Analysis of the story “The Fate of a Man” (M.A. Sholokhov)

(Literary investigation)

Participating in the investigation:
Presenter - librarian
Independent historian
Witnesses - literary heroes

Leading: 1956 31th of December the story was published in Pravda "The Fate of Man" . This story began a new stage in the development of our military literature. And here Sholokhov’s fearlessness and Sholokhov’s ability to show the era in all its complexity and in all its drama through the fate of one person played a role.

The main plot motif of the story is the fate of a simple Russian soldier Andrei Sokolov. His life, the same age as the century, is correlated with the biography of the country, with the most important events in history. In May 1942 he was captured. In two years he traveled “half of Germany” and escaped from captivity. During the war, he lost his entire family. After the war, having accidentally met an orphan boy, Andrei adopted him.

After “The Fate of Man,” omissions about the tragic events of the war, about the bitterness of captivity experienced by many Soviet people, became impossible. Soldiers and officers who were very loyal to their homeland and found themselves in a hopeless situation at the front were also captured, but they were often treated as traitors. Sholokhov's story, as it were, pulled back the veil from much that was hidden by the fear of offending the heroic portrait of Victory.

Let's go back to the years of the Great Patriotic War, to its most tragic period - 1942-1943. A word from an independent historian.

Historian: August 16, 1941 Stalin signed the order № 270 , which said:
“Commanders and political workers who surrender to the enemy during battle are considered malicious deserters, whose families are subject to arrest, as families of those who violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland.”

The order required the destruction of prisoners by all “by means both ground and air, and the families of the Red Army soldiers who surrendered were deprived of state benefits and assistance”

In 1941 alone, according to German data, 3 million 800 thousand Soviet military personnel were captured. By the spring of 1942, 1 million 100 thousand people remained alive.

In total, out of approximately 6.3 million prisoners of war, about 4 million died during the war.

Leading: The Great Patriotic War ended, the victorious salvos died down, and the peaceful life of the Soviet people began. What was the future fate of people like Andrei Sokolov, who were captured or survived the occupation? How did our society treat such people?

Testifies in his book "My adult childhood".

(The girl testifies on behalf of L.M. Gurchenko).

Witness: Not only Kharkov residents, but also residents of other cities began to return to Kharkov from evacuation. Everyone had to be provided with living space. Those who remained in the occupation were looked at askance. They were primarily moved from apartments and rooms on the floors to basements. We waited our turn.

In the classroom, the new arrivals declared a boycott of those who remained under the Germans. I didn’t understand anything: if I had been through so much, seen so many terrible things, on the contrary, they should understand me, feel sorry for me... I began to be afraid of people who looked at me with contempt and started following me: “shepherd dog.” Oh, if only they knew what a real German Shepherd is. If they had seen how a shepherd dog leads people straight into the gas chamber... these people would not have said that... When films and newsreels appeared on the screen, which showed the horrors of executions and massacres of Germans in the occupied territories, gradually this “disease” began to become a thing of the past .

Leading: ... 10 years have passed since the victorious 1945, Sholokhov’s war did not let go. He was working on a novel "They fought for their homeland" and a story "The Fate of Man."

According to literary critic V. Osipov, this story could not have been created at any other time. It began to be written when its author finally saw the light and realized: Stalin is not an icon for the people, Stalinism is Stalinism. As soon as the story came out, there was praise from almost every newspaper or magazine. Remarque and Hemingway responded - they sent telegrams. And to this day, not a single anthology of Soviet short stories can do without him.

Leading: You have read this story. Please share your impressions, what touched you about him, what left you indifferent?

(Answers from the guys)

Leading: There are two polar opinions about M.A.’s story. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man”: Alexandra Solzhenitsyn and a writer from Almaty Veniamina Larina. Let's listen to them.

(The young man testifies on behalf of A.I. Solzhenitsyn)

Solzhenitsyn A.I.: “The Fate of Man” is a very weak story, where the war pages are pale and unconvincing.

Firstly: the most non-criminal case of captivity was chosen - without memory, in order to make this undeniable, to circumvent the entire severity of the problem. (And if you gave up in memory, as was the case with the majority - what and how then?)

Secondly: the main problem is presented not in the fact that our homeland abandoned us, renounced us, cursed us (not a word about this from Sholokhov), and this is precisely what creates hopelessness, but in the fact that traitors were declared among us there...

Thirdly: a fantastic detective escape from captivity was created with a bunch of exaggerations so that the obligatory, unwavering procedure for those who came from captivity did not arise: “SMERSH-testing-filtration camp.”

Leading: SMERSH - what kind of organization is this? A word from an independent historian.

