"Devastation"
The civil war is the main theme of the novel. The writer has no doubt that historical justice won in the revolution. For Fadeev, the revolution was, first of all, the beginning of a new world. What this world will be like, what laws will reign in it, largely depends on how the causes of the revolution and the tasks of the class struggle are understood.
The novel was highly praised by Soviet critics immediately after publication. M. Gorky believed that “Destruction” gives “broad, truthful and the most talented picture Civil War." But it caused controversy artistic principles novel. One of the subjects of dispute between literary figures of that time was psychologism. Thus, O. Brik wrote an article condemning Fadeev’s intention to disclose inner world their characters to the detriment of historical accuracy in the depiction of events. He called Fadeev an “intuitionist” who wrote a novel “based on the self-instruction manual of Tolstoy and Chekhov.” A. Voronsky saw in the novel “not only Tolstoy’s construction of the phrase, but also Tolstoy’s worldview, Tolstoy’s method of depiction psychological state person." As you know, after the revolution, some artists declared a rejection of the classical heritage. Psychologism was now often recognized not as an advantage, but as a disadvantage. “A person is valuable not because of what he experiences, but because of what he does,” says the hero of the novel. Fadeev strives to explore the psychology of his heroes. This is determined by the task that the author formulated during a meeting with young readers: “What are the main ideas of the novel “Destruction”? I can define them this way, the first and main idea: in the Civil War, a selection of human material occurs, everything hostile is swept away by the revolution, everything incapable of a real revolutionary struggle, accidentally falling into the camp of the revolution, is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution is eliminated. from the millions of people, is tempered, grows, develops in this struggle. There is a huge transformation of people taking place.” This explains artistic features works and features of his psychologism. The writer's attention is directed to how his characters behave in the proposed historical conditions whether they accept the demands made by the time and the revolution. For members of the partisan detachment there is no choice. They fight in the name of the future, which is not very clear to them; they only know for sure that it will be better than the past and present.
In this regard, the image of Morozka, one of the heroes of the novel, is interesting. Actually, his presence at the center of the work is explained by the fact that he is an example of a new person undergoing a “remake.” The author spoke about him in his speech: “Morozka is a man with a difficult past... He could steal, he could swear rudely, he could lie, he could drink. All these traits of his character are undoubtedly his huge shortcomings. But in difficult, decisive moments of the struggle, he did what was necessary for the revolution, overcoming his weaknesses. The process of his participation in the revolutionary struggle was the process of forming his personality...”
Speaking about the selection of “human material”, the writer had in mind not only those who turned out to be necessary for the revolution. People “unsuitable” for building a new society are mercilessly discarded. Such a hero in the novel is Mechik. It is no coincidence that this man, by social origin, belongs to the intelligentsia and deliberately joins the partisan detachment, led by the idea of the revolution as a great romantic event. Mechik’s belonging to a different class, despite his conscious desire to fight for the revolution, immediately alienates those around him. “To tell the truth, Morozka didn’t like the rescued one at first sight. Morozka did not like clean people. In his life experience, these were fickle, worthless people who could not be trusted.” This is the first certification that Mechik receives. Morozka’s doubts are consonant with the words of V. Mayakovsky: “An intellectual does not like risk, / He is as red as a radish.”
Several chapters are devoted to Mechik, one of which bears the very characteristic title “One”. Alienation from the team, feeling like an independent person is, in Fadeev’s eyes, the worst drawback. The sword cannot be remade. And the writer contemptuously notes that his hero could not even kill a pig, but he ate pork with everyone else because he was hungry. He cannot insult a woman, swear, or commit petty theft. But these advantages become disadvantages for those around him, especially since he cannot also clean a rifle, handle a horse, or generally become a fighter. Mechik’s problem is that he came to the detachment of his own free will, but he can no longer leave it when he realizes his inadequacy. He leaves the detachment only after committing betrayal.
In the ethical system of the novel, class hatred is a completely natural and valuable feeling. Peaceful life for the author of "Destruction" is at the very bottom of the value scale. The highest self-realization of man is class struggle with weapons in hand. Events that took place in public life, were the cause of changes in the psychology of the heroes and close attention the author to the inner world of man.
