Discovering Russian Literature discussion

So use this thread for the discussions on Part One. New readers of "Dead Souls" be aware there may be spoilers.

If you comment on something in Part Two make sure you warn the new readers with ***spoilers included****
or use the formatting tips in Goodreads, (some html is ok)

I look forward to read this with all of you. So start and enjoy! I'll join you soon.

I have just started the book. I will comment as soon as I am some way in to it.

I have read through Chapter 4. Am enjoying it.

Started!

wow part one has a LOT of chapters. are we supposed to read the whole section before the discussion dates? if so, i'm waaaay behind. i'm on chapter 4.

the name Selifan strikes me as very different from other Russian names in novels i've come across. does anyone know if it has a special meaning?

Loved this part in chapter 3 "Finally, an old hound which appeared to be gifted with a peculiarly robust temperament kept supplying the part of contrabasso, so that his growls resembled the rumbling of a bass singer when a chorus is in full cry, and the tenors are rising on tiptoe in their efforts to compass a particularly high note, and the whole body of choristers are wagging their heads before approaching a climax, and this contrabasso alone is tucking his bearded chin into his collar, and sinking almost to a squatting posture on the floor, in order to produce a note which shall cause the windows to shiver and their panes to crack."

Kristen wrote: "the name Selifan strikes me as very different from other Russian names in novels i've come across. does anyone know if it has a special meaning?"
Hi Kristen,
Strictly speaking - no. Selifan is a standard if rare Russian first name, characteristic for the lower class of that century.
But!
You sure will see reading further that almost all servants' first names in the book have this suffix "shka". This suffix indicates either super familiarity,or iferiority, or even can be smack offensive, depending on the situation. Selifan could be called 'Selifashka'. But he is not. I think it gives some significance, some weight to his personality. Maybe because of his age, or his position among other serfs (He sort of earned his name in this form - Selifan).
And, Kristen, I don't know if you realize what subtle theme you just touched - Gogol is a superb master of creating names for his characters..but that's a long story..

In message 8 I should have stressed more clear that that suffix "shka" (or "n'ka")is used in certain circumstances and relations when addressing people. In official documents, for instance, the original form is used.
OK, here's an example, dig this sequence:
Alexander - Alexasha - Sasha - Sashka - Sashura - Shura - Shurka - Shurik - etc.
That is just one name. The original form is Alexander. The rest are derivatives that can be applied to the same person, depending again on the situation, and mostly who is addressing that person.
But mind you - be careful playing with that :)

Andrew wrote: "In message 8 I should have stressed more clear that that suffix "shka" (or "n'ka")is used in certain circumstances and relations when addressing people. In official documents, for instance, the ori..."

thanks, for the info, andrew. i have wondered about the name variations. anna karenina was my first russian novel, and i was SO confused with the names, haha! as you demonstrated, one person could be referred to several different ways. i would think "wait, what?? who is that??? where did that person come from???" when i realized it was the same person, i laughed, and ended up writing down all the different names, so i could keep the characters straight. i did figure out that the "shka" suffix was a familiar way of addressing someone, but i didn't know that it could also signify inferiority or come across offensive. would it be similar to someone who is a new acquaintance using a family nickname?

exactly right,
family memeber may call each other '-shka', '-n'ka' (same generation level though), but a new acquintance should not...that would be the case where it becomes extemely impolite..
still historically, those suffixes were attached to serfs names by the serfs' owners.

Kristen wrote: " are we supposed to read the whole section before the discussion dates? "

No, you can comment while reading.


Ok, I just finished the first two chapters and re-read because they are funny. There's some serious piercing irony targeting the Russian landowners. I've not read many Gogol's work but compared to the ones I have the language is different here. It's unique and innovative and it seems to do really well in characterizing the different types silly, coarse and ugly landowners.

I learned that there used to be a special censuses held every ten years in Russia. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how serfs were treated by their owners? Was it like the slavery existed in America? I'm not American but when reading anti-slavery novels like Uncle Tom's Cabin it seems they were treated like animals. Just wondering if surfs were ill-treated obviously they had been considered as "property" to which the owners can do whatever they like. Coming from the short story "Mumu" Tatiana had to marry a man of her mistress's choice.

I have just started reading, but one thing that I find interesting is the way in which the little intros at the beginning of each chapter really make me think of a script and the way plays or screenplay are written in which the scene has to be set up.

Amalie wrote: "Kristen wrote: " are we supposed to read the whole section before the discussion dates? "

No, you can comment while reading.


Ok, I just finished the first two chapters and re-read because they a..."

Serfs were treated as animals in the sense that they could be sold and bought as, say, dogs or horses; sometimes even family severings were involved.
Serfs also could be physically punished by their owners (lashings etc.). The only thing the owners could not do was kill their serfs legally; but there always were indirect ways to do that, of course - If a serf dies from lashings, for instance, it's not a murder, it's just that God took pity of him/her for his/her sufferings.
I'd say serfdom was a variety of slavery. Serfs could possess property, - land, first of all - and, they could be sold/bought with their land or without it.
The 'Emancipation of the Serfs' came into law in Russia only in 1861.

Kristen wrote: "Loved this part in chapter 3 "Finally, an old hound which appeared to be gifted with a peculiarly robust temperament kept supplying the part of contrabasso, so that his growls resembled the rumblin..."
I'm with you here - it’s a pearl. And such pearls, or micro-stories, or digressions (??) (somebody called them that!)– whatever, are all over the poem. Some of these micro-stories have real characters who, like virtual particles, pop up out of nothing, you wink, and they’re gone, but your mood has changed and you continue reading finding yourself already in a different state of artistic reality... Remember that housekeeper crashing a sugarloaf with flies all over it from Chapter 1 or.. However, no spoilers please! - we’ll meet them all one at a time while we read along..

I admit I'm having trouble with this. Am I to see these digressions as furthering the story? I like books with more characterization than plot, but I don't feel I'm getting any of Chichikov's character. I want Gogol to give me some reason to keep reading.

I've only just begun. I'm trying to juggle everything with my current personal challenge to try to read all of In Search of Lost Time.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I admit I'm having trouble with this. Am I to see these digressions as furthering the story? I like books with more characterization than plot, but I don't feel I'm getting any of Chichikov's chara..."

Yes, the poem can be difficult, especially if the expectations are a bit off. At first read, I would recommend to loosen up and be ready for a sheer comedy. Imagine yourself (the Reader) and a funny friend of yours (the Author) sitting in front of a fireplace or walking around a lake, and your eloquent friend is telling you a hilarious fantastic story.
And if the 'digressions' seem too tedious...maybe at first read it's ok not to try digging them too hard...

Well, that clarifies things enormously. I don't usually read sheer comedy. Subtle comedy, maybe, witty I like a lot. The problem with this comedy is that I have no perspective. I don't have the slightest idea what he's making fun of, so can't in the least appreciate what is funny. Other than the buying of dead souls and that maybe the land owners feel they're being tricked.

Somebody on this blog recommended read Dead Souls along with Nabokov’s lecture on the poem from his book 'Lectures on Russian Literature'. The book is listed on the group’s bookshelf.
I agree. But. First, I would recommend reading Nabokov a little bit behind to avoid spoilers, and as with Dead Souls - you can always get back and reread some parts of it (this is not a mystery novel and should be read as poetry – with multiple comebacks!).
Second. There are as many interpretations of Dead Souls as there are readers, and Nabokov holds a very non-traditional view on the book. Basically, he regards it from the position of symbolism. (I wonder if they had this term in Gogol’s time.)
I personally disagree with Nabokov quite a bit on the way he sees Dead Souls, but he shares with us a lot of very interesting observations. His lectures are definitely worth reading.
Third. If you choose Nabokov’s approach, then..well..then it’s very hard.
OK, here’s a quote from the introduction of his lecture:
“If the special gruesome character attending the main theme of the book has been conveyed and if the different aspects of poshlust which I have noted at random have become connected in such a way as to form an artistic phenomenon (its Gogolian leitmotiv being the “roundness” of poshlust), then Dead Souls will cease to mimic a humorous tale or a social indictment and henceforth may be adequately discussed.”
As you can see, it's exactly the opposite to what I would recommend: at first reading, take it as a humorous tale..