Historian: From the encyclopedia “The Great Patriotic War”:
“By the Decree of the State Defense Committee of April 14, 1943, the Main Directorate of Counterintelligence “SMERSH” - “Death to Spies” was formed. The intelligence services of Nazi Germany tried to launch widespread subversive activities against the USSR. They created over 130 reconnaissance and sabotage agencies and about 60 special reconnaissance and sabotage schools on the Soviet-German front. Sabotage detachments and terrorists were thrown into the active Soviet Army. SMERSH agencies conducted an active search for enemy agents in areas of combat operations, in the locations of military installations, and ensured timely receipt of information about the dispatch of enemy spies and saboteurs. After the war, in May 1946, SMERSH bodies were transformed into special departments and subordinated to the USSR Ministry of State Security.”

Leading: And now the opinion of Veniamin Larin.

(Young man on behalf of V. Larin)

Larin V .: Sholokhov’s story is praised only for one theme of a soldier’s feat. But literary critics with such an interpretation kill - safely for themselves - the true meaning of the story. Sholokhov’s truth is broader and does not end with victory in the battle with the fascist captivity machine. They pretend that the big story has no continuation: like a big state, big power belongs to a small person, albeit a great one in spirit. Sholokhov rips a revelation out of his heart: look, readers, how the authorities treat people - slogans, slogans, and what the hell care about people! Captivity cut a man to pieces. But there, in captivity, even mutilated, he remained faithful to his country, and returned? Nobody needs! Orphan! And with the boy there are two orphans... Grains of Sand... And not only under a military hurricane. But Sholokhov is great - he was not tempted by a cheap turn of the topic: he did not invest his hero with either pitiful pleas for sympathy or curses addressed to Stalin. I saw in my Sokolov the eternal essence of the Russian person - patience and perseverance.

Leading: Let's turn to the works of writers who write about captivity, and with their help we will recreate the atmosphere of the difficult war years.

(The hero of the story “The Road to the Father’s House” by Konstantin Vorobyov testifies)

Partisan's story: I was taken prisoner near Volokolamsk in '41, and although sixteen years have passed since then, and I remained alive, and divorced my family, and all that stuff, I don’t know how to tell about how I spent the winter in captivity: I don’t have Russian words for this. No!

The two of us escaped from the camp, and over time a whole detachment of us, former prisoners, was assembled. Klimov... restored our military ranks to all of us. You see, you were, say, a sergeant before captivity, and you still remain one. You were a soldier - be one to the end!

It used to happen...you destroy an enemy truck with bombs, and the soul in you immediately seems to straighten out, and something rejoices there - now I’m not fighting for myself alone, as in the camp! Let’s defeat this bastard, we’ll definitely finish it, and that’s how you get to this place before victory, that is, just stop!

And then, after the war, a questionnaire will be required immediately. And there will be one small question - were you in captivity? In place, this question is just for a one-word answer “yes” or “no”.

And to the one who hands you this questionnaire, it doesn’t matter at all what you did during the war, but what matters is where you were! Oh, in captivity? So... Well, you know what it means. In life and in truth, this situation should have been quite the opposite, but here you go!...

Let me say briefly: exactly three months later we joined a large partisan detachment.

I will tell you another time about how we acted until the arrival of our army. Yes, I don’t think it matters. The important thing is that we not only turned out to be alive, but also entered into the human system, that we again turned into fighters, and we remained Russian people in the camps.

Leading: Let's listen to the confession of the partisan and Andrei Sokolov.

Partisan: You were, say, a sergeant before your capture - and remain one. You were a soldier - be one to the end.

Andrey Sokolov : That’s why you’re a man, that’s why you’re a soldier, to endure everything, to endure everything, if need calls for it.

For both, war is hard work that must be done conscientiously, giving one’s all.

Leading: Major Pugachev testifies from the story V. Shalamov “The Last Battle of Major Pugachev”

Reader: Major Pugachev remembered the German camp from which he escaped in 1944. The front was approaching the city. He worked as a truck driver inside a huge cleaning camp. He remembered how he sped up the truck and knocked down the single-strand barbed wire, tearing out hastily placed poles. Shots of sentries, screams, frantic driving around the city in different directions, an abandoned car, driving at night to the front line and meeting - interrogation in a special department. Charged with espionage, sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Vlasov's emissaries arrived, but he did not believe them until he himself reached the Red Army units. Everything that the Vlasovites said was true. He wasn't needed. The authorities were afraid of him.

Leading: Having listened to the testimony of Major Pugachev, you involuntarily note: his story is straightforward - confirmation of Larin’s correctness:
“He was there, in captivity, even mangled, he remained faithful to his country, and returned?.. No one needs him! Orphan!"

Sergeant Alexey Romanov, a former school history teacher from Stalingrad, the real hero of the story, testifies Sergei Smirnov “The Path to the Motherland” from book "Heroes of the Great War".

(The reader testifies on behalf of A. Romanov)

Alexey Romanov: In the spring of 1942, I ended up in the international camp Feddel, on the outskirts of Hamburg. There, in the port of Hamburg, we were prisoners and worked unloading ships. The thought of escaping did not leave me for a minute. My friend Melnikov and I decided to run away, thought out an escape plan, frankly speaking, a fantastic plan. Escape from the camp, enter the port, hide on a Swedish ship and sail with it to one of the ports of Sweden. From there you can get to England with a British ship, and then with some caravan of allied ships come to Murmansk or Arkhangelsk. And then again pick up a machine gun or a machine gun and, at the front, pay off the Nazis for everything that they had to endure in captivity over the years.

On December 25, 1943, we escaped. We were just lucky. Miraculously, we managed to move to the other side of the Elbe, to the port where the Swedish ship was docked. We climbed into the hold with coke, and in this iron coffin, without water, without food, we sailed to our homeland, and for this we were ready to do anything, even death. I woke up a few days later in a Swedish prison hospital: it turned out that we had been discovered by workers unloading coke. The doctor was called. Melnikov was already dead, but I survived. I began to try to be sent home and ended up with Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai. She helped me return home in 1944.

Leading: Before we continue our conversation, a word from the historian. What do the numbers tell us about the future fate of former prisoners of war?

Historian: From book "The Great Patriotic War. Figures and facts". Those who returned from captivity after the war (1 million 836 thousand people) were sent: more than 1 million people - for further service in units of the Red Army, 600 thousand - to work in industry as part of work battalions, and 339 thousand ( including some civilians) as having compromised themselves in captivity - to NKVD camps.

Leading: War is a continent of cruelty. It is sometimes impossible to protect hearts from the madness of hatred, bitterness, and fear in captivity and blockade. Man is literally brought to the gates of the Last Judgment. Sometimes it is more difficult to endure, to live life in war, surrounded, than to endure death.

What is common in the destinies of our witnesses, what makes their souls related? Are the reproaches addressed to Sholokhov fair?

(We listen to the guys’ answers)

Perseverance, tenacity in the struggle for life, the spirit of courage, camaraderie - these qualities come from the tradition of Suvorov’s soldier, they were sung by Lermontov in “Borodino”, Gogol in the story “Taras Bulba”, they were admired by Leo Tolstoy. Andrei Sokolov has all this, the partisan from Vorobyov’s story, Major Pugachev, Alexei Romanov.

Remaining human in war is not just about surviving and “killing him” (i.e. the enemy). This is to keep your heart for good. Sokolov went to the front as a man, and remained so after the war.

Reader: The story on the theme of the tragic fate of prisoners is the first in Soviet literature. Written in 1955! So why is Sholokhov deprived of the literary and moral right to begin the topic this way and not otherwise?

Solzhenitsyn reproaches Sholokhov for writing not about those who “surrendered” into captivity, but about those who were “trapped” or “captured.” But he did not take into account that Sholokhov could not do otherwise:

Brought up on Cossack traditions. It was no coincidence that he defended Kornilov’s honor before Stalin by the example of escaping from captivity. And in fact, since ancient times of battle, people first of all give sympathy not to those who “surrendered”, but to those who were “captured” due to irresistible hopelessness: wounded, encircled, unarmed, due to the treason of the commander or the betrayal of the rulers;

He took upon himself the political courage to give up his authority in order to protect from political stigma those who were honest in the performance of military duty and male honor.

Maybe Soviet reality is embellished? Sholokhov’s last lines about the unfortunate Sokolov and Vanyushka began like this: “With heavy sadness I looked after them...”.

Maybe Sokolov’s behavior in captivity has been embellished? There are no such reproaches.

Leading: Now it is easy to analyze the words and actions of the author. Or maybe it’s worth thinking about: was it easy for him to live his own life? How easy was it for an artist who couldn’t, didn’t have time to say everything he wanted, and, of course, could have said? Subjectively he could (he had enough talent, courage, and material!), but objectively he could not (the time, the era, were such that it was not published, and therefore not written...) How often, how much has our Russia lost at all times: uncreated sculptures, unwritten paintings and books, who knows, maybe the most talented...Great Russian artists were born at the wrong time - either early or late - undesirable to the rulers.

IN "Conversation with Father" MM. Sholokhov conveys the words of Mikhail Alexandrovich in response to criticism from a reader, a former prisoner of war who survived Stalin’s camps:
“What do you think, I don’t know what happened during captivity or after it? What, I don’t know the extremes of human baseness, cruelty, and meanness? Or do you think that, knowing this, I am being mean to myself?... How much skill is needed to tell people the truth..."

Could Mikhail Alexandrovich have kept silent about many things in his story? - I could! Time has taught him to remain silent and not say anything: an intelligent reader will understand everything, guess everything.

Many years have passed since, by the will of the writer, more and more new readers meet the heroes of this story. They think. They are sad. They're crying. And they are surprised at how generous the human heart is, how inexhaustible the kindness is in it, the ineradicable need to protect and protect, even when, it would seem, there is nothing to think about.

Literature:

1. Biryukov F. G. Sholokhov: to help teachers and high school students. and applicants / F. G. Biryukov. - 2nd ed. - M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2000. - 111 p. - (Rereading the classics).

2. Zhukov, Ivan Ivanovich. The hand of fate: Truth and lies about M. Sholokhov and A. Fadeev. - M.: Gaz.-magazine. about-nie "Resurrection", 1994. - 254, p., l. ill. : ill.