Formulating the main thoughts of the novel “Destruction” and reflecting on the remaking of people, Fadeev wrote: “This remaking of people is happening successfully because the revolution is led by advanced representatives of the working class - communists who clearly see the goal of the movement and who lead the more backward and help them re-educate " This is how Levinson appears in the novel. Levinson reserved the right to violence because “his power is correct.” He does not know fear and doubt, and if he knows and experiences ordinary human feelings, he tries with all his might to hide them. He must be a leader who “leads the more backward.” This is an ideal image, corresponding not so much to the truth of life as to the author’s idea.
Describing the features of the works of the 1920s, we talked about the depiction of the revolutionary masses, the poetics of rebellion. Fadeev has not individual heroes, but a single collective, namely a collective, and not a crowd that does not have common tasks and clearly visible landmarks. The main thing in it is the presence of a unifying, high revolutionary goal. The spontaneity praised by many in those years does not at all attract Fadeev. Members of the detachment often indulge in hooligan acts (stealing melons from a chestnut tree, for example), which is evidence of their low consciousness, proof of the need to “remake” a person for a new life. The story of the theft of melons is described at the very beginning of the novel, when we still see the “former” Morozka. Overcoming spontaneity, getting rid of what was brought from the past, the mass becomes a collective. “Yes, I’ll give blood a vein for each, and it’s not like it’s a shame or anything!” - Morozka exclaims when it comes to expelling him from the squad. The comrades come out in defense of Morozka: “I’m not in defense, because you can’t play on both sides here,” the guy did a mischief, I myself suffer with him every day... But the guy, let’s say, is a fighter, you can’t get rid of him. He and I went through the entire Ussuri Front, on the front lines. He won’t give up his guy, he won’t sell him...” says Goncharenko. Dubov echoes him: “Do you think he’s not ours?.. They smoked in one hole... We’ve been sleeping under the same overcoat for three months!” Partnership that has passed the test is the highest value for these people.
As a collective, the members of the detachment recognize themselves in contrast to the peasants (chapter “Men and the Coal Tribe”). The entire time the detachment is in the village, the two groups of people exist separately. The people, for the sake of whose happiness the revolution was carried out, are not the most important thing in this moment. Even more than that, the interests of the revolution and the interests of the people often do not coincide; revolutionary necessity stands above the people. The partisan detachment is more necessary for the revolution, and when difficult times come, Levinson does everything for the detachment: “From that day on, Levinson no longer considered anything, if it was necessary to get food, to find an extra day of rest. He stole cows, robbed peasants’ fields and vegetable gardens, but even Morozka saw that this was not at all like stealing melons from Ryabtsev Bashtan.” The theft of melons was undertaken by Moroznaya for herself, while Levinson acts in the name of the interests of the collective, and therefore, by and large, the interests of the revolution.
Even the life of an individual - the partisan Frolov, who was mortally wounded and therefore hindering the advance of the detachment - can be sacrificed to the interests of the collective. Social necessity for Fadeev and his hero is more important than “abstract humanism.” Once upon a time, talking about the life of an old pawnbroker and the good of humanity, Raskolnikov said: “Yes, there’s arithmetic!” Indeed, arithmetic calculations convince Raskolnikov and Levinson that they are right. But F.M. Dostoevsky rejected this approach to life, believing that one cannot buy the happiness of all mankind even at the cost of one “tear of a child.” This is an ethical imperative1 for all Russian classical literature. She always proved that the end does not justify the means. Fadeev’s ethical system is different. For him there is a higher goal - revolutionary good - that justifies any means.
Revolutionary ethics is built on a strictly rational approach to the world and man. The author of the novel himself said: “Mechik, the other “hero” of the novel, is very “moral” from the point of view of the Ten Commandments... but these qualities remain external to him, they cover up his internal egoism, lack of dedication to the cause of the working class, his purely petty individualism " There is a direct contrast here between the morality of the Ten Commandments and devotion to the working class cause. The author, preaching the triumph of the revolutionary idea, does not notice that the combination of this idea with life turns into violence against life, cruelty. For him, the professed idea is not utopian, and therefore any cruelty is justified.
Fadeev Alexander Alexandrovich (1901, Kimry, Tver province - 1956, Peredelkino near Moscow) - writer.
