Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
mysterious
slow-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
This was a very entertaining read, i have to say i was hooked from the very first pages. Dead Souls is a wonderful absurdist satire of Russian decadence and society by the great (Ukranian) Gogol, whose keen eye and sharp pen draw the most clever criticism of that same society I’ve read so far amongst his contemporary (I seem to remember he was named in my previous read Uncle Vanya and influenced The Double).
The narrator’s voice reminded me of that Thackeray, whom I love, and perfectly framed the sketches of the progressively more bizzarre characters that we encounter throughout the novel. Describing the greed, uselessness, arrogance, even poverty typical of the Russian land owners, he skilfully exposes the rot of the system without being preachy or boring. His masterpiece, however, is our protagonist Chichikov, who starts out as a mystery when he first proposes to buy dead souls, only to be exposed as a fraudster by mid-book. It’s actually funny, but also so sad. Such a great way to expose serfdom for the inhumane thing it was. And also such a perfect anticlimax, to find out that this whole thing is just a get rich quick scheme.
The only thing holding back the book is that it’s a bit monotone, partially due to the fact that it’s unfinished. Not that it’s impossible to guess where things would have ended up, but the whole tour of the Russian province from household to household pretty much goes nowhere, on purpose, but still. Even at the point in which serving justice is discussed, it doesn’t seem to me like Gogol would make a great scene of it and punish his protagonist, his point was just to ridicule him. So yeah, overall this is a good read, quite thought provoking, but while I wouldn’t call it boring at any point, it feels a little repetitive.
funny
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
O noua idee de afaceri pentru familia Becu..
Chiar daca a doua parte are capitole pierdute/taiate,tot nu ar fi salvat cartea pentru mine.Premisa tare interesanta,dar cum a fost scrisa si executata este intr-adevar un produs al timpului
Chiar daca a doua parte are capitole pierdute/taiate,tot nu ar fi salvat cartea pentru mine.Premisa tare interesanta,dar cum a fost scrisa si executata este intr-adevar un produs al timpului
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Una bella lettura scelta al momento sbagliato purtroppo :(
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Warning: This review contains some spoilers
Dead Souls became something of a book about morality to me. Throughout Chichikov's journey, the author made readers witnesses of how morality and money play a huge role upon the human soul. This novel follows an unlikeable hero—Chichikov, but I'm afraid to say that some readers might find some of Chichikov's characteristics likeable, even Gogol himself said "But the hard thing is not that readers will be displeased with my hero, what is hard is that there lives in my soul an irrefutable certainty that they might have been pleased with this same hero, this same Chichikov."
There's a lot to learn from this novel, I for one, learned a lot about writing from this book, the agonizing reality of a writer, and the complicated relationship a writer have with his readers. In a long rant about writing in one of the chapters, Gogol said "Yes, my good readers, you would prefer not to see human poverty revealed." owing to the fact that, readers, most of the time, prefers to read something good, something entertaining, the pleasurable side of things, stirring away the coarse and cruel side. "And so the money that would have helped somehow to straighten things out is spent on the means for making oneself oblivious." he added, hammering the lesson that for happiness and pleasure, we humans, would prefer to be oblivious and blind from the harsh reality that others suffer. Lastly he said, "Who, then, if not an author, must speak the sacred truth? You fear the deeply penetrating gaze, you are afraid to penetrate anything deeply with your own gaze, you like to skim over everything with unthinking eyes." to further elucidate that it is the writer's responsibility to arouse human awareness, to show these shunned corners of the human condition.
"But he is wise who does not scorn any character, but, fixing a piercing eye on him, searches out his primary causes. Everything transforms quickly in man; before you can turn around, a horrible worm has grown inside him, despotically drawing all life's juices to itself."
Of course, if we're going to be talking about those dirty corners, we should not ignore how Gogol expands themes of corruption, greed, deception, vanity, hypocrisy, and the inefficient handling of bureaucratic systems. The themes I mentioned are the main composition of this novel. The hero himself, has an identity which perfectly caters those undesirable themes and direct them towards the people of the upper class, which he took advantage of throughout his journey, and that of which Gogol satirizes to his heart's content. Gogol perfectly depicted corrupt officials, the treating of serfs as mere commodities, the rampant bribery, the endless lies, and the extravagant parties that the upper class indulged themselves with. The hero of the story is no different, he also enjoys the spoils, his principles doesn't align with that of the virtuous, perhaps because of the difficulty of his life and the way he was brought up, with his father's last words to him being: "A comrade or companion will cheat you and be the first to betray you in trouble; but a kopeck will never betray you, whatever trouble you get into. You can do everything and break through everything with a kopeck."
