Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote his work “Attacker,” a brief summary of which will reveal to the reader the image of the “little man,” which became popular in traditional literature of that period, in 1885. He not only uses this character to express the main idea of the story, but also fills it with new semantic loads.
Acquaintance with the main character
How does Anton Pavlovich begin his story “Attacker”? The summary, first of all, will introduce the reader to the main character of the work. This is an ordinary, unremarkable man of small stature. His face is completely covered with smallpox, and because of the thick eyebrows it is difficult to make out a sullen look.
The peasant’s hair was not only not cut long ago, but was not even seen with combs. Therefore, they began to have the appearance of a huge unkempt comb. His feet are barefoot, and his clothes are consistent with his village background. In this form, the attacker appears (a brief summary hereinafter will be called that often) before the investigator.
There is an investigation, or "Why do you need a nut?"
A representative of the government asks the defendant for what purposes he unscrewed the nuts on the railway tracks. A disheveled peasant, completely not considering himself guilty, does not even try to come up with something or somehow get out, says the absolute truth. He needed nuts for fishing, so he decided to borrow them on rails.
The investigator advises instead of such nuts, for which you can also get a punishment, use lead or nails. But the village peasant explained that lead must be bought, and the nail does not fit at all. So begins his work, Anton Chekhov. The attacker (a brief summary described in detail his crime) and himself does not understand the degree of his guilt. He is sincerely surprised and honestly answers the questions of the investigator.
Why did the train go off the rails and people died
The representative of the law begins to get nervous. He explains to the disgruntled accused that because he unscrewed this unfortunate nut, train passengers traveling along this stretch of the track may die. Indeed, it is thanks to such nuts that the rails rest on the sleepers. And if you unscrew them all, then how will the trains move?
To which the village attacker calmly replies to the investigator that he is not the only one to unscrew these spare parts from the railway tracks. All the peasants who live in the village are also traded by twisting nuts. And nothing happens. Trains both drove and continue to ride. Because they are twisted wisely, that is, not everything in a row, but in a certain order. But the investigator objects to the peasant, saying that it was on this section of the track that the train nevertheless derailed last year.
Continued interrogation, or possible punishment
The story "Intruder" (a brief summary continues to follow his narrative) further describes the interrogation scene. The investigator is interested in the village peasant about another nut that was found in his house during the search. But the attacker does not even unlock and reports that he really has, moreover, more than one. A little man talks about fishing, the use of such nuts as a sinker, and so on.
But the investigator does not believe the village intruder. Not having obtained anything intelligible from him, the representative of the law cites an article that relies on such intentional damage and damage to the railway. And he asks if the defendant understands the full extent of the gravity of his crime, as well as the punishment provided for it.
Surprise man, or Features fishing
How does the interrogation process further describe the summary of Chekhov's story “The Intruder”? The village peasant does not really understand why he was seized and brought to the investigator. He sincerely wonders how a train could fall due to a simple nut. After all, if he dragged the rail itself, instead of it, slipped a log, then, of course, it would be malicious intent. And so an ordinary gadget.
The investigator, as he could, tried to explain to the uneducated villager about the construction of the railway, but he was completely misunderstood. He asks in detail when, how much and where exactly the man unscrewed the nuts. He, without hiding, answers. He even talks about a certain Mitrofan, with whom he went to twist them, who he is and where he lives.
The last lines of the work, or the stupidity of a rustic
The attacker (a short summary of the story completes the unusual description of the interrogation) told the investigator about the peculiarities of fishing, that the guard who grabbed the man and dragged him to the police station should be punished. Since while he was leading him to the investigator, he managed to hit him twice. The representative of the law, unable to withstand the stupidity of a disheveled village peasant, asked him to shut up.
After painful silence, the attacker asked if he could go, but the investigator explains that he should arrest the man and put him in jail. And he begins to shout that there is nothing to bring him to court. If he really were guilty, got into a fight or stole something, then the village would have gladly accepted any punishment. He is trying to explain that he needs to go to the fair, where he owes money, but the investigator is adamant.
Chekhov. "Intruder." Summary, or recent obscure phrases of the accused
The village man, not understanding the reason for the arrest, and all the more so because he could be sent to hard labor, suggested that this was due to the machinations of the headman. He begins to mumble something about his relatives. It turns out that there are three brothers in the family. And he also says that he should not be responsible for their actions. But the investigator has already lost all interest in him and is calling his assistants, who must lead the peasant into the cell.
The attacker is still trying to protect himself, even recalls the deceased master, who could decide everything in good conscience. But no one listens to him. Thus ends the summary of the story "The Intruder." Throughout the entire work, Chekhov only ironically mocks his character, not trying to draw any conclusions about the man’s guilt, giving the reader the opportunity to decide for himself whether the attacker is guilty or not.