfully see the fruits of his hard work. Naturally, a man who plowed from dawn to dusk while the poor were wandering around the farm, waving a revolver and doing nothing, is painfully sorry to part with the farm that was given to him with sweat and blood, especially since he managed the collective farm throughout Apparently, there will still be the same ideological slackers. Why work so conscientiously if the fruits of your labor can be taken away at any moment by someone’s willful decision, and then divided “fairly” between hard workers and slackers. This means that Sholokhov touched on one of the most painful points of collectivization - the peasantry’s loss of faith in the stability of life, in the fact that all the promises of the party and government concerning the land could be grossly violated at any moment. This social and moral traumatization of grain growers logically led to “de-peasantization” and even “dehumanization,” the results of which we are now reaping.

Thus, we see that Sholokhov’s great artistic talent constantly came into conflict with the narrowness of the ideological scheme. In "Virgin Soil Upturned" there are many picturesque pictures of folk life, poetic descriptions of Don nature, and unique humor. But, despite this, the general flavor of the era depicted in the novel does not evoke an optimistic feeling. And not only because the pages of the novel, figuratively speaking, are drenched in blood. During the 8 months during which the action takes place, 11 people die. And only one of them - the farm shepherd grandfather Agey - died a natural death. Almost all the rest were killed, and their deaths were directly related to collectivization. Life in Gremyachiy Log is shown to be far from normal.

The Cossacks seemed to have lost their centuries-old love of freedom, character, broad, free-spirited songs, proud, courageous nature. Intense pressure from party leaders brought the village into a state of extreme tension. “Life in Gremyachiy Log reared up, like a restive horse in front of a difficult obstacle,” writes Sholokhov in “Virgin Soil Upturned.” Showing his characters during plowing, haymaking and other main stages of rural labor, the author tried to merge the personal fate of each individual character with the historical plot. The reality that appears in the novel not only influences people, but also draws them into a turbulent stream of events, breaking and destroying characters and destinies. It is no coincidence that the reorganization of affairs in the village is led not by a peasant working on the land, but by a city man unfamiliar with this sphere of labor. The atmosphere of violence, the focus on the proletarian as the most advanced class, required a stranger who was not connected with the farmers, who would not feel sorry for the dispossessed or worry about their property. Davydov, of course, is depicted by the author with amazing sympathy. With all his actions and words, he literally captivates both the Cossacks and the reader. The image of Davydov strengthened the belief that kind and decent people who sincerely wanted to improve the lives of grain growers were sent to Cossack farms. But the original thesis - to kill the owner in the farmer, force him to part with the goods that he acquired through hard work, and take care of the common, that is, no one's - is fundamentally wrong and hostile to man. This formulation of the question makes him an opportunist, indifferent to everything, ultimately leading to the moral deformation of society. True to the truth of life, Sholokhov does not give in the novel a victoriously optimistic picture of the well-being and prosperity of the Gremyachensky collective farm. In the final pages of the work there is no feeling that the hopes and aspirations of the grain growers have come true. The author even avoids talking about the specific results of the collective farm's activities. For example, there is not a word about the harvest, that is, the author seems ashamed to loudly trumpet the victory of the collective farm system. Therefore, the idea of ​​the triumph of party policy in the countryside was created largely thanks to the name. The life of the peasantry was compared to uncultivated, unplowed virgin soil, fraught with powerful forces and opportunities. Such forces certainly existed in society. And now they are making their way out to understand and rethink the tragedy of a turning point, which radically changed the existing way of life.

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov is the largest Soviet prose writer, laureate of the Stalin (1941), Lenin (1960) and Nobel (1965) prizes. His great artistic talent, which gradually faded under the influence of Soviet ideological dogmas, manifested itself primarily in the epic novel “Quiet Don” - one of the pinnacle phenomena of literature of the 20th century.

Sholokhov was born on the Don, was illegitimate son Ukrainian, wife of the Don Cossack A.D. Kuznetsova and a rich clerk (the son of a merchant, a native of the Ryazan region) A.M. Sholokhov. IN early childhood bore the surname Kuznetsov and received a plot of land as a “Cossack son.” In 1913, after being adopted by his own father, he lost his Cossack privileges, becoming the “son of a tradesman”; graduated from four classes of the gymnasium (which is more than the first Russian Nobel laureate in the field of literature I.A. Bunin).

During the Civil War, the Sholokhov family could have been under attack from two sides: for the white Cossacks they were “non-residents”, for the red ones they were “exploiters”. Young Mikhail was not distinguished by a passion for hoarding (like one of his future heroes, the son of a rich Cossack Makar Nagulnov) and took the side of the victorious force, which established at least relative peace. He served in the food detachment, but arbitrarily reduced the taxes of people in his circle, for which he was put on trial. His elder friend and mentor (“Mamunya” in letters addressed to her), party member since 1903 (Sholokhov - since 1932) E.G. Levitskaya, to whom “The Fate of Man” was subsequently dedicated, believed that in the “vacillations” of Grigory Melekhov in “ Quiet Don” a lot of autobiographical 11, p. 128]. The young man changed a large number of professions, especially in Moscow, where he lived for a long time from the end of 1922 to 1926. Having established himself in literature, he settled on the Don in the village of Veshenskaya.

