Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
Serfs in Russia were often referred to as souls which provides for literal meaning to the story. The symbolic meaning of title is easy to guess – people whose conscience is dead (in the story, they are mostly landlords)
The first part reads as a light satire on Russian landlords and society. The tone is of gentle humor and conversational nature (often referring to ‘reader’ and ‘author’) and makes a fast read. Almost all landlords in the book are caricatures of their personality type – and so there are sentimentalists, stupid old widows, spendthrift bullies who are prone to lying, misers, intellectual without common sense, beautiful damsels just out of school with golden hair and cheek dimples and so on. NG often leaves off telling-story to talk about a particular subject (servants, women, government offices, highways, horses, Russia etc) but mostly it is something humorous. Although it fails Bechdel test, it makes up for that by giving enough space to servants … And not to forget horses.
Anti-hero
It is when NG finally started analyzing his hero, Chichikov that the book earned the fourth star. Chichikov much like other characters refused to get painted in black or white. He is opportunist and butt-kisser to point of fault. Gogol refuses to judge him –arguing sometimes it is the only way to rise in life:
…. and Chichikov himself see no faults in whatever ways he adopt in getting rich. I simply loved above passage.
Who really are dead souls?
Just before ending part 1, NG picks up directly with readers and asking them if they themselves have sit alone and thought about morality of their actions:
In the end, readers themselves might be like the dead souls they are searching for in the book.
Gogol also answers in advance the criticism from‘pseudo-paroits’ who will probably criticize him for Russia-bashing.
Part 2
NG wasn’t only writing to criticize, he had solutions to offer. The book was supposed to be divided into three parts mirroring the three parts of Dante’s Divine Comedy but NG died before finishing it, he even tried to burn it - fortunately, not without much success. The unfinished work that we have includes Part 1(mirroring inferno) and a few chapters of Part 2 (Purgatory) before it comes to abrupt end.
In whatever of part 2 stayed with us, Chichikov had already come across honest ways to be wealthy. The second part actually seemed more focused on methods to improve agrarian economy. Unfortunately, those solutions will remain unknown for most part.
Imperfect characters, detailed character descriptions, the insistence to look at a character’s childhood to properly understand him, questioning existing morality standards and cliches – you could see how the book might have inspired FD.
The first part reads as a light satire on Russian landlords and society. The tone is of gentle humor and conversational nature (often referring to ‘reader’ and ‘author’) and makes a fast read. Almost all landlords in the book are caricatures of their personality type – and so there are sentimentalists, stupid old widows, spendthrift bullies who are prone to lying, misers, intellectual without common sense, beautiful damsels just out of school with golden hair and cheek dimples and so on. NG often leaves off telling-story to talk about a particular subject (servants, women, government offices, highways, horses, Russia etc) but mostly it is something humorous. Although it fails Bechdel test, it makes up for that by giving enough space to servants … And not to forget horses.
Anti-hero
It is when NG finally started analyzing his hero, Chichikov that the book earned the fourth star. Chichikov much like other characters refused to get painted in black or white. He is opportunist and butt-kisser to point of fault. Gogol refuses to judge him –arguing sometimes it is the only way to rise in life:
“That he is no hero compounded of virtues and perfections must be already clear. Then WHAT is he? A villain? Why should we call him a villain? Why should we be so hard upon a fellow man? In these days our villains have ceased to exist. Rather it would be fairer to call him an ACQUIRER. The love of acquisition, the love of gain, is a fault common to many, and gives rise to many and many a transaction of the kind generally known as "not strictly honourable." True, such a character contains an element of ugliness, and the same reader who, on his journey through life, would sit at the board of a character of this kind, and spend a most agreeable time with him, would be the first to look at him askance if he should appear in the guise of the hero of a novel or a play. But wise is the reader who, on meeting such a character, scans him carefully, and, instead of shrinking from him with distaste, probes him to the springs of his being. The human personality contains nothing which may not, in the twinkling of an eye, become altogether changed—nothing in which, before you can look round, there may not spring to birth some cankerous worm which is destined to suck thence the essential juice.
…. and Chichikov himself see no faults in whatever ways he adopt in getting rich. I simply loved above passage.
Who really are dead souls?
