Discovering Russian Literaturediscussion

I'm opening the new thread earlier for other members who may have finished the part one. I myself will join late because I still have several chapters to finish in the earlier section.

Those who are still reading part one, be aware this thread will contain spoilers.

I just started it so I'm not sure if I can join in for the first part, but Is this thread will be opening anytime soon and can we continue the discussions even after 25th?

Though I have enjoyed this book from the start. I am finding that Part 2 seems easier to read. It seems for me to move at a faster pace than the first part.

Part of it may be because the story has changed directions a bit and I have really enjoyed the introduction of the new characters of Tentyotnikov and the General.

I found Tentyotnikov to be quite an interesting character, and I loved the chapter when Chichikov went to visit the general.

I was surprised by Chichikov's deciding to play match maker and try and reconcile Tentyotnikov to the general as it seems to me this is the first time that we see Chichikov living up to his role as the "hero" of the story. It is the first instance of him seemingly doing a good deed for another person.

Though he does take advantage of the situation to get the General's dead souls it does not seem that it was original purpose to use Tentyotnikov as a way to achieve that goal. He simply took advantage of the situation as it presented itself favorable to him.

Silver wrote: "Though I have enjoyed this book from the start. I am finding that Part 2 seems easier to read. It seems for me to move at a faster pace than the first part.

Part of it may be because the story... "

Oh Silver, I am glad to hear that you are enjoying part two! I liked part one very much, but as I finished the last chapter of part one, I felt that it fell apart for me. Then when I started on part two, I felt like it was so different from part one, and I had a hard time following it. But, I think it was me! I think maybe it was my mood that caused the break down in my read! I think I should reread that last chapter of part one again, and start all fresh on part two!

Christi wrote: "Silver wrote:" Though I have enjoyed this book from the start. I am finding that Part 2 seems easier to read. It seems for me to move at a faster pace than the first part.

Part of it may be bec... "

The fact that it was different from Part 1 I think is one of the things that I really like about. Because for me it feels like it is helping to further the story along.

Though I enjoyed Part 1 there is only so long you can go from place to place buying dead souls. I kept waiting and wanting to see what would happen next.

My impressions of the last bit of part one, and of all, that I have so far read, of part two, are that these parts were drafts, not finished products. Of course, I think I read somewhere that all of part one was published, but the ending certainly seemed rushed and unfocused compared to the other chapters. And part two seems almost to have been written by a different person! In part one, the "author" always shows his characters ACTING; that is, behaving a certain way. Their THOUGHTS are not known. The author, in asides, may draw conclusions from those actions, but he is bascically reporting on events. In part two, however, the reader knows what the characters THINK, not just what they DO. How is this shift explained?? I see no reason for it at all, it is inconsistent with part one. Maybe Gogol had intended to revise, and build on, much of this part. Guess I will research this when I have finished the book!

Christi wrote: "My impressions of the last bit of part one, and of all, that I have so far read, of part two, are that these parts were drafts, not finished products. Of course, I think I read somewhere that all o..."

There is a footnote in my book which states that Gogol probably would have rewritten the 2nd Volume of the book if he had lived long enough to do so.

Thanks for that info, Silver! That does explain a lot! I am still enjoying the story, despite my feelings of that shift in the story-telling. I am glad I didn't give up!

Silver wrote: "here is a footnote in my book which states that Gogol probably would have rewritten the 2nd Volume of the book if he had lived long enough to do so...."

I think he wrote the 2nd volume but burned what he actually had written of the second part just nine days before his death. Gogol realized, I think, too late that he made a huge mistake and feel into a major depression and didn't recover. Some argue the Master inThe Master and Margaritais Gogol and notMaxim Gorkyas many believe because just like the Master Gogol burned the manuscript and as a result lost his sanity.

Part One of Dead Souls was first titled "The Adventures of Chichikov" because the religious censorship objected to the phrase "dead souls" as being theologically contradictory. I can't understand why the church was upset, can anyone explain?

I am not sure why the church would have been upset, but that does make me think of a question I had about the dead souls. Chichikov says he doesn't want any female dead souls. Why is that? Is it because female serfs were not as profitable as workers??

