A review by ed_moore
A Dog's Heart by Mikhail Bulgakov

challenging dark tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.5

Bulgakov’s ‘The Heart of a Dog’ is a story with so many parallels to Shelley’s ‘Frankestien’, and alike to such explores so much in such little room. It follows the perspective of an abandoned dog, Sharik (or for some reason Furball in the English translation), living on the streets of Moscow, and its opening could be seen as a text raising awareness about animal abuse, and whilst this could be read across the whole book the core arguments develop into so much more. Sharik is taken in by a doctor, Phillip Philippovich, and surgically experimented on in a manner just like Victor Frankenstein and his monster, where Philippovich successfully has Sharik humanised by changing the makeup of his brain. 
 
The second half of the book looks at Sharik’s life as a human, exploring class dynamics by posing Sharik as a lower class troublemaker and Philippovich as among the Moscow elite. This in tune leads to a direct criticism of the communist soviet government Bulgakov was writing under (hence the books publication 60 years after it was written) with Philippovich opposing communist ideals through his satirical feud with the housing committee and criticism of Sharik in his new human form. 
 
Alike to ‘Frankstien’, Bulgakov heavily explores the themes of the morality in playing with life, responsibility in relation to ones creations and the dangers of taking science too far, that just because it can be done, should it? This being a question increasingly relevant today with the development of artificial intelligence. In addition to this, the political satire and criticism is smoothly blended into the work. I would however argue that the length of ‘The Heart of a Dog’ hindered it, it tries to cover so many huge debates in so little space and could’ve done all of such to much greater effect in a longer novel. The writing also wasn’t the most elegant, and made me feel extremely queasy at times during operating and experimenting scenes, it doesn’t skip over this element unlike Shelley. McMillan, the audiobook narrator, also chose to put a voice on for Sharik and in attempting a ‘dog accent’ it became quite difficult to understand at times so in addition to the dense themes wasn’t an easy reading experience. Overall Bulgakov covers so many themes, isn’t the most original in his imitation of ‘Frankenstein’, but the length left me wanting a deeper exploration.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings