You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.91 AVERAGE
3.91 AVERAGE
dark
funny
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
dark
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This satirical social commentary did not work for me, because I did not possess all the social context while reading, and I'm not sure that having that would have made it any better.
Upon research, I realise this is Bulgakov's take on the idea of The Soviet Man, the focus on Eugenics by the Communists at the time, as well as a critique on the regime. But I'm not completely sold on why he believed the Tsarists were more favourable. Maybe I'm still missing something.
Coming to the writing itself, this may be due to the translation I read (Mirra Ginsburg), it mostly fell flat for me. The narrative shift between first-person and third-person was jarring. The character work and atmosphere were non-existent.
This novella sadly did not meet my expectations. I'm not sure if I want to read The Master and Margarita after this. Maybe Bulgakov's just not for me.
Upon research, I realise this is Bulgakov's take on the idea of The Soviet Man, the focus on Eugenics by the Communists at the time, as well as a critique on the regime. But I'm not completely sold on why he believed the Tsarists were more favourable. Maybe I'm still missing something.
Coming to the writing itself, this may be due to the translation I read (Mirra Ginsburg), it mostly fell flat for me. The narrative shift between first-person and third-person was jarring. The character work and atmosphere were non-existent.
This novella sadly did not meet my expectations. I'm not sure if I want to read The Master and Margarita after this. Maybe Bulgakov's just not for me.
adventurous
dark
funny
informative
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Cute and goofy
dark
funny
sad
fast-paced
Just finished my very first Russian classic and it was one of the weirdest books I've read in recent memory. It was like a Russian take on Frankenstein but A LOT crazier. I may not be smart enough to fully understand what the point of the novella is but I still sorta liked it.
I picked this up for a bus ride to DC, and nearly finished it during the trip down. "Heart of a Dog" is a 113 page novella. But, Bulgakov squeezes so much into those 113 pages that it reads like a much longer work. This isn't to say that the book is dense. It's a quick, enjoyable read; but, it's so allegorical that it feels like there's another 113 pages of message and metaphor lurking beneath the text.
The plot: A medical professor (Fyodor) in early Soviet Russia takes in a scrappy, wounded stray dog (Sharikov), and nurses him to full health and girth. Fyodor, in addition to be a practicing physician, is a curious endocrinologist, interested in the effect of the pituitary gland on individuals and species. As such, after several weeks of caring for Sharikov, he and his mentee (Dr. Bormenthal) endeavor to substitute Sharikov's pituitary gland with that of a man. Taking the body parts of a young, recently-dead gambler-drunkard, Fyodor and Dr. Bormenthal perform surgery on Sharikov, replacing his heart, brain, pituitary gland, and genitalia with that of the dead man. Sharikov not only survives the surgery, but is transformed into a small man as a result of it. Sharikov-the-man is a terrible person. He is lecherous (he sexually assaults Fyodor's female assistants), violent (he takes up employment in pest control, killing cats), and cowardly (he tries to have Fyodor arrested for not ascribing to Communist ideology). Worst of all though, Sharikov-the-man becomes a Communist, lamenting the unfairness of a society that allows men like Fyodor to own a seven-room home, but leaves others who work as hard with less material success. Sharikov-the-man's ideology is the last straw. One night, Fyodor and Bormenthal trap him and perform the surgery in reverse, turning him back into a dog. The novella closes with Sharikov-the-dog, having forgotten his past, appreciating how lucky he is to live in such a comfortable home, and falsely attributing his luck to having strong ancestry.
Without context, I would have read this as a strange, sci-fi book on the dangers of man-playing-god and dog-playing-man. Bulgakov believes that man is not above nature, and not meant to alter it (i.e. by changing dogs into men). But, he also believes that man exists on a different plane/level of nature than other animals. This is not to say that man is above dog/nature-- Sharikov-the-man is a terrible man, but is it because dogs aren't meant to be men, or because man is inherently terrible? Both seem likely.