Christi wrote: "I am not sure why the church would have been upset, but that does make me think of a question I had about the dead souls. Chichikov says he doesn't want any female dead souls. Why is that? Is it be..."

I wondered about that too. It is still unclear just what he wants the dead souls for to start with. Though it seems now he has plans to try and establish and estate of his own. And I think something was said about needing to have a certain amount of souls in order to be able to purchase the land. Perhaps female serfs were not counted and thus would not do him any good for his purpose.

Christi wrote: "Silver wrote:" Though I have enjoyed this book from the start. I am finding that Part 2 seems easier to read. It seems for me to move at a faster pace than the first part.

Part of it may be bec... "

Ok, almost done! I have to agree with both of your perspectives, with Silver, yes, the second part was much easier to read, but I enjoyed the first half more. since we are at the end I'm curious, is Chichikov aware that he's a con man? I'm confused about his self-awareness? He consciously sets out to gain by duping people and his dead souls scheme is consciously a way of beating the system. But at some points (he fails to see this) his tricks and schemes always backfire, or end up duping himself. He scatters the opinion of the people into multiple opinions in all directions but I just don't see him as a mature trickster...

Christi wrote: "Chichikov says he doesn't want any female dead souls. Why is that? Is it because female serfs were not as profitable as workers??..."

I'm not still sure about that too. But never thought of it till you pointed it out. What's his attitude towards women? I felt he dislikes them more. It's may be because women attempts to figure out the ulterior motive dead souls and he's more annoyed with them but may be it's a combination of all the things we said.

Shanez wrote: "Part One of Dead Souls was first titled" The Adventures of Chichikov "because the religious censorship objected to the phrase" dead souls "as being theologically contradictory. I can't understand why the church was upset, can anyone explain?"

This is just a guess, but theologically in Christianity, there is no such thing as a "dead" soul. The soul is eternal. The body dies, but the soul lives on. What the implications of calling a book "Dead Souls" means about Gogol's personal theology, I don't really know. Maybe it was a comment on serfs who were human beings, being seen as a commodity?

Amalie, I'm intrigued by your question about Chichikov's self awareness. I'm only in chapter 1 of part 2, but I found Chichikov's back story to be really interesting. He is extremely frugal, which makes me wonder why he has to go to all the trouble of buying "dead" souls.

Kristen wrote: "Shanez wrote:" Part One of Dead Souls was first titled "The Adventures of Chichikov" because the religious censorship objected to the phrase "dead souls" as being theologically contradictory. I can... "

I do not know if Gogol is truly intending to make a religious statement with his term "dead souls" considering it does not seem technology really plays much of a role within the book at all. And to protest the book becasue of a perception that its title is questioning the Christain belief of the immortality of the soul seems to be taking things too literally.

I think that it is very much a statement about how serfs were treated and perceived. In addition to actually dead serfs Chichikov also purchases fugitive serfs who though were still physically alive becasue they had run away from thier masters they were treated as if they might as well have been dead and thier life as human beings is not taken into account or the least bit considered.

The very fact that even in thier death they can still be bartered and sold as long as thier names are listed as being alive upon the census that is all anyone looks at. No one pays any attention to them as human beings.

Silver wrote: "I do not know if Gogol is truly intending to make a religious statement with his term" dead souls "considering it does not seem technology really plays much of a role within the book at all. And to protest the book becasue of a perception that its title is questioning the Christain belief of the immortality of the soul seems to be taking things too literally."

Silver, I was just taking a stab at Shanez' question as to why the church wanted Gogol to change the title of his work. I agree, that if in fact, that was their issue with the title "Dead Souls", they were taking it too literally. I actually think that the title is probably not just referring to the dead serfs, but perhaps the aristocracy embodied in the characters we've met so far in Chichikov's transactions.

Kristen wrote: "Silver wrote:" I do not know if Gogol is truly intending to make a religious statement with his term "dead souls" considering it does not seem technology really plays much of a role within the book... "

I think the title could be taken to having a more metaphorical meaning, in addition to the more "obvious" meaning.

As characters like Chichikov could be said to be dead inside. Not truly living life or taking real enjoyment from it. All he cares about is making a kopek and though he speaks of how he wishes he could have a wife and settle down, he never takes any true actions toward that future. In addition to the fact that he does seem to be devoid of a personality of his own. He spends much of his time just doing and acting in a way of which he thinks will please the others around him. He is this nondescript individual who is like an empty vessel so that he may simply mirror the expectations of others and bow and scrape giving false flattery and false promises.

And many of the other characters which are encountered in the book also seem to be equally overly concerned with making a profit for themselves and are too worried about the titles and ranks of other individuals and who was above who.

It seems that the lives of many people revolved around materialistic gain and pleasings those whom they look upon as being thier superiors.

Kristen wrote: "Shanez wrote:" Part One of Dead Souls was first titled "The Adventures of Chichikov" because the religious censorship objected to the phrase "dead souls" as being theologically contradictory. I can... "

Kristen, your guess is right. It's said that Gogol became very conservative in his outlook, or the ideas he had held all along became more definite. His biography by Vladimir Nabokov, says that he underwent a religious awakening in this period, which drew him ever more firmly into the teachings of conservative Orthodox theology and he became convinced that the writing of fiction was an inherently sinful enterprise, and he feared for the safety of his immortal soul. It also says that Konstantinovsky (A starets)have strengthened in Gogol the fear that his imaginative works are sinful. He burnt the next volumes and fell into a depression and died.

(There's a strange rumour that he had been buried alive??!)

Amalie wrote: "(There's a strange rumour that he had been buried alive??!)..."

I think it's only a rumor. There's no truth in it. Nice place you mentioned this when we are finishing "dead" souls.:) An interesting discussion, I'll add my final thoughts soon.

Silver wrote: "And many of the other characters which are encountered in the book also seem to be equally overly concerned with making a profit for themselves and are too worried about the titles and ranks of other individuals and who was above who...."

Gogol was definitely critical of the Russian society of his day. And he used this satire to comment on that environment. And it fits in with Amalie's comment that Gogol was drawing near Orthodox faith. It's a shame we don't have his last volumes.

Silver wrote: "Kristen wrote:" Silver wrote: "I do not know if Gogol is truly intending to make a religious statement with his term" dead souls "considering it does not seem technology really plays much of a role..."

I am fairly sure that "souls" is a synonym for serfs ( "his estate consisted of 800 hectares and 253 souls" ) permitting Gogol to have a little fun with the title.

He is consistently tongue-in-cheek regarding Chichikov in referring to him as "our hero". Chichikov is a conniver and reprobate; what is heroic about that. And is hardly unique to a Russian past.

The same can be said of the other characters throughout the book. As Silver commented, "And many of the other characters which are encountered in the book also seem to be equally overly concerned with making a profit for themselves and are too worried about the titles and ranks of other individuals and who was above who...." These characters are always with us.

Earlier someone commented on how Manilov would repeat everything others said in a conversation. Haven't you know someone like that? Don't you know a Sobakevich? A Nozdryov? These are not people trapped in 19th century Russia. They are people you know and are most funny when you see yourself, your own foibles laid bare to be laughed at.

Dead Souls transcends time and culture. To me, that is what is required for a work to become a classic; letting us look behind the curtain to see some timeless, universal Truth about mankind.

Robert wrote: "Silver wrote:" Kristen wrote: "Silver wrote:" I do not know if Gogol is truly intending to make a religious statement with his term "dead souls" considering it does not seem technology really plays... "

Well said, Robert! Dead Souls does reveal Universal truths about humankind. And I also agree with you when you say "they are people you know and are most funny when you see yourself, your own foibles laid bare to be laughed at." We are all human, and we do not sit above all these characters as judges,rather we are part of them, to some degree or another!

Robert wrote: "I am fairly sure that" souls "is a synonym for serfs (" his estate consisted of 800 hectares and 253 souls ") permitting Gogol to have a little fun with the title...."

Yes,Robert you are right but I think there's another way of looking at it. I don't think that he tried to make a religious statement with it, but I think there's a more metaphorical meaning to the title as Silver and Kristen talked about there in the massages 17 and 18.

I felt that one of the themes has to do with the irony of the lifelessness of the actual living landowners in the book compared to the dead serfs who are often described lively and talented. So I think "Dead Souls" deals more with the death of life than dealing with life and death or of dead serfs.