Andrew, I wandered off and thought about it a bit. There are quite a few nonsensical comedies in the world of movies and TV. If I could come to view it like those, it might be more palatable. Tolerating nonsense is not my strong point, but I will persevere. ;-)

So far, I find this book delightfully funny. For some reason I assumed from the title that it would be a dark and serious sort of book. Not at all what I was expecting!

Kristen wrote: "So far, I find this book delightfully funny. For some reason I assumed from the title that it would be a dark and serious sort of book. Not at all what I was expecting!"

Yes I thought the same thing, particularly since the cover of my book is quite goth looking. And though I myself am someone who does like dark and brooding books, I am thus far really enjoying this one and was completely taken by surprise by the humor of it. It is not in the least what I would have expected from it.

I just came back and read last three messages from Elizabeth, Kristen and Silver..
Guys, you can't imagine how excited I got..
Just because I have already read the book and not once..
Just keep reading and you get surprised how many times your mood on the book will change..
Is it a nonsensical humor?..yes..but it's dead serious too..
is it a comedy?..yes..but it's also quite a horror too..
GUYS - A SUGGESTION: Since we're into Gogol, I recommend you read a relatively short Gogol's story - Viy. Extremely funny but actually it's a horror story. I recommend to read second part all by yourself in the house, by the candle - no electric light - just as first Gogol's readers did..
Viy is a story from Mirgorod collection.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Andrew, I wandered off and thought about it a bit. There are quite a few nonsensical comedies in the world of movies and TV. If I could come to view it like those, it might be more palatable. Toler..."

Thank you for the perseverance, Elizabeth!
I still would like to encourage you along with that - to play, play and have fun, try to read some passages aloud, maybe to somebody, imagine how those scenes would look in a movie, or on stage, create your own casting for the movie..well, now I sound like Manilov..time to go home (I'm at work.. :-).. )

Tastes differ, of course..
And sense of humor is very individual..

Just an observation. Some people start laghing outloud on the very first page of the book at:

"'Hey,' said one to another, 'look at that there wheel! You think that wheel could make it as far as Moscow if it had to, or couldn't?'
'It could,' replied the other.
'But not as far as Kazan, I bet?'
'Not as far as Kazan it couldn't,' replied the other.
With that the conversation ended."

Now, back in the Soviet Union (when I lived there) many people used that dialogue as a saying in certain situations to humor themselves, often paraphrazing it, some not even remembering where it was coming from..

And here's my question for you guys.
The connotation of this dialogue in the book can be very complex. But, apart from that, as the lines taken as they are, is it funny? Or is this humor heavy duty cultural, only for a certain place and certain time?..

Andrew wrote: And here's my question for you guys.
The connotation of this dialogue in the book can be very complex. But, apart from that, as the lines taken as they are, is it funny? Or is this humor heavy duty cultural, only for a certain place and certain time?...."

For me I think the humor works best when taken all into its original context. I find that while the humor is threaded throughout the book it is a subtle sort of humor which works best with all the interlocking parts together. There hasn't been any real definitive moments that jumped out or stood on their own as being laugh out loud funny or funny on its own accord. I think the humor does come from everything being interwoven and coming together, playing off each other. How one thing leads to the next.

I agree..you put it very well.
As for that dialogue..it was repeated so often - Dead Souls was on the high school eighth grade curriculum in the Soviet Union (can you imagine that?)- that it started to live its own life, by definition being funny and suitable to be attached to awkward/funny situations.. I think..

And in the book.. at least we know from the very beginning that one wheel on Chichikov's britska is not very good..
But, of course, Gogol can't just say so, not even limit himself to a similie, or a simple metaphore..
His metaphore is a story in itself.. that we now know can flow away and live a life on its own...

Yes, indeed, some of this is very funny. The whole how do you get to Manilovka thing where Manilovka is repeated and repeated. This is sort of like Monty Python in print. There is seemingly no purpose to it, other than to be funny.

I really liked the conversation between Chichikov and the overseer of Manilov, in which Manilov just keeps parroting what Chichikov and the overseer are saying to each other. As if he is trying to act like a translater between the two of them, even though it is completely unnecessary.