3. Osipov, Valentin Osipovich. The secret life of Mikhail Sholokhov...: a documentary chronicle without legends / V.O. Osipov. - M.: LIBEREYA, 1995. - 415 p., l. port p.

4. Petelin, Viktor Vasilievich. Life of Sholokhov: Russian tragedy. genius / Victor Petelin. - M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2002. - 893, p., l. ill. : portrait ; 21 cm. - (Immortal names).

5. Russian literature of the 20th century: a manual for high school students, applicants and students / L. A. Iezuitova, S. A. Iezuitov [etc.]; ed. T. N. Nagaitseva. - St. Petersburg. : Neva, 1998. - 416 p.

6. Chalmaev V. A. Remain human in war: Front-line pages of Russian prose of the 60-90s: to help teachers, high school students and applicants / V. A. Chalmaev. - 2nd ed. - M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2000. - 123 p. - (Rereading the classics).

7. Sholokhova S. M. Execution plan: On the history of an unwritten story / S. M. Sholokhovva // Peasant. - 1995. - No. 8. - February.

"The Fate of Man": how it happened

The Great Patriotic War, even after many decades, remains the greatest blow for the whole world. What a tragedy this is for the fighting Soviet people, who lost the most people in this bloody battle! The lives of many (both military and civilian) were ruined. Sholokhov's story “The Fate of Man” truthfully depicts these sufferings, not of an individual person, but of the entire people who stood up to defend their Motherland.

The story “The Fate of a Man” is based on real events: M.A. Sholokhov met a man who told him his tragic biography. This story was almost a ready-made plot, but did not immediately turn into a literary work. The writer nurtured his idea for 10 years, but put it on paper in just a few days. And he dedicated it to E. Levitskaya, who helped him publish the main novel of his life, “Quiet Don.”

The story was published in the Pravda newspaper on the eve of the new year, 1957. And soon it was read on All-Union Radio and heard throughout the country. Listeners and readers were shocked by the power and truthfulness of this work, and it gained well-deserved popularity. In literary terms, this book opened up a new way for writers to explore the theme of war - through the fate of a little man.

The essence of the story

The author accidentally meets the main character Andrei Sokolov and his son Vanyushka. During the forced delay at the crossing, the men started talking, and a casual acquaintance told the writer his story. This is what he told him.

Before the war, Andrei lived like everyone else: wife, children, household, work. But then thunder struck, and the hero went to the front, where he served as a driver. One fateful day, Sokolov’s car came under fire and he was shell-shocked. So he was captured.

A group of prisoners was brought to the church for the night, many incidents happened that night: the shooting of a believer who could not desecrate the church (they didn’t even let him out “until the wind”), and with him several people who accidentally fell under machine gun fire, help from a doctor to Sokolov and others wounded. Also, the main character had to strangle another prisoner, since he turned out to be a traitor and was going to hand over the commissioner. Even during the next transfer to the concentration camp, Andrei tried to escape, but was caught by dogs, who stripped him of his last clothes and bit him so much that “the skin and meat flew into shreds.”

Then the concentration camp: inhuman work, almost starvation, beatings, humiliation - that’s what Sokolov had to endure. “They need four cubic meters of production, but for the grave of each of us, one cubic meter through the eyes is enough!” - Andrei said imprudently. And for this he appeared before Lagerführer Müller. They wanted to shoot the main character, but he overcame his fear, bravely drank three glasses of schnapps to his death, for which he earned respect, a loaf of bread and a piece of lard.

Towards the end of hostilities, Sokolov was appointed driver. And finally, an opportunity arose to escape, and even together with the engineer whom the hero was driving. Before the joy of salvation had time to subside, grief arrived: he learned about the death of his family (a shell hit the house), and all this time he lived only in the hope of a meeting. One son survived. Anatoly also defended his homeland, and Sokolov and he simultaneously approached Berlin from different directions. But right on the day of victory, the last hope was killed. Andrey was left all alone.

Subjects

The main theme of the story is a man at war. These tragic events are an indicator of personal qualities: in extreme situations, those character traits that are usually hidden are revealed, it is clear who is who in reality. Before the war, Andrei Sokolov was not particularly different; he was like everyone else. But in battle, having survived captivity and constant danger to life, he proved himself. His truly heroic qualities were revealed: patriotism, courage, perseverance, will. On the other hand, a prisoner like Sokolov, probably also no different in ordinary peaceful life, was going to betray his commissar in order to curry favor with the enemy. Thus, the theme of moral choice is also reflected in the work.

Also M.A. Sholokhov touches on the topic of willpower. The war took away from the main character not only his health and strength, but also his entire family. He has no home, how can he continue to live, what to do next, how to find meaning? This question has interested hundreds of thousands of people who have experienced similar losses. And for Sokolov, caring for the boy Vanyushka, who was also left without a home and family, became a new meaning. And for his sake, for the sake of the future of his country, you need to live on. Here is the disclosure of the theme of the search for the meaning of life - a real person finds it in love and hope for the future.

