"The whole horror of the situation is that he now has a human heart, not a dog's heart. And about the rottenest heart in all creation!"The recipe for success a la Bulgakov:# Take a street dog, hungry and flea-ridden and wickedly smart (yes, he can even read - you gotta do that to survive on the cruel winter Moscow streets!). # Take a brilliant and renown professor with a knack for brain surgery/transplants and desire to advance science. # Add to the mix a dead good-for-nothing delinquent alcoholic's brain. # Add the flavor of the Soviet mid-1920s, after the Socialist Revolution but still before the iron fist rule of Stalin's terror policy. # Let Bulgakov's genius mix all of these ingredients together - and you will end up with a brilliantly written satirical fantastical commentary-on-contemporary-society laughter-through-tears piece of literary art that is Heart of the Dog.Despite its short size, this book has endless layers. On the surface, it is a hilariously sad story about a science experiment gone very wrong in the direction that its creator did not quite anticipate, and all the funny antics of the newly created sorta-human Sharikov. Yes, that includes obsessive and funny cat-chasing even when the dog becomes "human". On the other level, it is a cautionary warning about what happens when power falls in the hands of those who should not be allowed to yield it, and the dangers and pitfalls of the system that allows that to happen. Yes, that includes an easy step from killing cats to pointing guns at real people, and demanding sex in exchange for keeping a job, and of course the ultimate evil that was to penetrate the fabric of the years to come - writing denunciations for little else than petty personal gains."But just think, Philipp Philippovich, what he may turn into if that character Shvonder keeps on at him! I'm only just beginning to realize what Sharikov may become, by God!""Aha, so you realize now, do you? Well I realized it ten days after the operation. My only comfort is that Shvonder is the biggest fool of all. He doesn't realize that Sharikov is much more of a threat to him than he is to me. At the moment he's doing all he can to turn Sharikov against me, not realizing that if someone in their turn sets Sharikov against Shvonder himself, there'll soon be nothing left of Shvonder but the bones and the beak."I do believe that this book should be used as an illustration of the whole "laughing through tears" concept. It's the epitome of that concept. At times sidesplittingly funny with some sad overtones, it quickly crosses the territory into the mostly sad and even scary, especially given the context of the events still to come to this world of Soviet Union in the mid-1920s. Yes, it's the Stalin era and the Purges and the labor camps and denunciations and mass trials of the "enemies of the people" that I'm talking about. For the characters of this book, these events are just a few years away.Keeping this in mind, you quickly realize that Bulgakov's short novel has undoubtedly way more impact on its reader now than it did back in the mid-twenties when it was written. Back then it was sad and funny, and held a note of warning, and shed the uncomfortable light on the parts of the pre-Stalinist pre-Purges society that were already beginning to feel uncomfortable. However, it ended on a quasi-happy note, the futility of which had only become fully visible years later. And now, for the readers that have the benefit of knowing what history had in store just a few short years later for the likes of those "undesirable elements" described in this book, the impossibility of anything remotely good coming out of the whole situation and of the entire future for Bulgakov's characters becomes painfully clear. 'But Philipp Philippovich, you're a celebrity, a figure of world-wide importance, and just because of some, forgive the expression, son of a bitch… Surely they can't touch you!''All the same, I refuse to do it,' said Philipp Philippovich thoughtfully. He stopped and stared at the glass-fronted cabinet. 