Heart of a Dog by Mikhail Bulgakov Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.31 You Save: $2.69 (19%) Availability: Usually ships in 1 to 3 months Buy Used: from $1.08 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Heart of a Dog
Book Review: A bit outdated, but fun nonetheless
Summary: 4 Stars
As a huge fan of Bulgakov's masterpiece Master and Margarita, I really enjoyed this book. It's a delightfully quick and witty read. Heart of a Dog is full of pointed references at Soviet society, many of which are outdated, but many of which are fully comprehensible and applicable by modern, Western readers. The satirical nature and tone that came to ultimate fruition with Master and Margarita can be traced through this book, making for an overall short, enjoyable read.Book Review: A great satire.
Summary: 4 Stars
This short novel will make most of readers to laugh. Although it is true that the book may be interpreted as a feroucius citique to the soviet system, it is also true that the very "facts" of the novel, the plot, the dialogs, are quite funny by themeselves. So I agree with the reviewers that think this novel is an easy reading.I give Heart of a Dog four stars just becuase I can't avoid comparing it to The Master and Margarita. Compared to Bulgakov's masterwork, The heart of a Dog is just an exellently written divertimento.
Book Review: Allegory, Mischief and Humor
Summary: 5 Stars
What a wonderful book! Funny, ascerbic and critical of the Soviet regime, Bulgakov writes an amusing tale that is easy to read, with an obvious message.The book remains delightfully readable 70 years after it is written - this is a book you will enjoy, not a book you 'should' read.
Book Review: An Absurd Masterpiece
Summary: 5 Stars
Completed by Bulgakov in 1925, this short story remained unpublished in the Soviet Union for almost sixty years. When it finally appeared on Soviet bookshelves in 1987 it became an instant hit and is arguably seen as on of the author's most hard-hitting novels. Not for nothing did Stalin's censors deem this book too sensitive for publication.
`The Heart of a Dog' is the absurd story of a stray dog, who is taken in from the streets by a well-known, well-off Professor named Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky in order that he may attempt a groundbreaking operation; the transplantation of human testicles and pituitary gland into the dog. The operation is successful; however the Professor has produced an intolerable being which resembles a human of revolutionary sentiment with a dog-like penchant for chasing cats.
The story is enjoyable in and of itself, and one must congratulate Bulgakov for his imagination and inventiveness - forced upon him by the oppressive intellectual climate of his time - in thinking up such a tale. In addition, It is very easy to read and interesting for its portrayal of the atmosphere in a bourgeois household in 1920s Moscow. There are also a number of other levels to the book and various interpretations of what Bulgakov's true message was. It is worth noting, for example, that Professor Preobrazhensky's name is a derivative of the Slavic word for `transfiguration', and the book is ostensibly about failed attempts to improve upon human nature. Thus, Bulgakov may be seen to be either ridiculing Soviet attempts to create communist supermen or attacking science's interference with nature. Finally, another interpretation of the story sees it as a parable of the 1917 Revolution in which things were set into motion which became almost uncontrollable.
`The Heart of a Dog' is a classic story of great intellectual value, which deserves to be read and which is immensely enjoyable for its absurdity, humour, and political message(s).
Book Review: An Analysis of "Heart of a Dog"
Summary: 5 Stars
If perused only ephemerally, or taken merely at face value, Mikhail Bulgakov's "The Heart of a Dog," is likely to give the reader a false impression of simplicity or childishness; however, if more carefully surveyed in light of the monumental political and historical context in which it was penned, the novel, formally seeming silly or fantastical, reveals itself to be a highly critical analysis and commentary of the Russian Revolution of 1917, as well as subsequent events. This fanciful tale of an unfortunate street dog transformed, against its own will, into a drunken and vice-laden human monstrosity, closely parallels the fitful and savage conversion of the Russian Empire and its peoples into the Soviet Union and its subjects. When said dog, Sharik, first makes his appearance in the tale, he is indeed a quite sympathetic and homely creature; battered from a harsh life on the streets and suffering from the wounds inflicted upon him by a well-to-do chef, Sharik is nonetheless capable of great empathy, as evidenced by his feelings of sorrow for an underpaid and overdependent typist. Although Sharik is initially much afflicted by his wounds, one can sense a decisive mentality of perseverance in this hapless and battered, yet overwhelmingly grateful and obedient, animal. Sharik, thus, symbolizes aptly the Russian people as they stood prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. Hungry, abused, and left destitute by a cold bourgeois society that cared little for their well-being, the Russian, much like Shark, nonetheless remained unbroken in spirit and consistently persevered through their difficulties while maintaining their unique mindset and wit. Yet, just as Sharik was pushed to his limit of persistence by his scalding, so to were the Russian by the hardships of the second World War; in both cases, these battered would would likely have perished had it not been for the arrival of charismatic and empathetic leaders, whom they, in their destitution, would follow blindly to their ultimate detriment. Just as many Russians rallied behind Lenin and his promises of peace, land, and bread, so too did Sharikov throw in his lot with Professor Preobrazhensky, a seemingly kindly doctor who took pity on the suffering dog.
Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, literally "Professor Transformation" in the original Russian, presents a unique dilemma for the critic attempting to assess his character and actions; on the one hand, it is simple to view him in light of his charity to Sharik, while, on the other hand, his cold betrayal of the dog coupled with his questionable morality significantly blacken his character. Indeed, the Professor, who appeared at first to adopt Sharik simply out of some goodness of heart, had truly done so in order to use the poor mut as the subject of his experiments; after fattening up Sharik, the Professor quickly betrays his trust and sets about forcibly altering him. In this, one can discern a certain similarity with the behavior of the Bolsheviks, who upon gaining the trust of certain of the Russian people with their promises, ultimately brought upon them immense suffering as they attempted to force them into the Communist mold. The operation in which the Professor transplants a human pituitary gland into Sharik is depicted in such violent and grisly terms as to only be a criticism of the "operation" that was the Bolshevik Revolution. Just as the Professor "treacherously" cut and prodded Sharik in molding him into a man, so too did the Bolsheviks impose much bloodshed and carnage upon the Russian during the Revolution and subsequent civil war. Indeed, the entire gruesome operation sequence, combined with base nature and the resultant human Sharikov, speak loudly to Bulgakov's underlying criticism of the Bolsheviks hasty and brutal methods of imposing Communism upon the nation. Similarly damning to the character of the Professor is his seeming moral indifference and unwillingness to accept the results of his own cruel actions. In performing the experiment upon Sharikov, the Professor knew nothing of what would result; he did so merely out of cold scientific uncaring. Yet, when the result was the drunken Poligraph Ploigraphovich, the Professor exhibited no tolerance for his own creation, constantly berating him instead of more patiently bearing the responsibility of his actions. When the Professor's assistant suggests murdering Sharikov, the Professor refuses only out of a desire to keep his hands clean of crime; such poor morality does not speak well for him. His refusal to abandon his bourgeois lifestyle, which inevitably leads to conflict with the Soviet authorities, presents not only his stubbornness and corruption, but also his possibly noble refusal to submit to a cause which he does not hold dear.
In sharp contrast with the more nuanced and ambiguous Professor, Poligraph Poligraphovich Sharikov, as the dog becomes know after his transformation into a man, represents all that is worst in human nature, as well as the nascent Soviet mentality. From the beginning, Sharikov is portrayed as hopelessly vulgar, impetuous, ungrateful, and drunken. Not afraid to lie, he invents tales of war heroism to woo a coworker; when this dishonesty is exposed, he shows himself to be vengeful, vowing to have the woman's pay docked. Perhaps more significantly, Sharikov quickly becomes a staunch, mindless, devotee to the local Communist leader, Shvonder; to the Professor's disgust, he begins using terms like "Comrade" and speaking of the division of property. It is with this that Bulgakov makes his biting attack upon the corruption already apparent in the Communist lifestyle of the Soviet Union. Aside from being a drunken monstrosity, Sharikov also only half-heartedlt accepts the Communist ideals he so loudly espouses, as revealed by his refusal to register for military service. It is with the generally disagreeable character of Sharikov that Bulgakov illustrates best the ungodly and corrupted beast that the Revolution had transformed Russia into; though not overtly anti-Soviet, Bulgakov does not fear exposing the rot of the Soviet system. In a prophetic statement that Bulgakov could never have understood at the time, the Professor foresees that Sharikov, brute as he is, represents just as much of a threat to the Communists as he does to the Professor and his well-being; this succinct remark foreshadows the depraved and mindless purges carried out by Stalin against the Communist Party itself. In realizing the overall pointlessness of the ability to transform a man into a dog when nature itself is capable of creating great men at any time, the Professor profoundly comments upon the mistake of forcing a Communist revolution upon Russia, when Marx had urged that such a transformation would occur naturally; in ultimately reversing the procedure and changing Sharikov back into a dog, it is possible to identify an exhortation to reverse the botched Bolshevik Revolution. However, Bulgakov was too careful and canny an author to jeopardize his life or liberty by so overtly criticizing the Soviet regime, and as a result, "The Heart of a Dog" is an intentionally multi-faced and ambiguous novel, which may be interpreted in numerous fashions.