Although Heart of a Dog is clearly satirical in its nature, the backdrop of Bolshevism and the New Economic Policy are central to the novella’s themes and are among the aspects of Soviet culture and society that Bulgakov critiques.
The aspect of the story I find most fascinating is, perhaps, the most obvious–Bulgakov’s construction and creation of a human-like figure (which is completely unnatural and artificial). When I was first reading the story, I, like I’m sure others did, thought immediately of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, where a professor also artificially creates another being. But, what struck me in Heart of a Dog as opposed to Frankenstein is how Sharik (or at that point Sharikov) was able to assimilate and even succeed in Soviet society. In Frankenstein the creature is immediately neglected and rejected by society because of his foreignness, unnaturalness, and differentness. However, Sharikov is able to succeed– he finds a state-sponsored job, and even finds a wife-of-sorts (although this doesn’t end up working out). Additionally, he is depicted as a stereotypical Soviet man: smoking, drinking vodka, and swearing. To sum it up, despite his artificial, unnatural, and planned existence he is able to work his way through the Soviet system. I saw this fact as a commentary on the unnaturalness of the Soviet society itself–that Sharikov, despite his aburdities, is able to ‘make it’ in a Soviet system that Bulgakov could be saying is just as unnatural, forced, and absurd as Sharikov.
On a completely random note, I know we have talked about how Шарик is a common name for dogs in Russia, was the case before this story or did that trend follow the publication of this story? 🙂
I LOVE this connection to Frankenstein–fabulous, and so revealing and thought-provoking! To answer your last question, Шарик has long been a “typical” Russian dog name, so Bulgakov is simply playing on that in creating his typical (though monstrous) Bolshevik every-man.
I too saw parallels to Frankenstein. Another parallel is in the narrative structure. Both works are structured as amalgams of different narrators’ perspectives and formats. To be specific, a series of letters from an arctic explorer frame the narrative of Frankenstein. Within one of the letters, Viktor Frankenstein’s life narration resides, a few chapters of which being a retelling of the monster’s initial conduct from its perspective. Talk about the precursor to the matryoshka doll! Meanwhile, Heart of a Dog begins from Sharik’s perspective, drifts into a third-person omniscient narration, and features in the middle some notes from Dr. Bormenthal’s perspective and directives issued for Sharikov from various characters.
One unique function of the structure in the latter work is how it circumnavigates delving directly into Sharikov’s mind, leaving the being’s psychology to be examined by other characters. In contrasting its presentation with the treatment of Sharik, a sense of dissociation emerges between the creature under the influence of the “heart of a dog” and the “heart of a man.”
I was just reminded of another sort of intertextuality represented by the work. One of the highlights of a dinner conversation between Sharikov, Preobrazhensky, and Dr. Bormenthal was Sharikov’s dismissal of the theatre as “Counterrevolution[ary]” and his desire to go to the circus (88). This struck me as a direct parallel to the sentiments of Mayakovsky’s portfolio. In particular, “Clouds up to Tricks” (1917-1918) likens watching the clouds to watching a menagerie, elevating proletarian entertainment over other established poetic forms addressing natural spectacles. (Although the menagerie and circus persisted as distinct traditions in Europe, the two figured into mass entertainment.)
I also thought of Frankenstein and the central themes of that book. In Frankenstein, the main theme is that the pursuit of knowledge is immoral. The fact that Doctor Frankenstein essentially becomes God by creating a living creature leads to the death of all of the Doctor’s loved ones. I noticed that Phillip Phillopovich becomes God as well. The “rejuvenation” of Sharik happens over the span of the end of December, and the result that is produced is a vulgar man. I wonder what this parallel is trying to say about christianity?
Going off of the idea of religion that Colby brings up above, I was wondering if the author’s idea of religion or God has to do with the relative success of their main characters. The downfall of Frankenstein’s monster very much has to do with Doctor Frankenstein’s symbolic violation of God’s natural order, so to speak. I wonder if the fact that Christianity is banned in Soviet Russia makes Phillip Phillopovich’s creation less symbolically repulsive.
I think that it is an important note when we reference religion, that with the revolutions in Russia came the attempt to remove religion from Russia, which we know from all of the historical texts we read had a rich history of faith. I think that reading this text with a religious lens could bring with its commentary on the revolutions attempt to eradicate Christianity, and what it was like for people of Christian faith to enter into a secular society. It is an interesting fact that the doctor who Phillip was most likely based off of was Jewish, and there was open criticism of him from people for his religion.
Great discussion, everyone! The comparison with Frankenstein is very fruitful, and it is honestly one I had not considered before (although I have taught this book many times). Zach’s analysis of the similarities in narrative structure between the two works are particularly revealing. I would like to add two further points that may further the validity of the connection that you all have raised. First is the fact that Dr. Bormenthal is pointedly German, which could perhaps be a clue to the Frankenstein subtext, since Dr. Frankenstein is also German. Second are the several references to Faust throughout the novella; Goethe’s Faust is an important subtext in the Mary Shelley novel (and shares with it the theme of punishment for the symbolic violation of God’s order that Eva mentioned.)