In 1923, Sholokhov published feuilletons, and from the end of 1923 - stories, no longer saturated with superficial feuilletonism, but with acute drama and tragedy with a touch of melodrama. Most of these works were collected in the collections “Don Stories” (1925) and “Azure Steppe” (1926). With the exception of the story “Alien Blood” (1926), where the old man Gavrila and his wife, having lost their son, a white Cossack, nurse a hacked communist food contractor, begin to love him like a son, and he leaves them, in early works Sholokhov's heroes are generally sharply divided into positive (red fighters, Soviet activists) and negative, sometimes “pure” villains (whites, “bandits”, kulaks and kulak podkulakniks). Many characters have real prototypes, but Sholokhov sharpens and exaggerates almost everything; He presents death, blood, torture, and the pangs of hunger in a deliberately naturalistic manner. The young writer’s favorite plot, starting with “The Birthmark” (1923), is a deadly clash between close relatives: father and son, siblings. The neophyte Sholokhov invariably confirms his loyalty to the communist idea, emphasizing the priority of social choice over any human relations, including family ones. In 1931, he republished “Don Stories,” supplementing the earlier collection with new ones in which comedy prevailed; At the same time, in “Virgin Soil Upturned” he combined comedy with drama, sometimes quite effectively. Then, for a quarter of a century, the stories were not reprinted; the author himself rated them low and returned them to the reader when, for lack of anything new, he had to remember the well-forgotten old ones.

In 1925, Sholokhov began a work about the fate of the Cossacks in 1917, during the Kornilov rebellion, called “Quiet Don” (and not “Donshchina,” according to popular legend). He quickly abandoned this idea, but a year later he began anew to “Quiet Don”, widely developing pictures of the pre-war life of the Cossacks and the events of the World War. The first two books of the epic novel were published in 1928. The young writer was full of energy, had a phenomenal memory, read a lot (even the memoirs of white generals were available in the 20s), asked Cossacks in the Don farms about the “German” and Civil wars, and knew the life and customs of his native Don like no one else.

The events of collectivization (and those immediately preceding it) delayed work on the epic novel. In letters, including to I.V. Stalin, Sholokhov tried to reveal the true state of things in the new society: the complete collapse of the economy, lawlessness, torture applied to collective farmers. But he accepted the very idea of ​​collectivization and in a softened form, with undeniable sympathy for the main characters - the communists, he showed the processes of collectivization using the example of the Gremyachiy Log farm in the first book of “Virgin Soil Upturned” (1932). Even a very smooth image of dispossession, the figure of the “right draft dodger” Razmetnov, etc. were very suspicious to the authorities and official writers; in particular, the magazine “ New world” rejected the author’s title of the novel “With Blood and Sweat.” But on the whole the work suited Stalin. The high artistic level of the book seemed to prove the fruitfulness of communist ideas for art and created the illusion of freedom of creativity in the USSR. “Virgin Soil Upturned” was declared a perfect example of the literature of socialist realism.

The success of “Virgin Soil Upturned” directly or indirectly helped Sholokhov to continue work on “Quiet Don,” the printing of the third book (sixth part) of which was delayed due to a very sympathetic depiction of participants in the anti-Bolshevik Verkhnedonsky uprising of 1919. With the help of M. Gorky, Sholokhov obtained permission from Stalin to publish this book in its entirety (1932) and in 1934 he basically completed the fourth and last one, but began to rewrite it again, probably not without the influence of the tightened political atmosphere. In two latest books“Quiet Don” (the seventh part of the fourth book was published in 1937-1938, the eighth in 1940) many journalistic, often didactically unambiguous pro-Bolshevik declarations appeared, often contradicting the plot and figurative structure of the epic novel. But this does not at all confirm the theory of “two authors” or “author” and “co-author”, developed by skeptics who do not believe in Sholokhov’s authorship (among them A.I. Solzhenitsyn). In all likelihood, Sholokhov himself was his “co-author,” keeping mostly art world, created by him in the early 30s. Although in 1938 the writer almost fell victim to a false political accusation, he nevertheless found the courage to end “Quiet Don” with the complete collapse of his beloved hero Grigory Melekhov, a truth-seeker crushed by the wheel of cruel history.

In “Quiet Don” Sholokhov’s talent splashed out in full force - and was largely exhausted. The story “The Science of Hate” (1942), imbued with hatred of the fascists, was lower in artistic quality than the average of the “Don Stories.” The level of those published in 1943-1944 was higher. chapters from the novel “They Fought for the Motherland,” conceived as a trilogy, but never completed (in the 60s, Sholokhov wrote “pre-war” chapters with conversations about Stalin and the repressions of 1937 in the spirit of the already ended “thaw”, they were printed with banknotes). The work consists mainly of soldier conversations, oversaturated with jokes. In general, Sholokhov’s failure in comparison not only with the first, but also with the second novel is obvious.

During the “Thaw” period, Sholokhov created a work of high artistic merit - the story “The Fate of a Man” (1956). The second book of “Virgin Soil Upturned,” published in 1960, remained basically just a sign of the transition historical period. The “warming” of the images of Davydov (sudden love for Varyukha-goryukha), Nagulnov (listening to a rooster crowing, etc.), Razmetnov (shooting cats in the name of saving pigeons) and others was emphasized “modern” and did not fit in with the harsh realities of 1930 ., remaining the basis of the plot.

Human rights activist L.K. Chukovskaya predicted creative infertility for Sholokhov after his speech at the XXIII Congress of the CPSU (1966) defaming those convicted of literary works(the first trial of the Brezhnev era against writers) A.D. Sinyavsky and Yu.M. Daniel. But what Sholokhov wrote in his best time is a high classic of 20th century literature.