TO the best works A. Fadeev’s novel “Destruction” dates back to the twenties. “I can define them like this,” said Fadeev. - The first and main idea: in a civil war, a selection of human material occurs, everything hostile is swept away by the revolution, everything incapable of a real revolutionary struggle, accidentally falling into the camp of the revolution, is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution, from the millions of masses of the people, is tempered, grows and develops in this struggle. A huge transformation of people is taking place.”
This transformation of people is happening successfully because the revolution is led by advanced representatives of the working class - communists who clearly see the goal of the movement and who lead the more backward ones and help them re-educate.
The significance of this topic is enormous. During the years of revolution and civil war a radical change occurs in people's consciousness, reason ultimately triumphed over prejudice, the elements of “savagery,” inevitable in any war, receded into the background before the majestic picture of the growth of the “mind of the masses,” millions of working people were drawn into active political life.
“Destruction” by A. Fadeev is one of the first works of art, reflecting ideological content October revolution. The action in Mayhem lasts approximately three months. There are only about thirty characters. This is unusually low for works about the Civil War. The author's focus is on depicting human characters. The main event - the military defeat of the partisan detachment - begins to play a noticeable role in the fate of the heroes only from the middle of the work. The entire first half of the novel is a history of human experiences, conditioned not by a private military episode, but by the totality of the conditions of the revolutionary era, when the character characters outlined, the author shows the battle as a test of the qualities of people. And at the moment of hostilities, all attention is absorbed not in describing them, but in characterizing the behavior and experiences of the participants in the struggle. Where he was, what this or that hero was thinking about - the writer is occupied with such questions from the first to the last chapter. Not a single event was described
not as such, but necessarily taken as a cause or consequence of the hero’s internal movements. Real historical basis The “debacle” was the events of the three most difficult months. The novel gives a general broad picture of the great remaking of the world and man that began on October 25, 1917. “Destruction” is a book about the “birth of man,” about the formation of a new, Soviet self-awareness among the most different participants historical events.
There are no random “happy” endings in Fadeev’s novel. Acute military and psychological conflicts are resolved in it only by the heroic exertion of the physical and spiritual forces of the participants in the war. By the end of the novel, a tragic situation develops: the partisan detachment finds itself surrounded by the enemy. The way out of this situation required great sacrifices, purchased at the cost of the heroic death of the best people in the detachment. The novel ends with the death of most of the heroes: only nineteen remain alive. The plot of the novel, therefore, contains an element of tragedy, which is emphasized in the title itself. Fadeev used the tragic material of the civil war to show that the working masses did not stop at any sacrifice in the struggle for the victory of the proletarian revolution and that this revolution raised ordinary people, people from the people, to the level of heroes of historical tragedy.
The characters of “Devastation” are organically welded together by the real event that lies at the basis of the novel. The system of images as a whole gives rise to such a strong feeling of naturalness that it seems to have emerged as if spontaneously.
The cramped little world of a partisan detachment is an artistic miniature with real picture large historical scale. The system of images of “Destruction”, taken as a whole, reflected the real-typical correlation of the main social forces of the revolution. It was attended by the proletariat, peasantry and intelligentsia, led by the Communist Party. Fadeev managed to find high poetry in the deeds and thoughts of the Bolshevik, in the activities of the party worker, and not in the psychological additions to it and not in its external naturalistic decorations.
“Destruction” not only continues to live in our days, but is also enriched by time, precisely because, along with the present, the book also contains the future. In A. Fadeev’s novel, the future, the dream, have become part of reality. “Destruction” is one of the first works of our literature in which socialist realism is not present in the form of separate elements, but becomes the very basis of the work. A. Fadeev’s work on “Destruction” can serve as an example of the artist’s great exactingness, the writer’s correct understanding of his high responsibility to the reader.
The novel is the result of long thought and great creative work. “I worked a lot on the novel,” says the author, “rewriting individual chapters many times. There are chapters that I have rewritten over twenty times.” But the author carried out hard work associated with clarifying the meaning of individual expressions and improving style.
Its focus is on the complex moral problems of duty, fidelity, humanism, and love that faced Fadeev’s heroes and continue to concern us today.