And I have to say I cannot wait to see just what it is Chichikov plans on doing with all these dead souls that he is collecting, and what the significance is going to be about the fact that they are listed as still being alive on the census. It almost sounds like he is attempting some sort of scam, yet he does not seem like the sort who would do that, particularly when he tells Manilov how important it is for him to do everything according to the law.

Speaking of humour, it was what I myself least expected like someone has mentioned after seeing the cover of the book and the name. As far as my knowledge goes, the writings of Gogol are sprinkled with humour or shall I say black humour but compared to Dostoevsky who's rare with humour, I like Gogol's better because underneath Dostoevsky's irony there's clear tragedy.

Dostoevsky's novella/short story "The Double:A Petersburg Poem" is considered a response to Gogol's "Dead Souls." I've read a Sinhalese translation, it wasn't a good one, I have to find the English one.

Yes, Gogol was not a favourite of the aristocracy. After all, Dead Souls eventually got him exiled. His satire is less obvious, even with notes, to us, but it was something akin to, though clearly more high-brow than and therefore less easily ignored by those in charge, the biting satire of shows like SNL in America. Dead Souls is less silly, but it's frankness, drollness, and black sarcasm were all extraordinarily offensive. I read The Nose a while back, and it struck me how ridiculously brash the satire seemed to me: I could only imagine what the high-class Russians thought of it.

On names.
Gogol's names speak. Sometimes very loud,sometimes just whisper and yet set the reader in a certain mood toward the character.
Manilov. There is no such Russian name.
Directly coming from the Latin root 'mania'? - No way!
Manin maybe, or Malov, or Zamanin. Maybe.
But there ain't no such name as Manilov in Russia,
and never was.
...That is..until Gogol invented it..

Now assume a landowner's last name is XX.
Then the village around his mansion on his estate would be most likely called XXka.
For the Russian ear,the word Zamanilovka as a toponym would sound more natural than Manilovka, as coming from the verb "'Zamanit'" - entice, lure.
No wonder a tired or ever drunk person would get confused..

Andrew wrote: "Tastes differ, of course..
And sense of humor is very individual..

Just an observation. Some people start laghing outloud on the very first page of the book at:

"'Hey,' said one to another, 'look..."

I don't think it is funny; according to me it is quit sad. It shows how Cicikov is nothing but a poor man (also spiritually) and not so rich, brilliant and aristocratic as perhaps he would like the people to believe. He is a man who after all goes unnoticed.

So far I haven't found anything to make me laugh in Dead Souls because I have the suspect, the feeling, that it is an irony that hides a harsh truth. It's like Gogol wants to mislead the reader, make him smile a while and then slamming face a stark truth. Don't know, perhaps I am wrong but I have this feeling.

I like especially the parts where the writer appeals to the reader, telling him not to have a hurry wanting to know what happens next or when he says that going forward in the story he can become better acquainted with some of the characters. I really like this turn to the reader because it is as if Gogol is in front of me telling me a story.

Thanks Andrew on your clarification on names. The first I noticed them was in Chekhov's drama. One person has so many names. With your info. they are more clear.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Other than the buying of dead souls and that maybe the land owners feel they're being tricked..."

I think Chichikov did manage to trick at least one or two. I think he managed to cheat Plushkin.

dely wrote: "I don't think it is funny; according to me it is quit sad...."

I would not call Dead Souls is a humourous book, it is more a novel with black humour. The whole idea of "Our hero" in a "quest searching dead souls" sounds like a Knight on a noble quest, is pretty ironic. The constant reference to Chichikov as a 'hero' itself is ironic. His goal is to buy for himself a list of fictitious serfs to mortgage to a bank and to buy himself an estate and living serfs, to start a new life. He is not a real hero, but a villain. I still didn't feel any sympathy towards Chichikov but I'm still in chapter 7.

One thing I noticed is that the narrator sounds like Gogol himself. the reference "But let me confess that I always shrink from saying too much about ladies." Gogol's works lack female characters and if there are such they are almost lifeless. Gogol has been described as one of the least romantic writers of the 19th Century.

I agree with you. There's harsh truths beneath the irony. The way Nozdrev tries to sell animals instead of dead serfs, it sounds like he sees no difference among them. From colts and dogs and then trying to sell thing like organs and coaches; all gives the summary of how the serfs were treated more or less like animals or things. Then gambling with "dead souls" is even a more harsh criticism. People should respect the dead. Gogol must've made the Russian landowners pretty angry with this book.

"A mass of golden hair fell daintily from a small head, and the oval of her comely face was as shapely as an egg, and white with the transparent whiteness seen when the hands of a housewife hold a new-laid egg to the light to let the sun's rays filter through its shell."
I couldn't help laughing at this odd description. I'm wondering if it sounds as funny in Russian.

Kristen wrote: ""A mass of golden hair fell daintily from a small head, and the oval of her comely face was as shapely as an egg, and white with the transparent whiteness seen when the hands of a housewife hold a ..."

Yes, it does.. :-)
One of those Gogol's descriptions given to his characters that remain stuck to them forever..you recall the character and the description is right there dangling in front..and of course you can't help laughing again and again and again..
Sometimes I call this type of humor non-linear, in other words - extremely unpredictable..at the same time so graphic and precise..still not a very good term..can anybody come up with a better one?

Amalie wrote: "Kristen wrote: " are we supposed to read the whole section before the discussion dates? "

No, you can comment while reading.


Ok, I just finished the first two chapters and re-read because they a..."

Amalie wrote: "Kristen wrote: " are we supposed to read the whole section before the discussion dates? "

No, you can comment while reading.


Ok, I just finished the first two chapters and re-read because they a..."
I'd say, that while the lot of serfs was lowly, they were not like slaves. They could be educated, own property, work for wages. An example (which I recently read) that illustrates this is Tolstoy's "Master and Man". The merchant and a serf traveling in a blizzard, stop in a serf village, have some repast and are urged to stay the night because of the storm. I think serfs had a certain level of autonomy, but were required to pay tithing to the landlord.

I've read Dead Souls three times now and find it very funny. Gogol takes provincial life and fills it with characters who are dead serious, but viewed through Gogol's eyes are laughable. Yes, it is people in 19th century provincial Russia, but what makes this a classic is the characters transcend time. We have know everyone of these people. It becomes even funnier, when you see yourself. The premise of Chichikov "padding his portfolio" with dead serfs is ridiculous, his name is (intentionally) funny. The conversation Selifan has with the horses is delightful and so real. I want to think about this, but I believe his writing reminds me a little of Mark Twain.

Robert wrote: "I'd say, that while the lot of serfs was lowly, they were not like slaves...."

I didn't know they were educated or that they were allowed to own property. But I remember what you say about the Master And Man

I did think serfs were allowed some freedoms compared to slaves but the lifestyle seems very similar to those of the slaves. It seems both were could be sold, bought, or gambles. If they did not obey I thought serfs were punished just like the slaves.

Robert wrote: "I've read Dead Souls three times now and find it very funny. Gogol takes provincial life and fills it with characters who are dead serious, but viewed through Gogol's eyes are laughable...."


So Gogol teases the Russians? Because often he makes comments on the Russian population denigrating maybe Germans or other populations. So is he ironic or he really thinks that the Russian people are superior? He doesh't say openly that they are superior but he always compares them positively with other populations. Maybe he wants to make the Russian look ridiculous but he speaks in a very serious and convinced way?


Why is the name Cicikov funny?

I am quite enjoying Chapter 11 in which we being to learn more about Chichikov and his past and find out just who he is, and how he came to be the way he is. One of the things that I have wondered throughout the book is what is the particular significance in Chichikov being so nondescript.

He is repeatedly described as being "neither fat nor thin" and it does not seem as if he is particuarly ugly or handsome. Being middle aged it could be said that he is also neither young nor old.

And as we learn more about him we discover that he did not really excel at anything in particular in school, but managed to get by becasue of his diligent obedience.

The way in which he simply does anything to try and please others it seems he has no distinguishing personality of his own.

Nothing about him really stands out good or bad. He is consistently just right in the middle, under the radar, mediocre.

Is thier mean to be some sort of statement of industrialism, and that sort of drone like cubicle work, the mundane repetitive tasks and people being chained to thier jobs. One of the first lessons that Chichikov learns is the importance of a kopeck and that the all might dollar is the only thing that can really be relied upon.

I couldn't help feeling bad for Chichikov when Nozdyev rats him out about the dead souls at the ball. I did however find it strange that when rumors spread of him being a money forger as well, that his reaction is not to defend himself, but to flee. Makes me think the whole dead souls thing isn't the first shady thing he's done.

I am only through chapter 3, but I am really enjoying the story. I am also enjoying the comments here! It is so nice to see all this enthusiasm for the book, and for Gogol's humor! It makes my reading even more vivid.

I'm also still in part 1 and I still find the whole way buying and selling of serfs disturbing. So may be such things didn't only happened in Russia, wherever it is it's disturbing. There's a twist in Sobakevitch's and Chichikov's 'business deal' Just when we are about to think may be he has more compassion for the serfs, he is simply trying to raise the price.

"Then you seem to rate a human soul at about the same value as a boiled turnip. At least give me three roubles."

"give me a receipt for the money"

"The money? I have it here. Do you write out the receipt, and then the money shall be yours."

Me too, I am still in part 1 because I had little time to read in these last days but I am enjoying it more and more and it is involving me always more. Perhaps it is due also of how we read a book: I began Dead Souls when I was very tired because I have a lot to do in this period and so reading in the evening (the only moment when I have time) I had not the right concentration. Now it goes better, this morning I went to the beach and I read it in a completely different way with more concentration and more relax.

I am enjoying always more the prickly satire of Gogol and I take more nuances. Chapter 9 was very much appreciated by me, funny but because according to me Gogol says true things about gossip and the behaviour of women; but in general he says true things about how people are when they listen to a gossip and how they change every word.
I am only sorry that I didn't read the first chapters with the same mood.

Amalie wrote: "Robert wrote: "I'd say, that while the lot of serfs was lowly, they were not like slaves...."

I didn't know they were educated or that they were allowed to own property. But I remember what you sa..."

Here's an essay comparing slavery in the American and Russian serfdom.

http://www.essayforum.com/writing-fee...

As for Gogol, he's a satirist, a one weird, crazily talented man with cynical stories satirizing his contemporary world. Best thing to do is to enjoy the humor though as black as it can be.

Shanez wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Robert wrote: "I'd say, that while the lot of serfs was lowly, they were not like slaves...."

I didn't know they were educated or that they were allowed to own property. But I reme..."

Thanks for the link. Picking up from where you stopped, Golgol does tell shocking stories, and delighting in the moral depth and existential absurdity of ordinary people like many character here. As for the humour, you can't laugh our loud, they are more darkly humorous. He was also a pathfinder. Like in The Nose he reveals himself as an unequalled satirist with a weird, surrealistic imagination and it's written way before the invention of surrealism.

I'm using D. J. Hogarth's translation and in 8th or 9th chapter this is there

Never did a lady say, “I blew my nose,” or “I perspired,” or “I spat.” No, it had to be, “I relieved my nose through the expedient of wiping it with my handkerchief,” and so forth. Again, to say, “This glass, or this plate, smells badly,” was forbidden. No, not even a hint to such an effect was to be dropped. Rather, the proper phrase, in such a case, was “This glass, or this plate, is not behaving very well,”—or some such formula.

The terms seem mechanical, I'm just wondering it is a problem in the translation or is it Gogol being funny?

Amalie wrote: "I'm using D. J. Hogarth's translation and in 8th or 9th chapter this is there

Never did a lady say, “I blew my nose,” or “I perspired,” or “I spat.” No, it had to be, “I relieved my nose through ..."

Amalie, I am using the old standard Constance Garnett translation. Here is that passage in her words:

"They never said: 'I blew my nose, I got in a sweat, I spat,' but used instead some such expression as: 'I made use of my handkerchief.' It was out of the question to say under any circumstances 'that glass or that plate stinks,' or even to say anything that would suggest it; they said instead 'that glass is not quite agreeable,' or something of the sort."

I like Garnett's phrasing here better than the one you quoted from Hogarth. And YES, Gogol is being funny! But, he is also telling us that these ladies are 'refined,' they are not crass. In the next sentence, Gogol, again being funny, says that these ladies, and those of their society, in order to "elevate" the Russian language, have rejected half of the words in it!!