'But why?''Because you are not a figure of world importance.' 'But what…''Come now, you don't think I could let you take the rap while I shelter behind my world-wide reputation, do you? Really… I'm a Moscow University graduate, not a Sharikov.'C'mon, we all know that even world-class fame will never save Professor Preobrazhensky from Stalin's labor camps as eventually his higher-up protectors will themselves become victims of the new regime, and likely from a gunshot to the head in the middle of the night. And Bormental's fate will undoubtedly be very similar to that - just as Professor kinda-sorta anticipated already. After all, neither of them has made their unpopular views very secret. 'Yes, I don't like proletariat,' sadly agreed Philipp Philippovich."Professor Preobrazhensky's clearly anti-socialist views definitely would not make his ultimate fate anticipated by the reader after the events of this story any easier. His grumpy views of a cultured and educated person who is baffled and annoyed with the "new" society of coarseness and rudeness and inefficiency and "class struggle" and the undeserved in his opinion entitleness of those who perceive themselves as the oppressed working class and whom Professor in turn perceives as lazy and irresponsible people. And among the rambles of the old and annoyed man there may or may not be a grain of truth. Judge for yourself:'What do you mean by "ruin"? Is it an old woman with a stick? A witch who smashed all the windows and put out all the lights? There's no such thing! What do you mean by that word?' Philipp Philippovich angrily inquired of an unfortunate cardboard duck hanging upside down by the sideboard, then answered the question himself. 'I'll tell you what it is: If instead of operating every evening I were to start a glee club in my apartment, that would mean that I was on the road to "ruin". If when I go to the lavatory I don't piss, if you'll excuse the expression, into the bowl but on to the floor instead and if Zina and Darya Petrovna were to do the same thing, the lavatory would be ruined. Ruin, therefore, is not caused by lavatories but it's something that starts in people's heads. So when these clowns start shouting “Stop the ruin!” – I laugh!'.........................But there is much more to this book than just the condemnation of the system. Had it been only that, it would have become quite dated quite soon. No, just like in Bulgakov's other works, it has a commentary on the state of humanity as a whole, on what makes us truly human versus merely humanoid. It is about the importance of morals and values, the etiquette and politeness and respect that make us really human, and moreso, civilized humans.'I'm sorry, professor, not a dog. This happened when he was a man. That's the trouble.''Because he talked?' asked Philipp Philippovich. 'That doesn't mean he was a man."And this respect for culture and etiquette and civility is what permeates the message of this book. This respect for what Bulgakov sees as the essentials of being human are precisely what puts him in the conflict with his contemporary Soviet state that believed in intimidation and terror as the viable way of governing and existing - the principles that newly formed humanoid Sharikov is very eager to learn and internalize. And neither Bulgakov nor Professor Preobrazhensky or Bormental are having that. "Kindness. The only possible method when dealing with a living creature. You'll get nowhere with an animal if you use terror, no matter what its level of development may be. That I have maintained, do maintain and always will maintain. People who think you can use terror are quite wrong. No, no, terror is useless, whatever its colour – white, red or even brown! Terror completely paralyses the nervous system." "Nobody should be whipped. Remember that, once and for all. Neither man nor animal can be influenced by anything but suggestion." Well, my review is getting long and I have nothing but the praise for this book. So I will wrap up with the highest possible recommendation for any fans of Bulgakov or, really, any fans of well-written literature. 5 stars.