Http://www.coolsoch.ru/arh/liter/arh4/377.htm
The events in the novel relate to the period of the Civil War in Far East, in which Fadeev himself actively participated. However, the author does not highlight historical issues, and social and psychological research. War, battle, partisan life - all this is just a background for depicting the inner world of heroes, their psychology, relationships with society, internal conflicts. The problems of "Destruction" echo the modern problems humanism, attitude towards man, interactions between man and humanity. The plot of the novel is very simple due to its psychological orientation. In a short period of time from the beginning of the defeat to the last breakthrough of the detachment through the ring of whites, the characters of the heroes emerge, as well as the author’s attitude towards these types of people. Several figures occupy a central place in the novel: Levinson, the detachment commander, is definitely a positive hero, the most perfect of all the people acting in the novel. Snowstorm, to whom an entire chapter is devoted, where his character is fully revealed. Morozka, according to the author’s sympathy, belongs, together with Metelitsa, to Levinson’s positive camp, and Mechik, a completely different type of person who has nothing in common with the first. They are all connected by the same living conditions, and this helps to judge the positive and negative qualities heroes both from the position of the author and from the position of the reader. In addition, there are no special relationships between the heroes, with the exception of Mechik and Morozka, this allows us to consider each hero separately from the others.
Metelitsa became one of the main characters only in the middle of the novel. Fadeev explained this by saying that already in the process of working on the book he saw the need to separately reveal the character of Metelitsa, and since it was too late to rebuild the novel, the episode with Metelitsa stood out, disrupting the harmony of the narrative. Author's attitude there is no doubt about Metelitsa: the scout is clearly sympathetic to Fadeev. Firstly, appearance: this is a flexible, slender hero, in whom “there was... an inexhaustible spring... of extraordinary physical value, animal, vitality.” Such wonderful qualities are rarely endowed negative hero. Secondly, lifestyle: “Metelitsa lives the way he wants, without limiting himself in anything. It's bold, hot, true man" Third: Metelitsa’s positive personality is proven by his actions: reconnaissance, which only such a fearless person as Metelitsa could undertake, decent behavior in captivity, death to save others. Every step he takes is bold and decisive.
For example, being in captivity, realizing that he cannot escape, Metelitsa calmly thinks about death, he is tormented by only one thought: how to accept it with dignity, demonstrating to his enemies his contempt for them. Already on the site where he was supposed to be identified, Metelitsa behaves independently and proudly, but dies, rushing to the rescue little boy a shepherd boy who did not want to hand over the scout to the whites. The author loves this hero and, apparently, that’s why he never writes about him mockingly or sympathetically, as about some others, for example Morozk.
Morozka does not have the virtues inherent in Metelitsa, but he is also completely natural in his actions, the worst qualities of his character are visible: laxity, close to hooliganism, and improvidence. Overall Morozka - good man. He has a wonderful quality that many people lack - love for people. The first time he proved this by saving Mechik, risking his own life, and subsequently almost every act of his testified to this. A striking example is his behavior at the “trial”. Clumsily, with difficulty, but sincerely, he says: “But would I... have done such a thing... well, these same melons... if I had thought... but would I, brothers! Yes, I’ll give blood a vein for each, and it’s not like it’s a shame or anything!” Behind this tongue-tied, helpless speech there is such devotion to comrades that it is difficult not to believe. It is for this, for love for the people, for dedication to work, for kindness, because Morozka did not take revenge on Mechik for his lost wife, for the humane beginning, it is expressed even in Morozka’s love for Mishka, his horse - for these best human qualities the author loves Morozka and makes the reader sympathize with him, despite his many shortcomings; he writes with bitterness about Morozka’s heroic death and almost ends the novel there.