Issues

The problem of choice occupies an important place in the story. Every person faces a choice every day. But not everyone has to choose on pain of death, knowing that your fate depends on this decision. So, Andrei had to decide: to betray or remain faithful to the oath, to bend under the blows of the enemy or to fight. Sokolov was able to remain a worthy person and citizen because he determined his priorities, guided by honor and morality, and not by the instinct of self-preservation, fear or meanness.
The whole fate of the hero, in his life trials, reflects the problem of the defenselessness of the common man in the face of war. Little depends on him; circumstances are falling on him, from which he is trying to get out at least alive. And if Andrei was able to save himself, then his family was not. And he feels guilty about it, even though he isn't.
The problem of cowardice is realized in the work through secondary characters. The image of a traitor who, for the sake of immediate gain, is ready to sacrifice the life of a fellow soldier, becomes a counterweight to the image of the brave and strong-willed Sokolov. And there were such people in the war, says the author, but there were fewer of them, that’s the only reason we won.
The tragedy of war. Numerous losses were suffered not only by the military units, but also by civilians who could not defend themselves in any way.

Characteristics of the main characters

Andrei Sokolov is an ordinary person, one of many who had to leave their peaceful existence in order to defend their homeland. He exchanges a simple and happy life for the dangers of war, without even imagining how he can remain on the sidelines. In extreme circumstances, he maintains spiritual nobility, shows willpower and perseverance. Under the blows of fate, he managed not to break. And find a new meaning in life, which reveals his kindness and responsiveness, because he sheltered an orphan.
Vanyushka is a lonely boy who has to spend the night wherever he can. His mother was killed during the evacuation, his father at the front. Tattered, dusty, covered in watermelon juice - this is how he appeared before Sokolov. And Andrei could not leave the child, he introduced himself as his father, giving both himself and him a chance for a further normal life.

What is the meaning of the work?

One of the main ideas of the story is the need to take into account the lessons of the war. The example of Andrei Sokolov shows not what war can do to a person, but what it can do to all of humanity. Prisoners tortured in concentration camps, orphaned children, destroyed families, scorched fields - this should never be repeated, and therefore should not be forgotten.

No less important is the idea that in any, even the most terrible situation, one must remain human and not become like an animal that, out of fear, acts only on the basis of instincts. Survival is the main thing for anyone, but if this comes at the cost of betraying oneself, one’s comrades, one’s Motherland, then the surviving soldier is no longer a person, he is not worthy of this title. Sokolov did not betray his ideals, did not break, although he went through something that is difficult for a modern reader to even imagine.

Genre

A short story is a short literary genre that reveals one storyline and several characters. “The Fate of Man” refers specifically to him.

However, if you take a closer look at the composition of the work, you can clarify the general definition, because this is a story within a story. First, the story is narrated by the author, who, by the will of fate, met and talked with his character. Andrei Sokolov himself describes his difficult life; the first-person narration allows readers to better understand the hero’s feelings and understand him. The author's remarks are introduced to characterize the hero from the outside (“eyes, as if sprinkled with ashes,” “I didn’t see a single tear in his seemingly dead, extinct eyes... only his large, limply lowered hands trembled slightly, his chin trembled, his hard lips trembled”) and show how deeply this strong man suffers.

What values does Sholokhov promote?

The main value for the author (and for readers) is peace. Peace between states, peace in society, peace in the human soul. The war destroyed the happy life of Andrei Sokolov, as well as many people. The echo of the war still does not subside, so its lessons should not be forgotten (although this event has often recently been overestimated for political purposes that are far from the ideals of humanism).

Also, the writer does not forget about the eternal values of the individual: nobility, courage, will, desire to help. The time of knights and noble dignity has long passed, but true nobility does not depend on origin, it is in the soul, expressed in its ability to show mercy and empathy, even if the world around it is collapsing. This story is a great lesson in courage and morality for modern readers.

We must not forget the lessons that humanity learned from the common tragedy of the people, the Great Patriotic War. The war caused irreparable damage to millions of our fellow citizens, and one of them was Andrei Sokolov, the main character of Sholokhov’s story “The Fate of a Man.” The authenticity of the author's greatest creation has gained worldwide popularity, striking with its tragedy and humanity. We offer an analysis of the work “The Fate of Man” according to plan, in preparation for a literature lesson in 9th grade.

Brief Analysis

Year of writing– 1956

History of creation– The story is based on real events. A man he met while hunting told his story to the writer. The story struck the writer to the point that he decided to publish the story.

Subject– The main theme of the work is the theme of war, along with it the theme of the strength of the human spirit and the search for meaning in life is revealed.

Composition– The composition of this work consists of two stories, first the narration comes from the author’s perspective, then his new acquaintance tells his story. The work ends with the words of the author.

Genre- Story.

Direction– Realism.