Just before ending part 1, NG picks up directly with readers and asking them if they themselves have sit alone and thought about morality of their actions:
“ Yet which of you, when quiet, and alone, and engaged in solitary self-communion, would not do well to probe YOUR OWN souls, and toput to YOURSELVES the solemn question, "Is there not in ME an element of Chichikov?" For how should there not be? Which of you is not liable at any moment to be passed in the street by an acquaintance who, nudging his neighbour, may say of you, with a barely suppressed sneer: "Look! there goes Chichikov! That is Chichikov who has just gone by!"
In the end, readers themselves might be like the dead souls they are searching for in the book.
Gogol also answers in advance the criticism from‘pseudo-paroits’ who will probably criticize him for Russia-bashing.
Part 2
NG wasn’t only writing to criticize, he had solutions to offer. The book was supposed to be divided into three parts mirroring the three parts of Dante’s Divine Comedy but NG died before finishing it, he even tried to burn it - fortunately, not without much success. The unfinished work that we have includes Part 1(mirroring inferno) and a few chapters of Part 2 (Purgatory) before it comes to abrupt end.
In whatever of part 2 stayed with us, Chichikov had already come across honest ways to be wealthy. The second part actually seemed more focused on methods to improve agrarian economy. Unfortunately, those solutions will remain unknown for most part.
Imperfect characters, detailed character descriptions, the insistence to look at a character’s childhood to properly understand him, questioning existing morality standards and cliches – you could see how the book might have inspired FD.
funny
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
funny
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
I went thru a phase where I was reading very depressing Russian books. Things like Cancer Ward, Day in the life of Ivan Ivanovich, the Gulag Archipelago and for some reason, I thought Gogol had written one of these books. As I look back at my reading history and his oeuvre, I see the night before Christmas, which I gave 3 stars. So I don't know why I thought I would like this more, but this was a little meandering and exhaustive. The dialogues are carefully dictated but ultimately rambling. I had a hard time understanding the point. I can see the theme of the hypocrisy of the government with its stupid red tape and bureaucracy, and the boring downstream effects of class when you're not disgustingly rich. I highlighted some funny turns of phrase but I think this would've looked a lot different if it was published rather than published as a WIP.
dark
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Silly book. Great description of the times it was written in, interesting narration and storytelling.
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
reflective
adventurous
funny
reflective
medium-paced
I was impressed by Gogol's short stories and was really looking forward to Dead Souls . It did not disappoint me! I liked the depth of explored topics (social order, pseudo-intellectualism, greed, conformism etc) delivered in a witty and satirical coating. One aspect that I really enjoyed in Gogol's satire is the empathy and genuine concern about the flaws in the (Russian) society. Although some of his descriptions may seem brutally honest and razor-sharp he somehow manages to be forgiving and relatively judgment-free to his characters. The passages where he directly addresses the reader help to connect to the author and turns the reading into a vivid experience.
lighthearted
medium-paced
I really like Russian classics, so my disappointment was even more disappointing since it came from high hopes. Dead Souls had all the tedious details of a Russian classic (which normally build up to a complex picture) but none of the precision and clarity of focus. It was just a mess.
I'm beginning to realize that sometimes contradictions in literature are misinterpreted as "interesting depth". I think this was the case for Dead Souls. The writing was messy and childish. There was no ending for cryin' out loud. He didn't plan it to end ambiguously, he burned the ending in a fit of psychosis.
I decided to check this book out because I'd read an interesting review on it. This isn't the first time this has happened, so what's going on? There's so much interesting content in reviews and intros, where is *that* coming from? It doesn't seem to be related to these awful novels. I'm starting to think that intros and reviews are an opportunity for thought-provoking writers to say something intelligent and make their mark. NOT discuss what actually goes on in the book. I think I'm going to learn my lesson and read books by these authors, I think I'll have better luck.
I'm beginning to realize that sometimes contradictions in literature are misinterpreted as "interesting depth". I think this was the case for Dead Souls. The writing was messy and childish. There was no ending for cryin' out loud. He didn't plan it to end ambiguously, he burned the ending in a fit of psychosis.
I decided to check this book out because I'd read an interesting review on it. This isn't the first time this has happened, so what's going on? There's so much interesting content in reviews and intros, where is *that* coming from? It doesn't seem to be related to these awful novels. I'm starting to think that intros and reviews are an opportunity for thought-provoking writers to say something intelligent and make their mark. NOT discuss what actually goes on in the book. I think I'm going to learn my lesson and read books by these authors, I think I'll have better luck.
lighthearted
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes