Reviews - The Heart of a Dog

You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.

1.32k reviews for:

The Heart of a Dog

Mikhail Bulgakov

3.91 AVERAGE

avereadthat's review against another edition

5.0

dark funny reflective fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: Complicated

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

takeachance's review against another edition

2.0

fast-paced

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: No

Content Warnings

confettirains's review against another edition

4.0

Slight homoerotic undertones masked by satire meant to address eugenics and the bourgeoisie class after the establishment of the Soviet Union. The dog represents the corruption comes from the brain rather than the heart, hence the title, Heart of a Dog.

emmastevvenson's review against another edition

5.0

fast-paced

rosaareads's review against another edition

3.5

3.5 satirical and thought-provoking story about the proletariat and the revolution in moscow. some parts are unsettling to read, but the themes are actually really interesting. it shows that messing with things carelessly especially when trying to change the world overnight, can go very wrong.

it starts with a strange experiment on a stray dog, and things just keep getting worse. sharikov is a mess, some moments are darkly funny, but most of it feels chaotic. it really shows how giving power to the wrong person doesn’t fix anything just makes everything more complicated.

glad to start with this short novella before reading the master and margarita, which i'll be reading soon!!!

codehulk's review against another edition

3.5

challenging dark mysterious fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Character

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

chamrosh's review against another edition

4.0

dark funny sad

This disturbing little story is commonly read as a critique of Russian communist society, and yes, it's very obvious there's a lot of implications on that end, but my own attention caught on the textual story being told.

Philip treats Sharikov well when he's a dog because he's clearly a "lesser" being, and one that can be used and taken advantage of through a few showings of false love. After Sharikov turns human by Philip's own hand, this all changes. It was an unintended result of a disgusting experiment, yet Philip cannot deal with the fact that the result is his own fault since he took that first atrocious step. He takes it out on his victim and picks on him for every little thing, while also implying there's very little use in his existence.

None of the characters see the injustice in mistreatment of a living creature only now forced into the box of humanity. The only empathy to be found for the living is for humans affected by how horrible and unsophisticated the animal is acting. The mistreatment of Sharikov is justified to the cast of characters by the fact that in the first place, he was a dog. Something beneath them. It made for an interesting and infuriating read. Still managed to be funny, too.
Sometimes I get stuck in the mindset that only certain types of people have a capacity for real cruelty, and I'm glad for stories like these to remind me I'm wrong. People are equally capable of being outright horrible, even if each reason stems from a different view or place, and it's good to remember that in times where everyone seems to frame things in such black and white "good vs. evil" perspectives.