Gogol's The Dead SoulsNikolai Gogols Dead Souls (1842) is to be reckoned among the books that actually shaped the russian 19th century prose. This, regardless of the book being Gogol's only merited novel, as other main significant works were short stories or plays, would perhaps suffice to give it place here. In addition to that, book would deserves to be reviewed, purely for the value of the way narrative interwoves the humoristic in satire and farce.
Being such an old book, preceding in publication(1842) the end of serf bondage in tzarist Russia, Dead Souls is often included among the corner stones of 19th century Russian realistic prose. Knowing that, the reader might easily presume the book as being tied to the society and times it depicts. And to a certain level, this is the case; Dead Souls doesn't show in any manner typical attributes of a modern novel. However, Gogol's main strength rests on personnel characterization, his clever talent in picking and 'drawing' caricatures from each personnel. The people are described with irony and warmth at the same time. The main character in book, Chichikov, is possibly one the first 'modern' literal creations of the anti-hero. This is, considering his main action (in this play in form of novel), is collecting the souls dead, pretty intensifying choice and well thought out concerning the themes depicted.
Though Gogol's style lacks the psychological tematics of the later efforts among some 19th century novels, it gains in richness from the clever and most delicate descriptions from rural provinces in Russia at the time. Much is devoted to views from rural landscapes and areas, especially the inner rooms of the mansions, tone varying from rather neutral to the more humorist remarks. For example, when (Chichikov) visites the old Moliere-like archetype of miser, Plyushkin, reader gets acquainted to landowners housings with following sentences:
”...He stepped into a dark, wide entrance hall from which a cold breeze was blowing as though from a cellar. From the hall he got into a room which was also dark and which was only barely lit by a light coming from a big crack at the bottom of the door. Opening the door, he at last found himself in the light, and was amazed at the disorder which confronted him. It looked as if they were having a spring-cleaning in the house and that all the furniture were piled up in this room […] On the bureau, inlaid with a mosaic of mother-of-pearl which had fallen out in places, leaving brown grooves filled with glue, lay a large number of all sorts of things: a heap of closely written scraps of paper, covered with a marble egg-shaped paperweight, green with age, some kind of ancient book in leather binding with a red edge, a dried up lemon no larger than hazel nut, a broken off arm of chair, a wine-glass containing some liquid and three flies, covered with an envelope, a bit of sealing wax, a rag that had been picked up somewhere, two ink-stained quills, dried up as though from consumption, a toothpick yellow with age, which the master must have used to pick his teeth with before the French occupation of Moscow.” (p.124-5, 1961 Penguin edition)
Such scenes, told mostly perhaps less pointedly, but equally with irony and exaggeration are among the main gems in this book. Among them are naturally also Chichikovs many discussions with the landlords. Overally, as for the purposes of this book, the plot itself plays a lesser part in this satire on rural life at provinces(spiced with black humour). Basically the plot is mostly (practically all in it) built around Chichikovs journeys and visits to the landowners places with the intention of buying their dead servants. What follows as consequences and the ultimate ending are somewhat expectable, but as noted, of secondary importance in compared to books better qualities.
The main theme, selling and buying the dead (and/or fled) peasants makes of course most use from the societal critique of the times. Chichikov and the landowners can argue from the prices of souls as easily as goes the discussion from GHS-emissions and frustratingly high prices of oil these days. Though the souls asked to be bought are dead, most landlords don't find that in any noteworthy manner strange and it doesn't prevent them from trying to bargain and make trade. In addition, it can be noted, the servants are not in any significant roles in book, though (they) are characterized as clearly and ironically as their owners. This grotesque style on maintains similar tone throughout the book, Chichikov as well as any other person in book doesn't carry any romantic/heroic characteristics at all. If one wishes to find anything depicted with idealistic or romantic tones, the only object for such is the (tzarist) Russia itself. Gogol's apparent nationalism and keen feeling towards his home country, unproblematically mix within his criticism. That may have resulted from the refugee times, as he lived longer periods abroad at the end of his life(d. 1852). Naturally, nationalistic tones though are not anything particularly typical for Gogol, more related to the times of writing.
Later criticism has been various: During socialism Gogol was alternatively considered as some sort of forerunner in Russian story-telling, or despised as similarly aristocratic author as his followers were seen. As result, and also probably basing from peoples different opinions on his humors qualities, Gogol's place among the great Russian authors of 19th century(say Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pushkin) wasn't ever stabilized quite indisputable. There were later admirers who considered his style and works masterful, like fx Bulgakov, but officially he wasn't anymore appreciated than most of other pre-revolution authors. Stalin didn't especially much value Gogol as during his reign (in 1952) Gogol's statue was even removed and replaced with the monument of socialism. The mentioned may have most directly resulted from Gogol's fanciness on satire, of course. Another thing, one is likely to think as possible reason for non-canonization is that some of authors writings are not necessary considerable in the realm of realism at all. Most obvious example are the short-stories Overcoat and Nose (1836), which merely appear as pre-surrealist creations1 (but are also counted among the first master-works in short-stories genre). In the light of that, it is also no wonder Gogol wasn't later times (much) considered as any kind of critic of the serfdom and Russian society at the time. Inspite of the fact, that already soon after books publication the Dead Souls was much discussed and commented by literary critics.2
As novel, compared to the brilliant short-stories mentioned, Dead Souls is perhaps lacking in succeeding in the of mixture of passages described with language full of rich details and the unity of its complete form. Sometimes the transition from scene to another feels a little heavy, but, that is often compensated with the humorous discussions. On the other hand, in contrary to the short-stories mentioned, this roman doesn't present any basic problems to fit into category of realism. All the personnel, all the details, the story-plot and so forth could be described in less ironic, with more traditional and romantic manner, popular in works of the time. But, Gogol's richness on language, the most delicious foretelling produces the best results as being kept tightly within his manner of keeping this farce on the limits of the form – realism. It sort of creates indirect irony with (ao) peoples characterization and also most notably in its views from official bureaucracy. Also, on the light of the knowledge that the Dead Souls 2nd part was supposed to focus on Chichikovs main profession as customs officer and co-workers, and the official profession in general3, one can suppose these characters would have been even more hilarious than the landowners and servants of the first part.
It is also, somehow, interesting point-of-view, or at least worth mention to think about whether Gogol's concept of telling and choices of subjects would have some plausability on comparared to these days, 150 years later. In form his style is actually quite old-fashioned. As compared to Dostoevsky's novels where style and characterization are often very modern, Gogol's style belongs more to the older genre, that has its origins in the picaresque stories(fx of the middle ages tales and so on). As such the Dead Souls is a roman from times long gone, and belongs to the past. But, when considering that these are humorist portraits from the owners of the souls truly dead, the peasant landlords, the book reaches some ever-lasting height. This makes it almost as successful also in the psychological sense, keeping in mind also that the portraits are drawn with some warmth. Each person is an individual creation, characterized with a human sense, and mainly as an typical example of such kind of person(that could easily exist in reality). Therefore, reader also is left with a lot more realistic feeling in these characters, along with the caricaturist stylization. As such, they are naturally timid, like well-drawn sketches.
Concerning the books caricature figures, the reader might also be adviced to search for an older copy of the book (like ours). Drawings, decorating this book recommendation, sort of give actual outer looks for Gogol's hilarious collection of personnel (though we weren't able to find much from the artist).
--------
Notes: 1. Also, noteworthy is that Gogol is often mentioned as one of the greatest non-sense writers of all-times. 2. Among others, Belinsky is known to have praised the book as ground-works of russian realistic prose. From the his reviews and early reception we find fx that: "Between 1843 and 1845 one spoke of little else on Russian literary journalism except Dead Souls" (Frank, Joseph: 1979, Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt 1821-1849, p. 125. Of course, plenty more studies on subject exist.) 3. It is interesting to note also that the Dead Souls was to be only 1st part, and the 2nd was to supposed to present Chichikovs adventures within the official bureaucrats as some sort of 'purgatory' (from trilogy, Gogol possibly planned?), of this modern Divina Commediae. But, as Gogol during his later days burned the manuscript of the next part, all that ended in furnace. This also somehow raises temptation for comparisons, especially for Dostoevskys Karamazov Brothers, for which the author also considered to write 2nd part. [On notes 1, and 3: See wikipedia article on Gogol.]
Posts
![[Fig 2.; p.9]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsCfSH7164PD5KvWgwkBKENMVO1Mo63i4knFFkOK4OeQMeU6eNM382G6SLJn1ZJHQMOtAFZj7qeGAZae55ir9JOMUUZD9KwTbl38AGpKntRNZY9isTfOZyfqaBXidaL1E8b73-vusuNcA/s1600/wegfkafoocao.jpg)
Topics, as usual, are various but selective. Keeping in similar tone as our latest (news)post: [Our planet] ”...coming closer and closer to crucial tipping points.” and "How the oligarchy exacerbates the ecological crises" are the main headlines we now here present. The source cited is from Hervé Kempfs 'How the rich are destroying the planet', (well, books review actually...) which we here briefly mention. He (Kempf) finds Thorstein Veblens theory 'its not the case of production but consumption' more fitting for the current world crises and economics than often cited leftist theories rooted on Marxism. We are not necessary unquestionable in favor of this view, and also not familiar with the book, but could possibly even recommend it, just for the curiosity on background history and (unfitting) parallels in development concerning the New left- and Environmentalism movements presented.