Amalie, i love what you said about how the serfs are described. There is that whole section when Chichikov is reading the lists of the serfs, with their family relations, what their jobs were, their personal qualities.

Robert, I too read last week in some article that the term 'souls' was a unit of measurement for one serf. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of a measurement term that's a one to one ratio. And why such a significant word as the word soul?

Christi wrote: "Chichikov says he doesn't want any female dead souls. Why is that? Is it be..."

The tax was determined by the number of male serfs attached to the master. So Chichikov plays the role of the rogue hero who takes advantage of the corrupt peasant system of the time.

http://www.russianlife.com/article.cf...

Kristen wrote: "I'm not sure I understand the purpose of a measurement term that's a one to one ratio. And why such a significant word as the word soul?..."

A very good question. I have been trying to find a link between the dead souls bought and sold in the novel and how they are measured by various characters. Some associate a soul with a person who has unique abilities and talents, others with only dust and bones, some with their monetary worth and others simply how they could serve them best. So I am still wondering over exactly what Gogol wants the reader to take away.

Amalie wrote: "Christi wrote:" Chichikov says he doesn't want any female dead souls. Why is that? Is it be... "

The tax was determined by the number of male serfs attached to the master. So Chichikov plays the r... "

Thanks, Amalie! That question had been dogging me, glad to finally have it answered!

Kristen wrote, "And why such a significant word as the word soul?"
I think our discussion made clear who Gogol meant by Dead Souls: Basically, all the characters in Vol.1 except maybe for the dead serfs on the purchase list.
But here I wanted to point to something that may make us overcomplicate things due to translation.
[To me,Orthodox Church objection seems more like an excuse to cover a real reason for dislike of the book. I have no comment on that though.]
In Russian, the words dead souls sound more ordinary than in English and do not attract that much attention. Then the realization of who really the dead souls are in the novel becomes even more striking.
In other words, in Russian, the title Dead Souls sounds original but does not evoke religious or mystical images. Not at first sight anyway.
If we consider the set of all possible meanings of the original Russian word for soul - 'dusha' (or in plural - 'dushi'), and the set of all possible meanings of the word 'soul' - there is no one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two, which is always the case between languages, but in this case the overlap is I'd say barely more than fifty percent.
I'd say the set of meanings of 'dusha' is much broader than that of 'soul'.
Indeed, the word 'dusha' is often translated as 'man', 'person' etc.
Here are a few examples.
I take an English phrase and then translate its Russian equivalent back into English WORD FOR WORD:
Five roubles per head...Five roubles from a soul.
Per capita...Per soul (of the population).
There are five in the family...In the family - five souls.
He hasn't a penny to his name...He hasn't a penny behind his soul.
And sentenses like: 'Can I borrow a couple of souls from your platoon to unload that truck?' or you come to work in the morning and your coworker says: "Boss was coming for your soul." And you recall that you forgot to drop the report on his desk last night; or just: "I'm supposed to feed four souls on this salary?!" meaning yourself, spouse and two kids. - All this sounds quite normal in Russian.
Last touch: the formal Russian word for serf has three syllables. 'Dusha' - only two, and in plural genitive case - which is often used in phrases like 'seven souls', 'a couple of souls' etc. - only one: 'dush'
In everyday usage this synonym obviously wins.

Andrew wrote: "Kristen wrote," And why such a significant word as the word soul? "
I think our discussion made clear who Gogol meant by Dead Souls: Basically, all the characters in Vol.1 except maybe for the dead s... "

Glad you are here to help out, Andrew!

Andrew wrote: "Kristen wrote," And why such a significant word as the word soul? "
I think our discussion made clear who Gogol meant by Dead Souls: Basically, all the characters in Vol.1 except maybe for the dead s... "

Thank you so much for such enlightening explanations!

I just finished reading, and I did have a problem with what Andrew has explained. Thanks! These are my final thoughts.