The book begins with an introduction by James Meek, who explains that "Heart of a Dog" was written as political satire, and banned from publication by the Soviet state up until the 1980s. Given this information (which Meek then fleshes out), the book's subtext becomes even fuller. Sharikov-the-man is meant to represent, and mock, the New Soviet man (the ideal man of the Communist Soviet state). The implications of Sharikov-the-man in this role, and the message meant by it could fill a dissertation (e.g. the New Soviet man is unnatural? the new Soviet man is a perversion created by the gentleman class (the mensheviks) it seeks to bring down? the mensheviks and bolsheviks are both wrong? Communism is a forced ideology? Capitalism is inherently unfair and cruel, leading to surgery on nice dogs?). I'm impressed by how much Bulgakov seems to say in so few pages, while maintaining a quick and interesting plot. The book, in retrospect is a bit heavy-handed in saying so much, but that's what Bulgakov wants to do-- he's writing political satire. I'm curious to see what he does in his more famous, longer book, "The Master and Margarita." At more than three times the length of "Heart of a Dog" (though still under 400 pages), I imagine it is even more grand.
The plot: A medical professor (Fyodor) in early Soviet Russia takes in a scrappy, wounded stray dog (Sharikov), and nurses him to full health and girth. Fyodor, in addition to be a practicing physician, is a curious endocrinologist, interested in the effect of the pituitary gland on individuals and species. As such, after several weeks of caring for Sharikov, he and his mentee (Dr. Bormenthal) endeavor to substitute Sharikov's pituitary gland with that of a man. Taking the body parts of a young, recently-dead gambler-drunkard, Fyodor and Dr. Bormenthal perform surgery on Sharikov, replacing his heart, brain, pituitary gland, and genitalia with that of the dead man. Sharikov not only survives the surgery, but is transformed into a small man as a result of it. Sharikov-the-man is a terrible person. He is lecherous (he sexually assaults Fyodor's female assistants), violent (he takes up employment in pest control, killing cats), and cowardly (he tries to have Fyodor arrested for not ascribing to Communist ideology). Worst of all though, Sharikov-the-man becomes a Communist, lamenting the unfairness of a society that allows men like Fyodor to own a seven-room home, but leaves others who work as hard with less material success. Sharikov-the-man's ideology is the last straw. One night, Fyodor and Bormenthal trap him and perform the surgery in reverse, turning him back into a dog. The novella closes with Sharikov-the-dog, having forgotten his past, appreciating how lucky he is to live in such a comfortable home, and falsely attributing his luck to having strong ancestry.
Without context, I would have read this as a strange, sci-fi book on the dangers of man-playing-god and dog-playing-man. Bulgakov believes that man is not above nature, and not meant to alter it (i.e. by changing dogs into men). But, he also believes that man exists on a different plane/level of nature than other animals. This is not to say that man is above dog/nature-- Sharikov-the-man is a terrible man, but is it because dogs aren't meant to be men, or because man is inherently terrible? Both seem likely.
The book begins with an introduction by James Meek, who explains that "Heart of a Dog" was written as political satire, and banned from publication by the Soviet state up until the 1980s. Given this information (which Meek then fleshes out), the book's subtext becomes even fuller. Sharikov-the-man is meant to represent, and mock, the New Soviet man (the ideal man of the Communist Soviet state). The implications of Sharikov-the-man in this role, and the message meant by it could fill a dissertation (e.g. the New Soviet man is unnatural? the new Soviet man is a perversion created by the gentleman class (the mensheviks) it seeks to bring down? the mensheviks and bolsheviks are both wrong? Communism is a forced ideology? Capitalism is inherently unfair and cruel, leading to surgery on nice dogs?). I'm impressed by how much Bulgakov seems to say in so few pages, while maintaining a quick and interesting plot. The book, in retrospect is a bit heavy-handed in saying so much, but that's what Bulgakov wants to do-- he's writing political satire. I'm curious to see what he does in his more famous, longer book, "The Master and Margarita." At more than three times the length of "Heart of a Dog" (though still under 400 pages), I imagine it is even more grand.