Scan barcode
A review by marc129
Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol
3.0
Rating 3.5 stars. I read this the first time over 45 years ago, when I was only 17. Back then, I had already devoured some novellas by Puskhin and Gogol, to my delight, but this book was a different story: a solid novel, though left unfinished*. The smooth narrative style, the ironic character drawing and the unlikely but funny intrigue immediately won me over. It was the beginning of my “Russian period”, a fascination that would last two years and spread from Gogol to Turgenev and culminate, of course, in Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. I presume this 'condition' will be very recognizable to other avid readers.
Now, so many years later, I immersed myself again in 'Dead Souls'. And once again I was captivated by the detailed narrative style and the catchy story. Gogol consciously took the position of the omniscient narrator, accompanying his reader into a story with great taste, with the necessary digressions, striking character drawings, apt descriptions of landscapes and occasionally a moralizing comment. What struck me most is that the author is clearly not concerned with Chichikov himself, our would-be landowner who buys up the names of dead serfs in order to gain some status. Only in chapter 11, about halfway through the novel, does Gogol begin to elaborate on the character, youth and ambition of his protagonist. And in my opinion, the author was not so concerned with the entertaining, picaresque quality of the adventures of his (anti) hero, who did succeed in fooling a lot of people, but whose fortune goes up and down, who is both feted and humiliated. No, that picaresque aspect is – as in any picaresque novel – just the packaging that should disguise the true focus of the story.
And what is that focus? Well, especially in the long (and finished) first part, it clearly is to offer a drawing of the Russian soul, in all its diversity, of peasants and lackeys as well as of landowners and bourgeois people. Gogol portrays them with great taste, with all their nastiness, and with a moralizing undertone: great or small, rich or poor, we are all just pathetic people, who are subject to the whims of fate, and who all have our little sides. You could argue endlessly about whether Gogol's view of humanity is essentially misanthropic or not, but for me both this novel as his novellas express a genuine compassion for the human condition. That's what makes this writer so great.
It is a pity that 'Dead Souls' has come to us unfinished. The second part in particular suffers from this. It is also – in its surviving state – a bit different in character: much less picaresque, much less a kaleidoscope of the Russian people, much more moralizing. With his extensive attention to a diligent landowner, who manages his estate very efficiently, Gogol even seems to have written a treatise for fellow landowners. The same ambiguity can also be found when the author talks about Russia itself: regularly, and even more so in the 2nd part, he gives praise to his homeland and underlines the unique character of the Russian values and norms, the Russian soul, etc.; but the ease with which he exposes and ridicules his characters, and even explicitly points out Russian weaknesses, suggests that we should take that praise with a grain of salt. Therefore, it is inevitable to conclude that Gogol really focused on the universal man, and that is the supreme value of his oeuvre that will always remain appealing.
* Addendum: Apparantly, as my Goodreads friends kindly indicate, this book wasn't exactly unfinished. In a sort of religious crisis, Gogol destroyed parts of the manuscript, especially the second (and third?) part. That makes my interpretation a bit less sure, not really knowing what the original intentions of the author were.
** Addendum2: (After having read a few reviews of other Goodreads friends) You could see this Dead Souls as a condensed version of Balzac's 'Comédie Humaine', offering a broad panoramic view of humanity in its diversity. And the ironic style indeed comes near to 'Tristam Shandy', though - fortunately - Gogol is much less talkative and digressive!
Now, so many years later, I immersed myself again in 'Dead Souls'. And once again I was captivated by the detailed narrative style and the catchy story. Gogol consciously took the position of the omniscient narrator, accompanying his reader into a story with great taste, with the necessary digressions, striking character drawings, apt descriptions of landscapes and occasionally a moralizing comment. What struck me most is that the author is clearly not concerned with Chichikov himself, our would-be landowner who buys up the names of dead serfs in order to gain some status. Only in chapter 11, about halfway through the novel, does Gogol begin to elaborate on the character, youth and ambition of his protagonist. And in my opinion, the author was not so concerned with the entertaining, picaresque quality of the adventures of his (anti) hero, who did succeed in fooling a lot of people, but whose fortune goes up and down, who is both feted and humiliated. No, that picaresque aspect is – as in any picaresque novel – just the packaging that should disguise the true focus of the story.
And what is that focus? Well, especially in the long (and finished) first part, it clearly is to offer a drawing of the Russian soul, in all its diversity, of peasants and lackeys as well as of landowners and bourgeois people. Gogol portrays them with great taste, with all their nastiness, and with a moralizing undertone: great or small, rich or poor, we are all just pathetic people, who are subject to the whims of fate, and who all have our little sides. You could argue endlessly about whether Gogol's view of humanity is essentially misanthropic or not, but for me both this novel as his novellas express a genuine compassion for the human condition. That's what makes this writer so great.
It is a pity that 'Dead Souls' has come to us unfinished. The second part in particular suffers from this. It is also – in its surviving state – a bit different in character: much less picaresque, much less a kaleidoscope of the Russian people, much more moralizing. With his extensive attention to a diligent landowner, who manages his estate very efficiently, Gogol even seems to have written a treatise for fellow landowners. The same ambiguity can also be found when the author talks about Russia itself: regularly, and even more so in the 2nd part, he gives praise to his homeland and underlines the unique character of the Russian values and norms, the Russian soul, etc.; but the ease with which he exposes and ridicules his characters, and even explicitly points out Russian weaknesses, suggests that we should take that praise with a grain of salt. Therefore, it is inevitable to conclude that Gogol really focused on the universal man, and that is the supreme value of his oeuvre that will always remain appealing.
* Addendum: Apparantly, as my Goodreads friends kindly indicate, this book wasn't exactly unfinished. In a sort of religious crisis, Gogol destroyed parts of the manuscript, especially the second (and third?) part. That makes my interpretation a bit less sure, not really knowing what the original intentions of the author were.
** Addendum2: (After having read a few reviews of other Goodreads friends) You could see this Dead Souls as a condensed version of Balzac's 'Comédie Humaine', offering a broad panoramic view of humanity in its diversity. And the ironic style indeed comes near to 'Tristam Shandy', though - fortunately - Gogol is much less talkative and digressive!