The start is a bit misleading. It begins with Chichikov entering a pastoral town with the absurd and esoteric idea of buying "Dead Souls". The reader gets enthralled with this scam and hopes for mystery, death, and amusement from the events to follow. Instead the reader gets insight into various characters of the Russian countryside, a social commentary on serfdom and a satire on the bureaucratic court system of Russia. The overall value of the novel is perceived in its humor, the rich characterizations, and the keen insight into Russian life. In the end Chichikov is a brute man manipulating the system for personal gain. On one hand he is a smooth, well-dressed and socially elite man but beneath this he has the dark desire to buy and own dead souls. Really enjoyed the discussion here!

Shanez wrote: "I just finished reading, and I did have a problem with what Andrew has explained. Thanks! These are my final thoughts.

The start is a bit misleading. It begins with Chichikov entering a pastoral t... "

I like your summary, Shanez.

I think we are all done here but the thread is still open for anyone to share their thoughts or/and questions. I like your summary too Shanez, I'm glad you finished it since you started it late.

to add something to your review, Gogol seems to be a changed man in his final work, usually every time he approaches a serious topic, he immediately leaves it, I usually feel he is toying with the reader on multiple occasions in his writings. ("I shall laugh my bitter laugh"is the inscription placed on Gogol’s grave.)

So it was surprising that he went on as long as he did with Chichikov inventing the lives of peasants, reminding us that in behind each meaningless "dead soul" there’s a real person. And I think that’s what was so great overall, that no character was left without some note on one of his habits or personality traits, reminding us that in life there are no flat characters, only people we don’t want to deal with.

One frustration, is how brilliant the last paragraph of the work is, because I believe he wanted Gogol to go on and explain further what he means, and where he thinks Russia is going. A great writer! This was a nice discussion.

Yes, I definitely felt as if I was left hanging. I really enjoyed this work so much, I really felt a sense of loss, knowing I would never get to read the rest of it. Kind of made me sad.

I am back though not with a stable and functioning internet connection.
I have finished Dead Souls and it is hard to accept that it is not really finished.
I have liked much more part 1 because in part 2 we understand that it had to be completed and reviewed; they really seem written by two different people. I really didn't like the unfinished sentences, they made me crazy. Also didn't like a lot the long descriptions of the landscape and didn't like the end with the moral speech: it is too direct and too clear that it becomes a boredom to read it. It seems almost that Gogol wanted to get right to the end and throws down a speech with all the moral of the story in a "concentrated" way. It is really a pity he died before he could finish all the parts because part 1 is really good.

dely wrote: "I am back though not with a stable and functioning internet connection...."

Dely it's good to see you are back. I think most of us liked the first part better than the second. It it does literally ends mid-sentence- I think it's sort of moral redemption of hero/anti-hero.

After three years into it, in a religious fit, he set the manuscript on fire then he rewrites part 2 again, & then when he finished it, supposedly [according to the intro ] he torched it anew, page by page! & then the day after he refused food. May be he never recovered the original touch may be that also led to the depression. Yes, it's sad how the book and Gogol both came to an end.

Here's what he had recorded about his feelings after burning the script:

"No sooner had the flames consumed the final pages of my book than its contents were suddenly resurrected in a purified and bright form, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, and I suddenly saw how chaotic was everything that I had regarded as already having achieved order and harmony."

Amalie wrote: "dely wrote:" After three years into it, in a religious fit, he set the manuscript on fire then he rewrites part 2 again, & then when he finished it, supposedly [according to the intro ] he torched it anew, page by page! & then the day after he refused food. May be he never recovered the original touch may be that also led to the depression. Yes, it's sad how the book and Gogol both came to an end. "

In my edition (after part 1) there is a letter of Gogol in which he addresses to the reader asking advice on people's behavior. He asks that anyone notices some inconsistencies in the descriptions of his characters to tell him because he wanted everything was right. He also asked in this letter that everybody should feel free to tell him how people lived, of all walks of life, which curtains they used, what they ate... any information, he writes, is precious for him. I was very impressed because I perceived the paranoia and anxiety of Gogol.

Really now after the first time, someone should have been watching him or something.
I don't know how he even managed to write part two out a second time, I'm not a writer but if there was say, a painting that I did and something happened to it...I might actually cry and storm and rage but I would not do it again. I can't imagine what would make me, I would just have to move on to the next thing.