Rating: 
Summary: HUMANIMALS
Review: 'Could animals became human?' is just the reverse of the
question which Bulgakov could not put down living in the stalinist Russia: 'How come humans could became animals?' It's corosive hummour burns out everything
sheding a mercyless light on the true aspects of the
'hommo sovieticus'. I hardly ever read something simmilar
exept, perhaps, the swiftian 'modest proposal'.
Rating:
Summary: I would think it loses a lot in translation...
Review: ...or maybe, it's just the social difference. But this wonderful, biting, angry satire is really not... that... funny. Or rather, it is, but in a way that laughing at yourself can be. Not hillarious, not easy, not light, but with full realization of the horror that is going on. To begin with, Sharik the Dog is a wonderful, delightful animal. A real stray, the best of them--ready to serve and protect out of gratitude. Having been beaten, scalded, starved... imagine his joy when a nice-looking older gentleman takes him in, feeds him, bandages his scalded side. The poor thing is absolutely gratified. And really, just like Prof. Preobrazhensky says, Sharik is a very, very good dog. So how does a very, very good dog turns into an absolute horror of a human? Whoever said that Sharikov the man is semi-developed is just wrong--he is fully developed, and herein lies the nightmare. He walks. Talks. Apparently induces a young woman to have sex with him, having promised her marriage and lied that the surgical scar on his forehead is left from the Civil War. He works in the Oblava (the office dealing with the catching, killing and using as fur of the stray cats), but not so much out of necessity, rather because it answers his heart of a dog. Unfortunately, his hatred of cats is the only thing left from the adorable stray (who thought that he was unusually handsome and his granmother must have sinned with a Newfoundland). In all else, from his ridiculous, uneducated choice of a name, to the way he talks, to the lack of manners, to the Communist literature he reads, to his statements that the only way to solve the current situation is to "divide everything between those who have and those who have not"--in all of it, he is a quintessential proletariat man (the brain that was put into the dog came from a former alcoholic and prison inmate, Klim Chugunkin). The popular slogan of that era was Lenin's (I think) phrase that under the Soviet rule, a "kitchenmaid will rule the country". Well, it took us some seventy years to realize that a kitchenmaid shouldn't rule anything but a kitchen... Bulgakov saw it much earlier. His Sharikov is a terrifying portrait of what a member of lumpen-proletariat--a man without sense or education, common and base--becomes when he comes into relative power (at least over cats). To Russians, the image of Sharikov cannot be all that funny--after all, the inception of their state--their country, their life, their dark past--was intertwined inextricably with people like the late Klim Chugunkin (the last name means "wrought-iron"), aka P.P. Sharikov. The other characters in the book--the old Professor Preobrazhensky and the galant, gentlemanly young Dr. Bormental--are both of a disappearing bread. After the Revolution, People with Preobrazhensky's sensibilities came face to face with the necessity to leave their country. Preobrazhensky, however, a distinguished man of science, an experimental biologist, highly respected--is pretending that it is possible to have the life he had had prior to the Revolution. He has a cook and a maid, and an apartment of seven rooms (a considerable luxury)--all of which he needs: he operates in one, sees patients in another, sleeps in the third one, etc, etc. Already early in the book, he is facing an encroachment upon his property: the Building Committee is finding it "inequitable" that one man can take up seven whole rooms! In the book, Preobrazhensky simply throws them out ("I don't care how many rooms Isadora Duncan has! She can eat in the bedroom and slaughter rabbits in the dining-room!"): he has connections, he can afford to do so. Would he be able to do so in real life? God knows. It seems that Preobrazhensky's experiment strips him of all his comfort by bringing him face-to-face with the Revolution--he can no longer hide from seeing who has the power in his country: its personification is right there, at his very table, stinking of dead cats. By the end of the book, it is almost transparent that the Professor will leave Russia. As to Dr. Bormental, so steeped in the notions of honor, respect, decency--men like him were often doomed, in the great purges that had happened already and were to come in the 1930s. The book ends well--for the time being. The effects of the operation are reversed, and when Sharikov's friends, the House Committee, bring by the police, claiming that Preobrazhensky had murdered Sharikov, the Professor is able to produce him, still walking on hind legs, but already barely talking. The book concludes with Sharik the Dog thinking about how lucky he is to have found such a benefactor. I think that to fully appreciate the book, one must understand the bitterness with which its humor is suffused. It is funny, of course, but it is not light, by any means. Rather, it is poignant and sad.
Rating:
Summary: Body of a dog and soul of a human
Review: Among clever humor and piercing symbolism, Bulgakov's main target in this book is the post-revolutionary proletariat. He took the body of a dog, put in the soul and entity of an alcoholic into it, and it became a uniform party member.
Rating:
Summary: Grand Book
Review: A wonderful satire of Soviet life as it tries to transform an objet that it can not reform with out leaving something from the prior exsistence there. Heart of a Dog is a great short book that is easy to read and rally gives the reader a funny look at Soveit society. If you want a good laugh read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: A bit outdated, but fun nonetheless
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A bit outdated, but fun nonetheless
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Whoo-oo-oo-oo-hooh-hooh-oo!
Review: Besides the fact that this book has the greatest, grab-you-by-the-throat beginning I've ever seen, this book establishes Bulgakov in my mind as a giant - in Russian literature, alongside Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and Solzhenytsin - and in 20th century literature. Don't let my name-dropping fool you - there is simply no one I can complare Bulgakov to. Who else can get inside the mind, as well as the heart of a dog as he is transformed in to a human-like creature after a gland graft. Blending sharp, piquant writing with pathos and svage satire, this book is a worthy companion to "The Master and Margarita". They sit together on my bookshelf (but never for too long).
Rating:
Summary: A Great Intro to Bulgakov
Review: Bulgakov entirely destroys the concept of Russian literature most of us got from college - dull, grey, plodding and intense. Instead, Bulgakov is witty, irreverent, fantastical and intensely colorful. The political implications of his works are so well intertwined with the stories that you can pay them intense attention or ignore them entirely as you choose. His plotlines are hilarious and just twisted enough to keep you guessing and surprised. While Master and Margarita is clearly his greatest work, Heart of a Dog is a brilliant short novel that provides a great introduction to not just Bulgakov, but to Soviet era Russian literature in general.
Rating:
Summary: He kids you not
Review: Bulgakov established himself as one of the most talented comic writers from Russia - if not one of the most talented, period. This, one of his early works, showcases his love of satirical farce, focusing this time on the attempt to reform that which needs no reformation. The story is simple enough on the outside: A doctor takes in a wounded stray dog, gives it a prissy name, and treats it to a life of luxury. Then, when the dog least expects it, the doctor turns around and implants a human pituitary gland and pair of testicles in him. Gradually, the dog develops into a monstrous... human?! Exactly. This is not a book to be taken at face value. It's vaguely funny if you know nothing about Russian (esp. Soviet) history, and *hilarious* if you've done your homework. Bulgakov's rousing, snide commentary on the controlling government he despised was extremely controversial when it was first written, but nonetheless an invaluable addition to the world's literature. As an aside, get the Mirra Ginsburg English translation, which is arguably the best one available--the Michael Glenny translation reads like a translation, and sacrifices some of the comedic affect of the story.
Rating:
Summary: Heart of a Dog
Review: Bulgakov is simply irresistible - when you start reading the book "Heart of a Dog" be sure you have five or fix straight hours free ahead because once you start you cannot stop till the end. Mirra Ginsburg's translation is good but again please do not expect "Fitzgerald" or "Steinbeck" from the translation. Before starting we have to remember this book was published in 1925 when the Bolshevic revolution was at its prime and talking against the authorities almost meant certain death - as happened in the case of Gogol. In 1925 Bulgakov predicted the fall of the communist empire but that does not mean he is terribly fond of the Tzcarian rule. A dog called "Sharik" - who represent the oppressed class before the 1917 revolution is transformed to "Sharikov" - the comrade whose only source of knowledge is his mentor ""Shvonder" another comrade of the new age. This is satire at its best as the comrades make fun of earlier generation, even their own creators, everything is getting destroyed in the name of equality. When "Sharikov" goes after the cat and in the process destroys the whole apartment shows how the revolution went after the few individuals to destroy the whole country - the destruction of the Persian carpets symbolize the destruction of the heritage which is almost impossible to rebuild. The change in names is also quite remarkable "Polygraph Polygraphovich" probably represents the measured relation between truth and the existence of "Sharikov" - his physical presence is the truth but the lack of papers again contradicts that truth. It is like a polygraph test just that "Shariov" has to be physically present to attest to the fact that he exists. The young rebellious group is out to destroy not with a cause but just to establish their power. Again it is not that Bulgakov has left the old house untouched - he shows their love for authority and reluctance to share some of the authorities with the new age people. They live in supreme luxury and try to justify it and if they are not successful in doing so then they resort to brutal power to neutralize the new age. In the final chapters the transformation of the man back to a dog probably symbolizes the fall of communism.
|