Concentration best qualities person is Levinson. In his face Fadeev portrayed best type leader of the masses, endowed with intelligence, determination and organizational skills. Despite his appearance - Levinson looked like a gnome with his small stature and red beard - the commander commands respect not only from his subordinates, but also from the author and the reader. Fadeev never writes about him mockingly or contemptuously, as he does about Mechik, for example. Levinson’s thoughts, feelings, actions are such as Fadeev would apparently like to see them in the most worthy person, that is, from the author’s point of view, Fadeev endowed his with the best features best hero. What is attractive about Levinson, first of all, is that he lacks internal egoism. All his thoughts and actions express the interests of the detachment; his personal experiences are drowned out by constant concern for others. In practice, he has already sacrificed himself to people. However, no person is without flaws. One of them in Levinson is negative side his victims. Every person is characterized by selfishness to one degree or another, and its complete absence is unnatural. In addition, every person must have a soul, something that moves him and attracts people to him, and Levinson suppressed the movement of the soul in himself, turning his work, which he must love, into a duty. True, he is helped by diligence, commitment and devotion to you.
sewing goals. Fadeev sees Levinson’s shortcomings and believes that he lacks the wonderful qualities of Metelitsa - vitality, courage, love of life - otherwise Levinson would have been ideal person. And yet he is an excellent commander: he makes decisions decisively, so that many do not see his hesitation, he appreciates positive features his subordinates, in particular Morozkov’s daring, Baklanov’s intelligence and diligence, Metelitsa’s courage, he takes full responsibility for preserving the detachment, and therefore enjoys universal respect. His value as a commander is confirmed in the chapter "Squag". The problem of the relationship between the leader and the masses is resolved in favor of Levinson, he retains authority, self-respect and the squad as a “combat unit”. The reason for this is that people are “closer to him than anything else, closer even to himself, because he owes something to them.” This duty is the meaning of his life. Levinson’s position is shared by the author, apparently, which is why the reader perceives him as a teacher, senior, commander, and all his decisions, even in the case of Frolov’s death, seem to be the only correct ones, although they were made after a long internal struggle. Levinson, Metelitsa, Morozka and some other partisans are opposed by Mechik. It is he who is subjected to the sympathetic, and more often contemptuous, attitude of the author. The relationship between man and society is one of the most important problems. Every person lives in society and is obliged to bring benefit to it. Levinson, Morozka, Metelitsa did it at a cost own life, as for Mechik, he only dreams of good attitude people, but for this it is necessary to do something, and Mechik did nothing. His dream of beautiful love, of a romantic feat does not come true. Through the mouth of Morozka, Fadeev immediately contemptuously calls him: “yellow-mouthed,” and when asking Varya who she is in love with, he rewards him with the following epithet: “Into this, mom’s, or what?” Mechik deserves such treatment. This is an egoist who values himself highly, but does not confirm this with his actions. At the most decisive moments, he acted basely, although he himself was often unaware of it. His selfish, incapable of being loyal nature began to reveal itself even when he allowed his foot to step on a photograph of a girl, and then tore it himself. Another example: angry with his horse for its weakness and unattractive appearance, he does not take care of it, dooming it to rapid unfitness. In the end, it was Mechik who was responsible for the death of Morozka and, possibly, many other partisans. It’s scary that the thought that torments him after escaping is not about betrayal, not about the death of his friends, but about the fact that he “stained” his pure, previously unsullied soul: “... how could I do this, - I, so good and honest and who did not wish harm to anyone...” Fadeev evaluates him quite objectively. The author’s point of view is expressed by Levinson: “...weak, lazy, weak-willed,” “worthless barren flower.” And yet Mechik is not the embodiment of evil. The reason for his failures is that he is not close to almost any of the partisans, he is from a different social class, and the traits characteristic of other heroes have not been instilled in him since childhood. Most likely it's not your fault. Most of the partisans are Russian men, people from the people, rude,
brave, cruel, people devoted to the people and loving the people. Mechik is a representative of the “rotten” intelligentsia. The desire for beauty is alive in him, he is compassionate, because only he was strongly impressed by the death of Frolov and Nika’s departure, but he is inexperienced and young, the fear of not being liked by the people among whom he needs to live makes him act unnaturally for him. He correctly understood that he was a stranger in the detachment, his place was not here, but he did not have the opportunity to leave, and his actions can be understood. Even if society does not need him, it should still take care of him as a sick or old person, if it is humane.
Thus, the novel confronts the reader with a series of controversial issues relating to interpersonal relationships, relationships between a person and society, person to person. Fadeev defined the main idea of the novel as follows: “In a civil war, a selection of material takes place, everything hostile is swept away by the revolution, everything incapable of real struggle, that accidentally ends up in the camp of the revolution is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution, from the millions of people, is tempered, grows, develops in this struggle. A huge transformation of people is taking place.”