"It happens that a man sometimes sees such a thing in a dream, and afterwards he dwells on this dream all his life, reality is lost to him forever, and he is decidedly good for nothing anymore.
My overarching sight for this novel—and perhaps, even the author himself thought so—is that it is hopeless. In all our deep moral sense, we want death for dishonesty, we want injustice to perish, and most importantly we want human cunning to be used for the benefit of mankind. But as we progress in life, we learn that the possibility of them is very unlikely, as Gogol said using one of his characters in this novel "I know that no methods, no fears, no punishments can eradicate falsity: it is too deeply rooted. The dishonest practice of accepting bribes has become a need and a necessity even for people who were not born to dishonesty." What could be the conclusion of this novel? At first, I saw multiple possibilities, and then there's only two, and finally, I saw only one, a rather endless and hopeless one. Even though that's the way I perceived it, something good came of it, something profound, it presented to me a real moral question, in the words of Gogol himself:
"And who among you, filled with Christian humility, not publicly, but in quiet, alone, in moments of solitary converse with himself, will point deeply into his own soul this painful question: "And isn't there a bit of Chichikov in me, too?"
Dead Souls became something of a book about morality to me. Throughout Chichikov's journey, the author made readers witnesses of how morality and money play a huge role upon the human soul. This novel follows an unlikeable hero—Chichikov, but I'm afraid to say that some readers might find some of Chichikov's characteristics likeable, even Gogol himself said "But the hard thing is not that readers will be displeased with my hero, what is hard is that there lives in my soul an irrefutable certainty that they might have been pleased with this same hero, this same Chichikov."
There's a lot to learn from this novel, I for one, learned a lot about writing from this book, the agonizing reality of a writer, and the complicated relationship a writer have with his readers. In a long rant about writing in one of the chapters, Gogol said "Yes, my good readers, you would prefer not to see human poverty revealed." owing to the fact that, readers, most of the time, prefers to read something good, something entertaining, the pleasurable side of things, stirring away the coarse and cruel side. "And so the money that would have helped somehow to straighten things out is spent on the means for making oneself oblivious." he added, hammering the lesson that for happiness and pleasure, we humans, would prefer to be oblivious and blind from the harsh reality that others suffer. Lastly he said, "Who, then, if not an author, must speak the sacred truth? You fear the deeply penetrating gaze, you are afraid to penetrate anything deeply with your own gaze, you like to skim over everything with unthinking eyes." to further elucidate that it is the writer's responsibility to arouse human awareness, to show these shunned corners of the human condition.
"But he is wise who does not scorn any character, but, fixing a piercing eye on him, searches out his primary causes. Everything transforms quickly in man; before you can turn around, a horrible worm has grown inside him, despotically drawing all life's juices to itself."
Of course, if we're going to be talking about those dirty corners, we should not ignore how Gogol expands themes of corruption, greed, deception, vanity, hypocrisy, and the inefficient handling of bureaucratic systems. The themes I mentioned are the main composition of this novel. The hero himself, has an identity which perfectly caters those undesirable themes and direct them towards the people of the upper class, which he took advantage of throughout his journey, and that of which Gogol satirizes to his heart's content. Gogol perfectly depicted corrupt officials, the treating of serfs as mere commodities, the rampant bribery, the endless lies, and the extravagant parties that the upper class indulged themselves with. The hero of the story is no different, he also enjoys the spoils, his principles doesn't align with that of the virtuous, perhaps because of the difficulty of his life and the way he was brought up, with his father's last words to him being: "A comrade or companion will cheat you and be the first to betray you in trouble; but a kopeck will never betray you, whatever trouble you get into. You can do everything and break through everything with a kopeck."
"It happens that a man sometimes sees such a thing in a dream, and afterwards he dwells on this dream all his life, reality is lost to him forever, and he is decidedly good for nothing anymore.
My overarching sight for this novel—and perhaps, even the author himself thought so—is that it is hopeless. In all our deep moral sense, we want death for dishonesty, we want injustice to perish, and most importantly we want human cunning to be used for the benefit of mankind. But as we progress in life, we learn that the possibility of them is very unlikely, as Gogol said using one of his characters in this novel "I know that no methods, no fears, no punishments can eradicate falsity: it is too deeply rooted. The dishonest practice of accepting bribes has become a need and a necessity even for people who were not born to dishonesty." What could be the conclusion of this novel? At first, I saw multiple possibilities, and then there's only two, and finally, I saw only one, a rather endless and hopeless one. Even though that's the way I perceived it, something good came of it, something profound, it presented to me a real moral question, in the words of Gogol himself:
"And who among you, filled with Christian humility, not publicly, but in quiet, alone, in moments of solitary converse with himself, will point deeply into his own soul this painful question: "And isn't there a bit of Chichikov in me, too?"