History of creation

The history of the creation of this story is interesting. One day while hunting, M. Sholokhov met a man. A conversation began between the new acquaintances, and a random passer-by told Sholokhov about his sad fate. The tragic story deeply touched the writer’s soul, and he decided to write a story. He did not start work right away; for ten years the writer discussed this idea, and only then, in just a few days, he transferred it to paper, and the year the story was written became 1956. The work was published at the very end of the year, on the eve of 1957.

The story “The Fate of Man” was dedicated to the writer E. G. Levitskaya. She was among the first readers of "Quiet Don" and contributed to the publication of this novel.

Subject

In the story “The Fate of Man,” analysis of the work immediately reveals main topic, the theme of war, and not only war, but the person who participated in it. This tragedy of an entire country reveals the very depths of the human soul, it makes it clear what a person really is.

Before the war, Andrei Sokolov was an ordinary person, he had a home, family, and work. Like all ordinary people, Sokolov lived and worked, perhaps dreamed of something. In any case, war was not included in his plans. Andrei trained to be a driver, worked on a truck, the children did well at school, and his wife took care of the house. Everything went as usual, and suddenly war broke out. Already on the third day, Sokolov went to the front. As a true patriot of his Motherland, Sokolov becomes its defender.

Sholokhov was one of the writers who was confident in the strength of the spirit of the Russian man, capable of preserving real human qualities even in a bloody battle. In his story, the main idea is the fate of Andrei Sokolov, who managed to remain human, and his fate is in tune with millions of other Soviet people who went through the meat grinder of war, captivity, concentration camps, but managed to return to normal life without losing the most important thing in themselves - humanity.

This work expresses problems morality and spirituality. The war has forced everyone to make a choice, and everyone solves these problems themselves. People like Andrei Sokolov did not bend before the enemy, managed to resist, endure, and only further strengthen their faith in the power of the Motherland and the Russian people. But there were also those who, in order to preserve their petty, worthless life, were ready to betray both their comrade and their homeland.

A person remains a person in any situation, no matter how terrible it may be. In the worst case, a person will choose death, but human dignity will not allow him to commit treason. And if a person chooses his own life at the cost of the lives of his comrades, he can no longer be called a man. This is what Sokolov did: when he heard about the impending betrayal, he simply strangled this vile little bastard.

The fate of Andrei Sokolov was tragic, and he had a hard time during the war, and after the war it became even worse. His family was bombed by the Germans, his eldest son died on Victory Day, and he was left completely alone, without a family and without a home. But even here Sokolov stood his ground, picked up a homeless boy, and called himself his father, giving hope for the future to both him and himself.

Having analyzed the story, we can conclude that humanity is invincible, as well as nobility, courage and bravery. Anyone who reads “The Fate of Man” should understand what this heroic story teaches. This story is about the courage and heroism of an entire people who defeated a treacherous enemy and maintained faith in the future of the country.

The years of war broke many destinies, took away the past, and deprived them of the future. The hero of the story went through all the hardships of wartime, and was left alone, having lost his home and family, he also loses the meaning of life. A little boy was left without a home and family, just as restless as Sokolov. Two people found each other, and again found the meaning of life, and revived faith in the future. Now they have someone to live for, and they are happy that fate brought them together. A person like Sokolov will be able to raise a worthy citizen of the country.

Composition

Compositionally in the work it appears story within a story, it comes from two authors. The narration begins from the author's point of view.

One of the critics subtly noticed how different the author’s language is from Sokolov’s. Sholokhov skillfully uses these expressive artistic means, and his work gains brightness and depth of content, adding extraordinary tragedy to Sokolov’s story.

Main characters

Genre

Sholokhov himself called his work a story, and in essence it corresponds to this genre. But in terms of the depth of its content, in its tragedy, covering the fate of entire humanity, it can be compared with an epoch-making epic, in terms of the breadth of its generalization, “The Fate of Man” is an image of the fate of the entire Soviet people during the war.

The story has a pronounced realistic direction, it is based on real events, and the characters have their own prototypes.

Work test

Rating analysis

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 1662.