I think that "selection of human material" happens all the time, not just in the Civil War; those who are incapable of real struggle do not pass natural selection, which is why they are eliminated, but those who carry goodness within themselves and are able to fight for it “harden, grow, develop.” This is necessary for the development of society as a whole, because the desire for goodness, for perfection is natural for a person, for every member of a society that calls itself humane.
The theme of Fadeev’s novel “Destruction” is a story about destinies ordinary people, that is, about the people, during one of the most dramatic periods of Russian history - during the civil war. The writer makes Ivan Morozov the main character of the work, whom his comrades call Morozka for short. He is a simple miner, a man without any special talents, with an ordinary biography. Morozka’s participation in the partisan war for Soviet power in the Far East against Kolchak’s troops and the Japanese changes his psychology, leads to an increase in self-discipline and self-awareness, and his self-esteem allows him to reveal his remarkable spiritual qualities hero. Consequently, the idea of the novel can be formulated this way: in the battles of the civil war, new fierce people are raised who are convinced of the justice of communist ideas and are ready to fight for their implementation, not sparing their strength and even their lives. The courage, perseverance, and will of such people are, according to Fadeev, a guarantee of the invincibility of Soviet power.
In “Destruction,” one event unfolds (the defeat of a partisan detachment), which is typical for the genre of the story, but this event reflects the most important historical processes V folk life, therefore, Fadeev’s small, single-event work can rightfully be called a novel. At the same time, the author focused not on epic battle scenes, but on revealing the inner world of the heroes, on acute dramatic situations in which the heroes show their social essence. It follows that genre originality The “destruction” was expressed in a combination of social and psychological problems.
Fadeev wrote his work at a time when in his youth Soviet literature the display of the masses in revolutionary events prevailed, rather than of an individual personality, when mainly the external signs of the new hero were depicted ( Leather Jacket and the Commissar's Mauser; decisiveness without intellectual hesitation in the Bolshevik hero), and not his spiritual appearance. In such conditions, the creation of a socio-psychological novel (description spiritual world common man and the process of “remaking” his character) became a serious creative achievement of Fadeev. The novel depicts two dozen partisans: orderly Morozka, commander Levinson and his assistant Baklanov, traitor Mechik, scout Metelitsa, sister of mercy Varya, platoon commander Dubov, doctor Stashinsky, miner Goncharenko, high school student Chizh, old man Pika, mortally wounded Frolov, paramedic Kharchenko, platoon commander Kubrak, an arrogant fellow with no name, whom Levinson forced to climb into a cold river to get some caught fish, etc. All of them received memorable portraits in the novel, vivid, albeit brief, characteristics.
To show the revolution through the character of a particular person, that is, to show what the revolution has changed in a person - this is the artistic and social task the writer set for himself and very successfully solved it, because in the novel revolutionary events push the most ordinary people to the conscious and courageous historical creativity. Positive heroes, depicted by Fadeev, before the revolution they only unquestioningly carried out the orders of their owners and various bosses, and now they themselves become “ public people"(VIII); The lives of fellow partisans, and ultimately the fate of Soviet power, depend on them.
The idea of the novel is expressed through the antithesis of Morozok - Mechik. The author consistently and subtly
In the interpretation artistic image it is necessary to take into account not only the reflection in it of the spiritual biography of the writer, not only the position of the author-narrator, but also the strength of traditions. It is well known that Fadeev was entirely guided by the “dialectics of the soul” of L. Tolstoy,...
Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev is a truthful artist and master of words. Already from the early novel “Destruction”, a somewhat romantic style of the author’s narration was formed. A combat participant himself, the writer experienced and felt a lot, which later helped a lot...
To take a closer look at “Devastation”, it is necessary to briefly convey the content. The novel deals with a heterogeneous partisan mass. The revolutionary wave affected the interests of all groups of the population. One of the main characters, partisan commander Levinson,...
Many literary critics see an allegorical meaning in the title of Fadeev’s novel. Critical analyzes often quote from an article by V. Fritzsche, published in 1927, immediately after the magazine publication of “Destruction”: “In Morozka, the old turned out to be stronger....