میخاییل بولگاکوف از جملهی نویسندگانی است که در زمان حیاتش از توجه به آثار خود بینصیب ماند و مهمترین نوشتههای او چند دهه پس از مرگش امکان انتشار یافتند. او در خلال انقلاب روسیه در حالیکه شاهد چهاردهبار دستبهدست شدن قدرت در شهر بود تصمیم خود را گرفت و همراه با نیروهای ارتش سفید به جنوب روسیه عقب نشینی کرد. بولگاکوف آغاز فعالیتهای ادبیاش را نیز به همین زمان نسبت میدهد و در واگنی شلوغ و پرهیاهو، در نور شمع نیمسوختهای که درون بطری گذاشته بودند اولین داستان کوتاه خود را نوشت که "دورنماهای آتی" نام داشت و سرشار از این اعتقاد است که مصیبتهایی که کشور گرفتار آنها شده، نتیجهی نابودی شیوههای سنّتی زندگی است. او در پایان سال 1921 وارد مسکو شد و در این شهر در فقر مفرط زندگی میکرد. در مسکو نه از سوی جمع روشنفکران شهر پذیرفته شد و نه در میان طرفداران پرولتاریا و نویسندگان آن جایی داشت. سرآخر پس از تحمل رنجهای فراوان در روزنامهی گودوک که متعلق به کارگران راهآهن بود کار ثابتی پیدا کرد و روزها به نوشتن قطعات فکاهی، که به اجبار انجامش میداد، میپرداخت و شبها به کار اصلی خود یعنی نوشتن رمان گار سفید مشغول میشد.در سال 1930 وقتیکه از سانسور گسترده آثار خود و ممنوعیت انتشار نوشتههایش به تنگ آمده بود نامهای به حکومت نوشت و با شهامتی کمنظیر به تشریح دیدگاههای سیاسی و هنری خود پرداخت و خواستار اجازهی کار یا مهاجرت شد. در نهایت به او اجازه دادند با سِمَت کارگران در تئاتر هنری مسکو مشغول به کار شود.بولگاکوف تا آخرین روزهای زندگی، شهامت فوقالعادهی خود را حفظ کرد، چه در مقام آفرینشگری که بر اعتقادات و دیدگاههای خود پافشاری میکرد و چه در مقام یک انسان. آنا آخماتوا، که بولگاکوف در دفاع از شوهر و پسر او به استالین نامه نوشت، در شعر به یاد بولگاکوف میگوید: از من به تو بهجای گُلِ گوربهجای دود کُندُر و عود-تویی که چنان سخت زیستی وخواری شکوهمندت راتا پایان حفظ کردی.داستان بلند قلب سگی، مشهورترین اثر طنز انتقادی بولگاکوف است که مانند بسیاری دیگر از آثار او در زمان حیاتش قابل چاپ نبود و هرکس آن را میخواند از صراحت ضد کمونیستیاش به هراس میافتاد.انتشار این اثر باعث شد تا تصویری که منتقدان بولگاکوف از او ترسیم کرده بودند از بین برود. اینان بولگاکوف را نویسندهای نشان داده بودند که به شیوهی خاص خود با انقلاب همراهی میکند.او در این اثر نشان میدهد که چگونه راهی که یک دانشمند برای خوشبخت کردن بشر یافته با دخالت عوامل حکومت به تباهی کشیده شده و فاجعه پدید میآورد (همانند داستان تخممرغهای شوم). موجود تازه بهوجود آمده در این اثر ستیزهطلبی کوری دارد که هرکسی به سادگی میتواند از آن علیه دیگران، خواه سازنده آن و یا مربی اعتقادیاش، استفاده کند. در خلال سطرهای این داستان بلند، دیدگاههای نویسنده نسبت به انقلاب شوروی از زبان پروفسور فیلیلپ فیلیپوویچ پریآبراژِنسکی بیان میشود. آنچه که بیش از هرچیزی مایهی آزردگی پروفسور را فراهم آورده است این است که: عمدهی مردم از کار و وظیفهی اصلی خود غافل مانده و به کارهایی مشغول شدهاند که برای انجام آنها نه دانش و تخصص کافی دارند و نه آمادگی ذهنی و اخلاقی. بولگاکوف به خوبی نشان میدهد که پرورش انسان با شیوههای خشک عقیدتی چه پیامدهای ناگواری به دنبال خواهد داشت.
What do You think about Heart Of A Dog (1994)?
قلب كلب في هذه الرواية كمية سخرية مذهلة، وهي سخرية مركزة على ما آل إليه الرجل السوفييتي، أو كما يسميه بطل الرواية الدكتور بريوبراجنسكي البروليتاري، صدرت الرواية بعد (بيوض القدر) في سنة 1925 م، ومنعت تماماً في الاتحاد السوفييتي ولم يفسح لها إلا في 1987 م، وحولت إلى فيلم في سنة 1988 م على يد المخرج الروسي فلاديمير بورتكو، وهو ذاته الذي حول رواية (المعلم ومارغريتا) إلى مسلسل من عشر حلقات سنة 2005 م. تجربة علمية يقوم بها الدكتور بريوبراجنسكي مع مساعده الدكتور بورمنتال على كلب أطلقا عليه اسم شارك، التجربة تعطي نتائج غير متوقعة، لقد تحول شارك وتبدل شكله الكلبي ليكتسب شكلاً إنسانياً، كما بدأ يتعلم النطق، المضحك أنه من خلال معاشرة البروليتاريين في العمارة التي يقطنها الدكتور بريوبراجنسكي يتحول إلى الرفيق شاركوف، ويبدأ هذا الكلب / الإنسان / الرفيق في السكر، والتشكي، ومضايقة النساء، لقد تحول إلى هم لصاحبه ومساعده، وبدأ يهددهما، حتى بدأ الرجلان في التفكير في قتله، ولكن هذه جريمة قتل، فهما الآن لن يقتلا الكلب شارك، وإنما الرفيق شاركوف نائب مدير قسم التطهير في موسكو، ولكن الرجلان يجدان حيلة يتخلصان من خلالها من الرفيق الكلب. الحوار في الرواية مكتوب بأسلوب ساخر يميز بولغاكوف.