The story was written in 1956 during Khrushchev’s “thaw”. Sholokhov was a participant in the Great Patriotic War. There he heard the life story of one soldier. She really touched him. Sholokhov harbored the idea of writing this story for a long time. And so, in 1956, he ventured into a topic that was forbidden after the war. The topic - man at war - is widely covered in literature, but the author found his own approach to solving this issue, found a new, original artistic solution to the problem. The genre of the work is a story, where an epic narration is told about several episodes from the life of the hero. The writer placed a lot of material about this life - from birth to adulthood, which would be enough for a novel, within the framework of a story. How did he achieve this? This is the skill of Sholokhov, the writer.
The composition of the work is interesting. At the beginning of it, a description of the first post-war spring is given: “The first post-war spring on the Upper Don was extremely friendly and assertive.” Then the author talks about meeting with an unknown person who talks about his fate. The main part of this work is a story within a story. The narration is in the first person. Andrei Sokolov chooses the most important episodes of his life. He often interrupts his story because he worries about everything he has lived through. This creates emotionality, persuasiveness and authenticity of the narrative. At the end, the parting with his new acquaintance, who was “a stranger, but became a close person,” is described, and the author thinks about the future fate of the heroes. Here the feelings and emotions of the author himself are revealed.
Sholokhov is a master of creating images. A man with a difficult fate visibly appears in full growth. From his story we learn that he is the same age as the century. Andrey was a “tall, stooped man.” We do not immediately see Sokolov’s portrait characteristics. Sholokhov gives it in detail. First, he highlights “a large, callous hand,” then “eyes, as if sprinkled with ashes, filled with such an inescapable mortal melancholy.” The image of Andrei Sokolov is complemented by speech characteristics. In the hero’s speech you can often hear professional words: “steering wheel”, “blow on all the hardware”, “last stage”, “went at first speed”, “brother”. Sokolov is the embodiment of the national Russian character, therefore his speech is figurative, close to folk, colloquial. Andrey uses proverbs: “pickled tobacco is like a cured horse.” He uses comparisons and sayings: “like a horse and a turtle,” “how much is a pound worth.” Andrey is a simple, illiterate person, so there are many incorrect words and expressions in his speech. Sokolov's character is revealed gradually. Before the war he was a good family man. “I worked day and night for these ten years. I made good money, and we lived no worse than other people. And the children made me happy..." “We built a little house before the war.” During the war, he behaves like a real man. Andrei couldn’t stand “those slobbery ones” who “smeared their snot on the paper.” “That’s why you’re a man, that’s why you’re a soldier, to endure everything, to endure everything, if need calls for it.” Sokolov was a simple soldier, fulfilling his duty, as if he were at work. Then he was captured and learned both the true brotherhood of soldiers and fascism. This is how they were taken into captivity: “...our people caught me on the fly, pushed me into the middle and led me by the arms for half an hour.” The writer shows the horrors of fascism. The Germans drove the prisoners into a church with a broken dome onto the bare floor. Then Andrei sees a captive doctor who shows true humanism towards his other comrades in misfortune. “He did his great work both in captivity and in the darkness.” Here Sokolov had to commit his first murder. Andrei killed a captured soldier who wanted to hand over his platoon commander to the Germans. “For the first time in my life I killed, and it was my own.” The climax of the story is the episode with Muller. Müller is the camp commandant, “short, thick-set, blond, and all sort of white himself.” “He spoke Russian like you and me.” “And he was a terrible master at swearing.” Mueller's actions are the epitome of fascism. Every day, wearing a leather glove with a lead lining, he went out in front of the prisoners and hit every second one in the nose. It was “flu prevention.” Andrei Sokolov was summoned to Mueller following a denunciation from “some scoundrel,” and Andrei prepared to be “sprayed.” But even here our hero did not lose face. He wanted to show “that although he is falling from hunger, he is not going to choke on their handouts, that he has his own, Russian dignity and pride, and that they have not turned him into a beast.” And Muller, although he was a true fascist, respected Andrei and even rewarded him for his courage. Thus, Sokolov saved his life. Afterwards he escapes from captivity. Here a new blow awaits him. Andrei learned that his wife and daughters had died. But Sokolov also receives good news - his son has become a commander. Andrei is preparing for a meeting with Anatoly, but this is not destined to come true, because on Victory Day Tolik is killed by a sniper. Any person would have broken down after such events, but Andrei Sokolov was not embittered by his tragic fate. After the war, he adopted the boy Vanyushka, and he got the meaning of life - to take care of the orphan and raise the boy.
The image of Vanyushka appears in the story along with the image of Andrei Sokolov. The author does not immediately give a portrait description. Sholokhov highlights individual details in the portrait of Vanyushka, a boy of five or six years old. First, he highlights the “pink, cold little hand,” and then “the eyes, as bright as the sky.” Vanyushka's portrait is based on a sharp contrast technique. It is contrasted with the portrait of Andrei Sokolov.
In the story we see another very vivid image - the image of Irina. She was brought up in an orphanage. Irina was “meek, cheerful, obsequious and smart.” Andrey speaks very well of her: “I got a good girl!”
In the story, the image of the author gradually emerges. We see that he loves life, nature, spring. He felt good in nature. The author was a participant in the war. He is very attentive to people. The author is no less worried than Andrei; he looked at the leaving people “with heavy sadness.” At the end of the story, a “burning and stingy male tear” runs down his cheek.
Throughout the entire story, the author tries to show the spiritual beauty of a hard worker who cannot be broken by any tragedy.

