Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
3 and a half stars, maybe it'll be rounded up, I have to think about it.
“Dead Souls” has a complicated reputation as a very important classic, but also as a potentially frustrating unfinished work. A certain understanding of the context in which Gogol wrote it is crucial to grasp the dark humour of the plot – not to mention the commentary Gogol was making on his society.
Chichikov is, for all intents and purposes, a con-man: as he lives in a society ruled by corrupt officials, he doesn’t really think his moral conduct is all that reprehensible, and if anything, considers those who condemn him to be hypocrites who exploit others for their own gain just as much as he does, albeit, from behind a veil of legitimacy and lawfulness. As we follow him on his sordid quests to purchase the titular “dead souls”, we encounter all manners of characters that show the reader the crumbling of Russian society, as the ripples of the failed French Invasion continue to be felt across all social strata. Eventually and inevitably, his bad deeds catch up with him, but since the novel is unfinished, we don't really know what fate awaits him.
In tone, this book is much closer to “The Master and Margarita” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1343219704) than to “War & Peace” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1343572901), despite taking place in a time much closer to Tolstoy’s story than to Bulgakov’s (who, it must be noted, adapted “Dead Souls” for the stage in the 30s). But I'm afraid I kept waiting for it to get as good as either: perhaps it's incompleteness is to blame, but I finished the book feeling frustrated. The writing was often quite beautiful, and the characters vividly described - I supposed I simply would have liked to know how their stories ended. Does Chichikov get away with his madcap plan? Does he give up the scams and decides to go legit? I understand that closure is not necessarily the point of a good story, but "Dead Souls" was clearly meant to have an ending...
It's an interesting experience, too, reading a surrealist and existential novel like this one when the world we currently live in has reached levels of surrealism and existentialism that most people probably didn’t expect to experience in their lifetimes. My sense of humour, which has admittedly always been rather dark and morbid, has not gotten much lighter, and I admit that laughing at the madness is sometimes the only way not to fall head first into it which makes Gogol’s absurd and picaresque story almost hysterical at times.
So in the end, as I can't quite decide how I feel about it, but think it will merit a re-read in the future, I leave it at 3 undecided stars...
“Dead Souls” has a complicated reputation as a very important classic, but also as a potentially frustrating unfinished work. A certain understanding of the context in which Gogol wrote it is crucial to grasp the dark humour of the plot – not to mention the commentary Gogol was making on his society.
Chichikov is, for all intents and purposes, a con-man: as he lives in a society ruled by corrupt officials, he doesn’t really think his moral conduct is all that reprehensible, and if anything, considers those who condemn him to be hypocrites who exploit others for their own gain just as much as he does, albeit, from behind a veil of legitimacy and lawfulness. As we follow him on his sordid quests to purchase the titular “dead souls”, we encounter all manners of characters that show the reader the crumbling of Russian society, as the ripples of the failed French Invasion continue to be felt across all social strata. Eventually and inevitably, his bad deeds catch up with him, but since the novel is unfinished, we don't really know what fate awaits him.
In tone, this book is much closer to “The Master and Margarita” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1343219704) than to “War & Peace” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1343572901), despite taking place in a time much closer to Tolstoy’s story than to Bulgakov’s (who, it must be noted, adapted “Dead Souls” for the stage in the 30s). But I'm afraid I kept waiting for it to get as good as either: perhaps it's incompleteness is to blame, but I finished the book feeling frustrated. The writing was often quite beautiful, and the characters vividly described - I supposed I simply would have liked to know how their stories ended. Does Chichikov get away with his madcap plan? Does he give up the scams and decides to go legit? I understand that closure is not necessarily the point of a good story, but "Dead Souls" was clearly meant to have an ending...
It's an interesting experience, too, reading a surrealist and existential novel like this one when the world we currently live in has reached levels of surrealism and existentialism that most people probably didn’t expect to experience in their lifetimes. My sense of humour, which has admittedly always been rather dark and morbid, has not gotten much lighter, and I admit that laughing at the madness is sometimes the only way not to fall head first into it which makes Gogol’s absurd and picaresque story almost hysterical at times.
So in the end, as I can't quite decide how I feel about it, but think it will merit a re-read in the future, I leave it at 3 undecided stars...
I forget how many times I've read Dead Souls but this is a much better version than the other one I first read. Some argue it is satire, though some argue it is not. My own experiences in growing up around the glorious Slavic peoples when spending my summers with my grandparents in the Styx, the characterizations that Gogol writes about them seem entirely all too based in reality. I find the book a marvelous read and heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to immerse themselves taking in Gogol's description of a bygone Russian era.
This is, quite possibly, the most fun I've ever had with a piece of classic literature. If you like Dickens or Russian literature, this is a must read.
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I liked Gogol's grotesque, macabre realism. The allusion to Dante was prevalent in Part I, but seemed to be completely lost in Part II. The themes and motifs also seemed to diffuse into too many possible themes and interpretations. For example, one theme in Part I is greed and gluttony. However, in Part II, the focus suddenly shifts to lethargy and the merits of working on a farm. The author intention/commentary in this work is much more nuanced, obscure, and almost completely unknown, especially when compared to Lermontov's pointed commentary to readers in "A Hero of Our Time"
So funny. Made me laugh out loud on numerous occasions. Love Russian Lit!