—Fahad
« Ho forse chiesto io di essere operato? Bella roba! Si piglia una povera bestia, le si spacca la testa e poi si fa gli schizzinosi. »Di questo romanzetto (nel senso più vezzeggiativo del termine) si potrebbe scrivere per dì e dì. Tuttavia non ho abbastanza dì a disposizione per imbastire qualcosa che sia degno di vezzeggiarlo. Questi dì estivi mi sono crudelmente sottratti e consumati dallo stage che sto svolgendo alla redazione di un (più o meno noto) quotidiano, che per comodità chiameremo “Gli avanzi del Terranova”.È partendo da questi avanzi che voglio spendere poche parole a proposito di Cuore di cane, per registrare gli aspetti che mi hanno colpito di più. Perché, vedete, in questi giorni mi sono sentita molto un professor Preobraženskij. Non un Preobraženskij nel senso faustiano del termine, non l’augusto professore di fama mondiale che trasforma un cane in un essere umano (ma cosa è animale? Cosa umano?). Mi sono sentita un Preobraženskij nel senso sociale e aristocratico del termine. Lì, piazzata su una sedia girevole degli “Avanzi del Terranova”, immersa nel via-vai di personaggi grotteschi e teneri insieme (un’atmosfera molto russa, molto gogoliana), ho scoperto e registrato il fondo eminentemente aristocratico del mio cuore. Già. Il professor Preobraženskij, fama mondiale, amante del lusso, elitario, intelligent della vecchia scuola, mal si accorda col contesto rivoluzionario in cui si trova a vivere, un contesto fatto di appartamenti condivisi, di spartizione egualitaria delle risorse (sarà poi vero?), di povertà per tutti, cibo cattivo per tutti, tutti uguali perché tutti in condizioni miserrime. No, il professor Preobraženskij non ci sta: non vuol lasciare il suo lussuoso appartamento di sette stanze, non vuol condividere l’altrui povertà, portare galosce sporche, vestiti rammendati, usare paroloni che non capisce, incarnare un’utopia. Il professor Preobraženskij sa che l’ideale di una società egualitaria è impossibile. Si tratterà, al massimo, di una società livellante, che condurrà gli straccioni alla ribalta, fornirà un vocabolario astratto agli ignoranti, darà potere ai più sfacciati. Ecco, seduta sulla sedia girevole degli “Avanzi del Terranova”, ossessionata dal trillo del telefono, immersa nell’assillo di notizie provinciali, grette fino al midollo, mi sono sentita molto un professor Preobraženskij. Mi son sentita parte di una èlite che non esiste più, una èlite che crede nella cultura e nell’eleganza, costretta come uno struzzo a nascondere la testa sotto una pila di scartoffie. E, se in questa recensione non si nominano neanche una volta la Natura Violentata e il Delirio della Conoscenza Umana, vogliate scusarmi. Non me ne voglia Pallinov (ma che razza di traduzione). Non me ne vogliano gli acculturati. Ho registrato, soltanto, ciò che sentivo mio. E in questo momento, più di ogni altro, l’assoluta insopportabilità di un uomo che vuole, osa e non può pensare con la propria testa. Antipatico, sgradevole, vero professor Preobraženskij.
—Chiara Pagliochini
Sophie wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Love that doggie dance step on the cover! MB is quite the author."The sassiness of the bourgeoisie!He undoubtedly is one of my favourites."I don't know if you are familiar with his short masterpiece Diaboliad, but this is my favorite of his. I wrote a review you might want to check out:https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
—Sophie