The story was written in 1956 during Khrushchev’s “thaw”. Sholokhov was a participant in the Great Patriotic War. There he heard the life story of one soldier. She really touched him. Sholokhov harbored the idea of writing this story for a long time. And so, in 1956, he ventured into a topic that was forbidden after the war. The topic - man at war - is widely covered in literature, but the author found his own approach to solving this issue, found a new, original artistic solution to the problem. The genre of the work is a story, where an epic narration is told about several episodes from the life of the hero. The writer placed a lot of material about this life - from birth to adulthood, which would be enough for a novel, within the framework of a story. How did he achieve this? This is the skill of Sholokhov, the writer. The composition of the work is interesting. At the beginning of it, a description of the first post-war spring is given: “The first post-war spring on the Upper Don was extremely friendly and assertive.” Then the author talks about meeting with an unknown person who talks about his fate. The main part of this work is a story within a story. The narration is in the first person.
Andrei Sokolov chooses the most important episodes of his life. He often interrupts his story because he worries about everything he has lived through. This creates emotionality, persuasiveness and authenticity of the narrative. At the end, the parting with his new acquaintance, who was “a stranger, but became a close person,” is described, and the author thinks about the future fate of the heroes. Here the feelings and emotions of the author himself are revealed. Sholokhov is a master of creating images. A man with a difficult fate visibly appears in full growth. From his story we learn that he is the same age as the century. Andrey was a “tall, stooped man.” We do not immediately see Sokolov’s portrait characteristics.
Sholokhov gives it in detail. First, he highlights “a large, callous hand,” then “eyes, as if sprinkled with ashes, filled with such an inescapable mortal melancholy.” The image of Andrei Sokolov is complemented by speech characteristics. In the hero’s speech you can often hear professional words: “steering wheel”, “blow on all the hardware”, “last stage”, “went at first speed”, “brother”. Sokolov is the embodiment of the national Russian character, therefore his speech is figurative, close to folk, colloquial. Andrey uses proverbs: “pickled tobacco is like a cured horse.”
He uses comparisons and sayings: “like a horse and a turtle,” “how much is a pound worth.” Andrey is a simple, illiterate person, so there are many incorrect words and expressions in his speech. Sokolov's character is revealed gradually. Before the war he was a good family man. “I worked day and night for these ten years. I made good money, and we lived no worse than other people. And the children made me happy..." “We built a little house before the war.” During the war, he behaves like a real man. Andrei couldn’t stand “those slobbery ones” who “smeared their snot on the paper.” “That’s why you’re a man, that’s why you’re a soldier, to endure everything, to endure everything, if need calls for it.”
Sokolov was a simple soldier, fulfilling his duty, as if he were at work. Then he was captured and learned both the true brotherhood of soldiers and fascism. This is how they were taken into captivity: “...our people caught me on the fly, pushed me into the middle and led me by the arms for half an hour.” The writer shows the horrors of fascism. The Germans drove the prisoners into a church with a broken dome onto the bare floor. Then Andrei sees a captive doctor who shows true humanism towards his other comrades in misfortune. “He did his great work both in captivity and in the darkness.” Here Sokolov had to commit his first murder. Andrei killed a captured soldier who wanted to hand over his platoon commander to the Germans. “For the first time in my life I killed, and it was my own.” The climax of the story is the episode with Muller. Müller is the camp commandant, “short, thick-set, blond, and all sort of white himself.” “He spoke Russian like you and me.” “And he was a terrible master at swearing.”
Mueller's actions are the epitome of fascism. Every day, wearing a leather glove with a lead lining, he went out in front of the prisoners and hit every second one in the nose. It was “flu prevention.” Andrei Sokolov was summoned to Mueller following a denunciation from “some scoundrel,” and Andrei prepared to be “sprayed.” But even here our hero did not lose face. He wanted to show “that although he is falling from hunger, he is not going to choke on their handouts, that he has his own, Russian dignity and pride, and that they have not turned him into a beast.” And Muller, although he was a true fascist, respected Andrei and even rewarded him for his courage. Thus, Sokolov saved his life.
Afterwards he escapes from captivity. Here a new blow awaits him. Andrei learned that his wife and daughters had died. But Sokolov also receives good news - his son has become a commander. Andrei is preparing for a meeting with Anatoly, but this is not destined to come true, because on Victory Day Tolik is killed by a sniper. Any person would have broken down after such events, but Andrei Sokolov was not embittered by his tragic fate. After the war, he adopted the boy Vanyushka, and he got the meaning of life - to take care of the orphan and raise the boy. The image of Vanyushka appears in the story along with the image of Andrei Sokolov.
The author does not immediately give a portrait description. Sholokhov highlights individual details in the portrait of Vanyushka, a boy of five or six years old. First, he highlights the “pink, cold little hand,” and then “the eyes, as bright as the sky.” Vanyushka's portrait is based on a sharp contrast technique. It is contrasted with the portrait of Andrei Sokolov. In the story we see another very vivid image - the image of Irina.
She was brought up in an orphanage. Irina was “meek, cheerful, obsequious and smart.” Andrey speaks very well of her: “I got a good girl!” In the story, the image of the author gradually emerges. We see that he loves life, nature, spring. He felt good in nature. The author was a participant in the war. He is very attentive to people. The author is no less worried than Andrei; he looked at the leaving people “with heavy sadness.” At the end of the story, a “burning and stingy male tear” runs down his cheek.
Throughout the entire story, the author tries to show the spiritual beauty of a hard worker who cannot be broken by any tragedy.